Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.
Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende Überarbeitung | Nächste ÜberarbeitungBeide Seiten der Revision | ||
de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch07-1 [2019/10/28 16:57] – close f div Johann | de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch07-1 [2019/10/30 10:26] – docinfo_head del. Johann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP box fill >< | ||
+ | <div center round todo 60%> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Kodex für buddhistische ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Title: Kodex für buddhistische | ||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 7.1 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Summary: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div #h_meta> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div navigation></ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | [[bmc1.ch05|5]] | [[bmc1.ch06|6]] | 7.1 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Nissaggiya Pācittiya ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The term // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Each of the rules in this category involves an object that a bhikkhu has acquired or used wrongly, and that he must forfeit before he may "make the offense known" — confess it — to a fellow bhikkhu or group of bhikkhus. Once he has made his confession, he is absolved from the offense. In most cases, the forfeiture is symbolic — after his confession, he receives the article in return — although three of the rules require that the offender give up the article for good. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are thirty rules in this category, divided into three chapters (//vagga//) of ten rules each. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The origin story for this rule is retold as part of a larger narrative in the Mahāvagga (VIII.13.4-8). Because the context provided by the larger narrative is what makes it interesting, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Now at that time, some group-of-six bhikkhus, thinking, 'The Blessed One allows three robes,' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to Ven. Ānanda, and he wanted to give it to Ven. Sāriputta, but Ven. Sāriputta was at Sāketa. He thought, '... Now what line of conduct should I follow?' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the Blessed One... addressed the bhikkhus, 'I allow that extra robe-cloth to be kept at most ten days.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Now at that time extra robe-cloth accrued to the bhikkhus. They thought, 'Now what line of conduct should we follow?' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The offense under this rule involves two factors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// a piece of extra robe-cloth, i.e., a piece of cloth suitable to be made into a robe or other cloth requisite, measuring at least four by eight inches (fingerbreadths), | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One keeps it for more than ten days (except during the allowed period) without determining it for use, placing it under shared ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); and without the cloth' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** According to Mv.VIII.3.1, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.VIII.21.1 states that if a bhikkhu receives a piece of suitable cloth measuring four by eight fingerbreadths or more but does not yet plan to use it, he may place it under shared ownership (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //Each of the three basic robes, handkerchiefs, | ||
+ | * //A rains-bathing cloth// (see [[bmc1.ch07-3# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * //A skin-eruption cloth// (see [[bmc1.ch08-9# | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Other items of cloth// may be determined as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | (The procedures for determining and placing under shared ownership are given in [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Any cloth made of any of the suitable materials and of the requisite size counts as an extra cloth if — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * it has not been determined for use or placed under shared ownership, | ||
+ | * it has been improperly determined or placed under shared ownership, or | ||
+ | * its determination or shared ownership has lapsed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Many of the cases in which determination and shared ownership lapse also exempt the cloth from this rule: e.g., the owner disrobes or dies, he gives the cloth away, it gets snatched away, destroyed (bitten by things such as termites, says the Kommentar), burnt, lost, or someone else takes it on trust. There are a few cases, however, where determination and shared ownership lapse and the cloth //does// fall under this rule. They are — | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Under shared ownership:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Under determination:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | //1) Size.// The hole has to be a full break (through both layers of cloth, if in the outer robe) at least the size of the nail on one's little finger. If one or more threads remain across the hole, then the hole makes the determination lapse only if either of the two " | ||
+ | |||
+ | //2) Location.// On an upper robe or outer robe, the hole has to be at least one span (25 cm.) from the longer side and eight fingerbreadths from the shorter; on a lower robe, at least one span from the longer side and four fingerbreadths from the shorter. Any hole closer to the edge of the robe than these measurements does not make the determination lapse. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because of these stipulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** According to the Vibhaṅga, if one keeps a piece of extra robe-cloth past the eleventh dawnrise (except when the robe-season privileges are in effect), one commits the full offense under this rule. The Kommentar explains this by saying that the dawnrise at the morning of the day on which one receives the cloth, or lets its determination/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because neither the Canon nor the Kommentar gives a precise definition of dawn or dawnrise, their exact meaning is a controversial point. The clearest definition of dawnrise — and the one that seems most consistent with the Canon' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.V.13.13 states that if one is informed of a gift of robe-cloth, the counting of the time span does not begin until the cloth has reached one's hand. The Kommentar to that passage insists that this means either physically coming to one's possession or when one is informed by the donors that the robe-cloth is with so-and-so or when one is informed by another to the same effect. However, this interpretation seems to contradict the Vibhaṅga, which expressly says, "There is no counting of the time span as long as it has not come to his hand" — " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one miscounts the days or perceives a robe to be determined when it actually is not, one is not immune from the offense. The robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, before it has been forfeited, one uses a robe or piece of robe-cloth that deserves to be forfeited under this rule, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This is one of only six nissaggiya pācittiya rules where the Vibhaṅga mentions this penalty — the others are NP [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga also states that, in the case of an extra robe that has not been kept more than ten days, if one perceives it to have been kept more than ten days or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. This can be interpreted in one of two ways: There is a dukkaṭa simply in continuing to keep the robe, or a dukkaṭa in using it. The Kommentar opts for the second interpretation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Robe-season privileges.** The fourth lunar month of the rainy season — beginning the day after the first full moon in October and lasting to dawnrise of the day following the next full moon — is termed the robe season, a period traditionally devoted to robe-making. In the early days, when most bhikkhus spent the cold and hot seasons wandering, and stayed put in one place only during the Rains-residence, | ||
+ | |||
+ | During this robe season, five of the training rules — [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Under certain circumstances (see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1) He participates in a meeting in which all the bhikkhus in the monastery, as a Community transaction, | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2) He comes to the end both of his constraint with regard to the monastery (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * a) A constraint with regard to a monastery ends when either of the following things happens: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * — One leaves the monastery without intending to return. | ||
+ | * — One has left the monastery, planning to return, but learns that the bhikkhus in the monastery have formally decided to relinquish their kaṭhina privileges. | ||
+ | * b) A constraint with regard to making a robe ends when any of the following occurs: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * — One finishes making a robe. | ||
+ | * — One decides not to make a robe. | ||
+ | * — One's robe-cloth gets lost, snatched away, or destroyed. | ||
+ | * — One expects to obtain robe-cloth, but — after not obtaining it as expected — one abandons one's expectation. | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Only if Point 1 happens, or //both// Points 2a and 2b happen, do one's kaṭhina privileges lapse before the dawn after the full moon day marking the end of the cold season. | ||
+ | |||
+ | During the robe season, one may keep an extra piece of robe-cloth for more than ten days without committing an offense under this rule. Once these privileges lapse, though, one must determine the cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it within ten days. If one fails to do so by the ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Forfeiture & confession.** To be absolved of the offense under this rule, one must first forfeit the robe-cloth kept more than ten days and then confess the offense. This may be done in the presence of one other bhikkhu, a group of two or three, or a Community of four or more. After confessing the offense, one receives the robe-cloth in return. This is the pattern followed under all the nissaggiya pācittiya rules except for the few in which forfeiture must be done in the presence of a full Community and under which the article may not be returned to the offender. (We will note these rules as we come to them.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Pali formulae to use in forfeiture, confession, and return of the article for this and all the following rules are given in [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | In this and every other rule under which the article may be returned to the offender, it //must// be returned to him. According to the Vibhaṅga, a bhikkhu who receives the article being forfeited without returning it incurs a dukkaṭa. The Kommentar qualifies this by saying that this penalty applies only to the bhikkhu who assumes that, in receiving an article being forfeited in this way, it is his to take as he likes. For the bhikkhu who knows that it is not his to take, the offense is to be treated under [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu who has received the robe-cloth in return after forfeiting it and confessing the offense may use it again without penalty, unless he keeps it as a piece of extra robe-cloth beyond ten more dawns. Thus the wise policy is to determine the cloth or place it under shared ownership immediately after receiving it in return. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** In addition to the allowance to keep extra robe-cloth more than ten days during the robe season, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense if within ten days the cloth is determined, placed under shared ownership, lost, snatched away, destroyed, burnt, taken by someone else on trust, thrown away, or given away. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In connection with this last point, the Kommentar discusses proper and improper ways of giving things away. The article counts as having been properly given if one says, "I give this to you," or "I give this to so-and-so," | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Current practice.** As the origin story shows, the purpose of this rule was to prevent bhikkhus from having more than one set of the three robes at any one time. With the passage of time, though, gifts of cloth to the Community became more numerous, and the need for stringency in this matter became less and less felt. Exactly when spare robes became accepted is not recorded, although a passage in the pupil' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As we will see below, [[bmc1.ch08-9# | ||
+ | |||
+ | At any rate, because only one set of three robes may be determined as such, spare robes — once they became generally accepted — were determined as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sub-commentary suggests an alternative way of dealing with spare robes: placing them under shared ownership and — because none of the three robes may be placed under shared ownership — calling them simply " | ||
+ | |||
+ | In any event, ever since spare robes have been accepted, the effect of this rule has been mainly to deter a bhikkhu from hoarding up robe-cloth in secret and from letting a hole in any of his basic set of three robes go unmended for more than ten days. Nevertheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the origin story here, a number of bhikkhus went off on tour, leaving their outer robes with their friends at the monastery. Eventually the robes became moldy, and the bhikkhus at the monastery were burdened with having to sun them to get rid of the mold. The Buddha thus formulated this rule so that bhikkhus would be responsible for looking after their own robes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The offense here consists of two factors: object and effort. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object:** any one of the robes that a bhikkhu has determined as his basic set of three — the // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort:** greeting dawnrise at a place outside of the zone in which any of one's robes are located, except when the exemptions mentioned in the rule are in effect. | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **// | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The term //kula// normally means clan or family, but in the context of this rule it has different meanings for the different types of locations. According to the Kommentar, a village is single-kula if ruled by a single ruler, and multi-kula if ruled by a council — as in the case of Vesālī and Kusinārā during the time of the Buddha. (In the time of the Canon and Kommentar, rulers were assumed to " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A building, a vehicle or a piece of land is single-kula if it belongs to one family, and multi-kula if it belongs to more than one (as in an apartment house). | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In some of the cases, the Vibhaṅga states that one should greet dawnrise within a particular area "or not more than a // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some have objected to the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //1. A village:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Enclosed and single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept, in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or one hatthapāsa around any of these places (§). If the robes are kept within a hatthapāsa of the path going to the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two. If the robes are kept in the public meeting hall, greet dawnrise in the public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two. | ||
+ | * c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the house where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (See 2 & 3 below for further details.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | //2. A dwelling with a yard:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Enclosed and single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§). | ||
+ | * c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). | ||
+ | |||
+ | //3. A monastic dwelling (vihāra — according to the Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Enclosed and single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Enclosed and multi-kula: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either of the two (§). | ||
+ | * c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise in the dwelling where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). | ||
+ | |||
+ | //4. A field, orchard, garden (park), or threshing floor:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Enclosed and single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Enclosed and multi-kula (e.g., many fields, etc., within a single enclosure): Having kept the robes within the enclosure, greet dawnrise in the enclosure, at the entrance to the field, etc., where the robe is kept, or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§). | ||
+ | * c. Unenclosed: Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //5. Buildings with no yard (such as a fortress or city apartment block//): | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Multi-kula: Greet dawnrise within the room where the robes are kept, at the entrance (to the building), or in the area one hatthapāsa around either (§). | ||
+ | |||
+ | //6. A boat (and by extension, other vehicles// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Multi-kula (as in a commercial airplane or bus): Greet dawnrise in the room where the robes are kept or in the area one hatthapāsa around it (§). (For this reason, a bhikkhu traveling in an airplane overnight should wear his complete set of robes or have it with him in his cabin baggage, rather than in his checked baggage.) The Thai edition of the Canon, unlike the others, adds that one may also greet dawnrise at the entrance to the boat or in the area one hatthapāsa around it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //7. A caravan (according to the Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Multi-kula: Having kept the robes within the caravan, greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the caravan. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //8. At the foot of a tree:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a. Single-kula: | ||
+ | * b. Multi-kula (e.g., a tree on the boundary between two pieces of land): Greet dawnrise within one hatthapāsa of the robes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //9. In the open air (according to the Vibhaṅga, this means a wilderness area where there are no villages; the Kommentar adds that this includes dense forests and uninhabited islands//): | ||
+ | |||
+ | Greet dawnrise within a seven-abbhantara (98 meter) radius of the robes. (Some have argued that this allowance should apply only when one is staying outside of a dwelling in the wilderness; as for a hut in the wilderness, they say, the zone under (3) should apply. The problem with this interpretation is what it would mean in practice: If a bhikkhu keeping his robes in a wilderness hut wanted to greet dawnrise in the open air, he would have to take his robes out of the hut. Then he would be free to wander 98 meters away from them. This would actually expose the robes to more dangers than if they were left in the hut. Thus it seems preferable to stick with the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Exemptions.** 1) As with the preceding rule, this rule is not in force when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. However — unlike the preceding rule — it is in force during the first month after the Rains-residence unless one has participated in a kaṭhina. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2) In the origin story to this rule, the Buddha gives permission for a Community of bhikkhus to authorize an ill bhikkhu to be separated from his robes at dawnrise throughout the course of his illness without penalty. This authorization is to be given as a Community transaction with one motion and one announcement (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar discusses how long this authorization lasts, and concludes that once the bhikkhu has recovered he should make every reasonable effort to get back to his robes as soon as possible without jeopardizing his health. The authorization then automatically subsides, with no further transaction being required to rescind it. If his illness returns, the authorization is automatically reinstated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3) In Mv.II.12.1-3, | ||
+ | |||
+ | At present the custom is to designate much smaller areas as territories — usually only a fraction of the land in one monastery — and although these can also be designated as ticīvara-avippavāsa, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Forfeiture & confession.** If a bhikkhu greets dawnrise outside of the zone where any one of his three determined robes is placed — except when the exemptions are in effect — the robe is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. Perception and intention are not mitigating factors here. If he thinks that he is in the same zone when he actually isn't, if he thinks the robe is not determined when it actually is, or if he means to be in the same zone when circumstances prevent him, he incurs the penalty all the same. If he then uses the robe before forfeiting it and confessing the offense, he incurs a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga adds that, with regard to a robe that hasn't been apart from one, if one perceives it to have been apart or one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. The Kommentar does not explain these statements, but from the parallel situations under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as in the preceding rule. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** In addition to the above-mentioned exemptions, there is no offense if, before dawnrise, the robe is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the bhikkhu gives it away or rescinds its determination. Because of this last allowance, the Kommentar recommends that if a bhikkhu realizes he will not be able to get back to his robe before dawnrise, he should rescind the robe's determination before dawnrise so as to avoid an offense, and then re-determine the robe after dawnrise has passed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **A note on Thai practice.** The author of the Vinaya-mukha missed the Sub-commentary' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although there is no basis in the Canon or commentaries for this practice, it is so widely accepted in Thailand that the wise policy for anyone spending the night in the same dwelling or the same room with a Thai bhikkhu is to be aware of it and abide by it, to avoid the useless controversies that can arise over minor matters like this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two factors for an offense here: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// (a) out-of-season robe-cloth, made of any of the proper six kinds of material, in pieces measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths; | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One keeps the cloth for more than 30 days, except when the kaṭhina privileges are in effect. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** The Vibhaṅga defines in-season robe-cloth as any robe-cloth accruing to a bhikkhu — either from the Community, from a group, from relatives, from friends, from cast-off cloth, or from his own resources — during the first month after the Rains-residence if he has not yet participated in a kaṭhina, or during the time when his kaṭhina privileges are in effect if he has. Thus out-of-season cloth is any cloth accruing to him at any other time. However, the Vibhaṅga also notes that cloth accruing to a bhikkhu during the one-month or five-month robe season can count as out-of-season cloth if the donors dedicate it to that purpose. There are two reasons why they might want to do so. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) Given the way "extra robe-cloth" | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * 2) According to Mv.VIII.24-25, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Out-of-season cloth, if it is enough to make the cloth requisite one has in mind, is treated as extra robe-cloth under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The further cloth, when received, has a life span of ten days, as under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the second cloth turns out to be of different quality from the first, one is under no compulsion to put the two cloths together to make up the requisite if one does not want to, and may continue waiting for further cloth, if one has further expectation of cloth, as long as the life span of the first cloth allows. The Kommentar recommends that if the second cloth is of poorer quality than the first, one may determine it as requisite cloth; if the second cloth is of better quality, one may determine the first cloth as requisite cloth and start a new 30-day countdown from the day of receiving the second cloth. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** Days are counted by dawns. If, by the 30th dawnrise after one receives the original cloth, one has not determined it, placed it under shared ownership, or abandoned it, it is to be forfeited and the offense confessed. The Sub-commentary adds that if at any time after the first ten days have elapsed one abandons any expectation for further cloth, one must determine the original cloth, place it under shared ownership, or abandon it before the following dawnrise. Otherwise, one commits an offense under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | As noted under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | As in the preceding rules, perception is not a mitigating factor. If one miscounts the dawns or thinks the cloth is properly determined, etc., when in fact it isn't, there is an offense all the same. The Vibhaṅga states that, with regard to a robe that has not been kept beyond the allowable time, if one perceives it to have been kept beyond that time or if one is in doubt about it, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. As under the preceding rules, this penalty apparently applies to //using// the robe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for out-of-season cloth received shortly before the beginning of the robe season, the countdown would begin when it is received, would be suspended throughout the robe season, and would resume at the robe season' | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, as with many of the above issues, this situation rarely comes up in practice, as it is a simple enough matter to determine the original cloth as requisite cloth or place it under shared ownership until one has enough cloth to make one's requisite, remove it from those arrangements to make the requisite, and so avoid having to worry about this rule at all. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Forfeiture & confession.** The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense if, before the 30 days are up, the original cloth is lost, destroyed, burnt, or snatched away; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the owner determines it for use, places it under shared ownership, or abandons it. And, as stated above, this rule does not apply when the robe-season privileges are in effect. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The origin story here is one of the classics of Vinaya literature, although it is hard to say which is more memorable — the dry, matter-of-fact style with which the narrative relates the improbable events, or the reaction of the bhikkhunīs when they hear what has happened. | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then she took some of the semen (§) in her mouth and inserted some of it in her vagina. With that, she conceived a child. | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The bhikkhunīs said, 'This bhikkhunī has been practicing unchastity. She's pregnant.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are three factors for an offense here: object, effort, and result. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object:** a used robe. //Robe,// here, according to the Kommentar, means any robe that has been dyed and properly marked (see [[bmc1.ch08-6# | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Used,// according to the Vibhaṅga, means worn around the body at least once. According to the Kommentar, it can mean used in other ways — e.g., rolled up as a pillow or worn draped over the shoulder or head — as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga adds that sitting cloths and bed sheets are grounds for a dukkaṭa; other requisites, grounds for no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** One tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, dye, or beat the robe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A // | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception is not an issue here. If a bhikkhu perceives a bhikkhunī as related when in fact she isn't, he is subject to the full penalty all the same. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated, or if he is in doubt as to whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in getting her to wash, etc., a robe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** The bhikkhunī washes, dyes, or beats the robe as requested. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Offenses.** A bhikkhu who tells an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash, etc., his used robe incurs a dukkaṭa in the telling. (For every effort she then makes toward washing it, the Kommentar adds, he incurs an extra dukkaṭa.) If he tells her to wash it, then when the robe is washed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to dye it, then when the robe is dyed it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. If he tells her to beat it, then when she has beaten the robe at least once with a stick or her hand, it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The bhikkhu incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya and a dukkaṭa if he gets her to do two of the three actions mentioned in the rule — e.g., washing and dyeing the robe; and a nissaggiya pācittiya and two dukkaṭas if he gets her to do all three. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe are the same as in the preceding rules. Once the robe is returned, it counts as an extra robe-cloth under [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense if the bhikkhunī is related to the bhikkhu, if an unrelated bhikkhunī washes the robe unasked, if an unrelated bhikkhunī helps a related bhikkhunī wash it, if the robe has not yet been used, if one gets an unrelated bhikkhunī to wash another type of requisite (aside from a robe, a sitting cloth, or a bed sheet), or if one gets an unrelated female trainee or female novice to wash a used robe. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives a used robe to a female trainee to wash: She takes it, becomes ordained as a bhikkhunī in the meantime, and then washes it. The verdict: He incurs the full penalty under this rule. For the fun of it, the Kommentar then discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives his used robe to a lay man to wash. The lay man undergoes a spontaneous sex change and becomes a bhikkhunī before washing the robe, and again, the bhikkhu incurs the full penalty. What lesson is intended here is hard to say. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The reason behind this rule is expressed by a single sentence in the origin story: ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The offense under this rule is composed of two factors: object and effort. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object:** any piece of robe-cloth of the six suitable kinds, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. Other requisites are not grounds for an offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The bhikkhu receives such cloth from an unrelated bhikkhunī and does not give her anything in exchange. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Unrelated bhikkhunī// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception here is not a mitigating factor: According to the Vibhaṅga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhunī as related he is still subject to the penalty. If he perceives a related bhikkhunī as unrelated or if he is in doubt about whether she is related, he incurs a dukkaṭa in receiving a robe from her. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that even if one does not know that the robe comes from a bhikkhunī — as when many donors place robes in a pile for a bhikkhu, and one of the donors, unbeknownst to him, is a bhikkhunī — this factor is fulfilled all the same. If a bhikkhunī gives robe-cloth to someone else to present to a bhikkhu, though, the bhikkhu commits no offense in accepting it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar also states that receiving need not be hand-to-hand. If a bhikkhunī simply places robe-cloth near a bhikkhu as her way of giving it to him and he accepts it as given, this factor is fulfilled. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhaṅga states that it can be worth much more than the cloth or much less. Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient commentaries, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Offenses.** If both factors of the offense here are fulfilled, the bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa in making an effort (e.g., extending his hand) to receive the cloth. Once he has received it, he must forfeit it and confess the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if the bhikkhunī is related; | ||
+ | * if the bhikkhunī is not related but the bhikkhu gives her something in exchange; | ||
+ | * if the bhikkhu takes the cloth on trust; | ||
+ | * if he borrows the cloth; | ||
+ | * if he accepts a non-cloth requisite; or | ||
+ | * if he accepts robe-cloth from a female trainee or female novice. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Exchange.** The origin story to this rule is where the Buddha explicitly gives permission for bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "A second time... A third time, Ven. Upananda said to him, 'If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one of those cloths.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the financier' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "He told them what had happened. So the people criticized and complained and spread it about, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The factors for an offense here are three. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// a piece of any of the six suitable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One asks, except at the proper time, for such cloth from a lay person who is not related back through one's great x 7 grandfathers. Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one perceives the lay person to be related when in fact he/she isn't, that fulfills the factor here. | ||
+ | * //3) Result:// One receives the cloth. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The proper occasions.** //Snatched away,// according to the Vibhaṅga, refers to a robe snatched by anyone at all, even a king. This would cover cases not only where the robe has been stolen but also where it has been confiscated by a government official. // | ||
+ | |||
+ | If all of a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds several points here: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) If one picks leaves or cuts grass to make a covering for oneself under these circumstances, | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * 2) If, after getting one's makeshift robe from an unoccupied Saṅgha residence, one has to go a great distance before getting a proper robe, one may leave the makeshift robe with any convenient monastery as property of the Saṅgha. | ||
+ | * 3) If, under these circumstances, | ||
+ | * 4) If one's robes have been taken on trust by another bhikkhu or novice, they count as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The following rule adds extra stipulations on how much cloth one may ask for in circumstances like this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Offenses.** The act of asking for robe-cloth from an unrelated lay person not at the proper time entails a dukkaṭa. The cloth, once received, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules. The Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and receiving a robe from him/her. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * one asks at the right time, | ||
+ | * one asks from one's relations, | ||
+ | * one asks from people who have invited one to ask for cloth, | ||
+ | * one obtains cloth through one's own resources, or | ||
+ | * one asks for the sake of another. (None of the texts state specifically whether //another// here includes only other bhikkhus, or bhikkhunīs and novices as well. We will assume that all co-religionists are covered under this exemption.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar explains that this last point means two things: One may ask for cloth for the sake of another (co-religionist) (1) from one's own relations or from people who have invited one to ask for cloth //or// (2) from the relatives of that (co-religionist) or from people who have invited him/her to ask. This point applies for all rules where one is allowed to ask for the sake of another. | ||
+ | |||
+ | On the surface, it would seem that the allowance to ask for another should mean that one should also be allowed to ask from anyone for the sake of another bhikkhu whose robe has been snatched away or destroyed. However, the origin story to the following rule shows why this is not so: Lay donors can be extremely generous when they learn that a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for obtaining cloth through one's own resources, the Sub-commentary notes that one should be careful to do it in such a way as not to commit an offense under [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule is a continuation of the preceding one, dealing with the protocol in asking for robe-cloth when one's robes have been snatched away or destroyed. The origin story is as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached unrelated householders, | ||
+ | |||
+ | "And he said, 'I gave, too.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "And another said, 'I gave, too.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So they criticized and complained and spread it about: 'How can these Sakyan-son monks, not knowing moderation, ask for a lot of robe-cloth? Will the Sakyan-son monks deal in the cloth business? Or will they set up a shop?'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Protocol.** The Vibhaṅga states that when a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar mentions that these stipulations apply only when robes from one's determined set of three are snatched away or destroyed. The way it phrases this restriction suggests that if one's spare robes are snatched away or destroyed, one has no right to ask for robe-cloth at all. The Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, however, we recall that originally each bhikkhu had only one set of three robes, and that the allowance in the preceding rule was to relieve the hardship of having little or nothing to wear, we can agree with the K/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga states further that if the householder presents one with a great deal of cloth, with the invitation to take as much as one likes, one should take only enough cloth to make the allowable number of robes. The non-offense clauses add that one may take excess cloth if one promises to return the excess when one has finished making one's robe(s). And if the donor tells one to keep the excess, one may do so without penalty. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The factors of the offense for overstepping the bounds of this protocol are three. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// any piece of the six kinds of suitable robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One asks for more than the allowable amount of robe-cloth from an unrelated householder who has not previously made an invitation to ask. Perception is not a mitigating factor here: Even if one perceives the householder to be related when in fact he/she isn't — or feels that he/she would be happy to offer the excess cloth even though he/she has given no previous invitation to ask — this factor is fulfilled all the same. | ||
+ | * //3) Result:// One gets the excess robe-cloth. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The offenses here are as follows: a dukkaṭa for asking in the way that fulfills the factor of effort, and a nissaggiya pācittiya when all three factors are fulfilled. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in asking for and receiving excess robe-cloth from him/her. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** In addition to the two cases mentioned above — one takes excess cloth with the promise to return the excess when one has finished one's robe(s), and the donors tell one to keep the excess — there is no offense in taking excess cloth if: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * the donors are offering cloth for reasons other than that one's robes were snatched away or destroyed (e.g., they are impressed with one's learning, says the Kommentar); | ||
+ | * one is asking from one's relatives or people who have previously made one an invitation to ask for cloth (//before// one's robes were snatched away or destroyed, says the Sub-commentary); | ||
+ | * or one gets the cloth by means of one's own resources. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar calls attention to the fact that the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So Ven. Upananda the Sakyan went to the man and on arrival said to him, 'My friend, is it true that you want to clothe me with a robe?' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the man criticized and complained and spread it about, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The situation covered by this rule is this: An unrelated lay person has put aside resources for purchasing a robe to present to a bhikkhu but without yet asking the bhikkhu what kind of robe he wants. The factors for the offense here are four. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** The texts mention only that this rule concerns funds for a robe // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The texts also do not mention whether funds for other requisites would be grounds for a lesser offense or no offense under this rule, although given the spirit of the rule it would be a wise policy for a bhikkhu not to make stipulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** One wants to get a better robe than the lay person is planning to buy. The Vibhaṅga defines //better// as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** One requests the unrelated lay person to improve the robe. Example statements in the Vibhaṅga are: "Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly-woven, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** One gets the long, broad, etc., robe that the householder bought in line with one's request. The way the Vibhaṅga defines this factor suggests that whether the lay person actually spends more on the robe than he/she actually planned is not an issue here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Offenses.** When the donor buys the robe in line with one's request, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. When one receives the robe it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures to follow in forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one perceives a related householder as unrelated, or if one is in doubt about whether he/she is related, one incurs a dukkaṭa in making a request and receiving a robe from him/her in the manner forbidden by this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense if: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * the lay person is a relative or has invited one to ask for cloth; | ||
+ | * one asks for another' | ||
+ | * one is getting the robe with one's own resources; or | ||
+ | * the lay person, originally wanting to purchase a more expensive robe, purchases a less expensive robe. According to the Kommentar, this means that one asks for a less expensive robe. In other words, if one asks for a better robe but receives a less expensive one nevertheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds here that there is also no offense if one's request would result in a robe equal in price to the one the lay person has in mind, but the Vibhaṅga, as noted above, does not support this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | Explanations for this training rule are the same as those for the preceding one, the only difference being in the factor of effort: One asks the two donors to put their funds together to purchase one robe. The question of whether the request would raise the amount of money they would have to spend is not an issue here, although the Vibhaṅga says that if one makes a request that would //reduce// the amount of money they would spend, there is no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that, under the conditions mentioned here, making requests of three or more people to combine their robe funds into one is also covered by this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, "Does the venerable one have a steward?" | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to the bhikkhu, should say, "I have instructed the steward the venerable one indicated. May the venerable one go (to him) and he will clothe you with a robe in season," | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If he should not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand in silence four times, five times, six times at most for that purpose. Should (the steward) produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for that purpose four, five, six times at most, that is good.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), "The robe fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all. May you be united with what is yours. May what is yours not be lost." This is the proper course here.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are quite complex — much more complex than even this long training rule would indicate — and require a detailed explanation. What follows is an attempt to make them clear. If it seems long and involved, remember that the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from the even more bothersome worries and complexities that come with participating in buying, selling, and monetary matters in general. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule is one of four nissaggiya pācittiya rules covering a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus to protect a bhikkhu from these mental burdens, this rule sets up protocols so that lay donors may have the convenience of dedicating amounts of money and other valuables to provide for a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu follows the protocols recommended here, the money placed with the steward still belongs to the donor, and the responsibility for making a fair trade lies with the steward. The bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although the rule itself mentions only funds for robe-cloth intended for individual bhikkhus, we should note from the outset that the Kommentar uses the Great Standards to extend it to cover all funds — composed of money, jewels, commodities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The money rules & allowances: an overview.** [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Even given this allowance, though, it is important that the bhikkhu, in his dealings with the steward, does not say or do anything that would transgress [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Stewards.** According to the Kommentar, there are three types of steward with whom money might be placed: (1) indicated by the bhikkhu, (2) indicated by the donor or his/her messenger, and (3) indicated by neither. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //1) Indicated by the bhikkhu// covers two sorts of cases: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu points him/her out, as mentioned in the training rule. | ||
+ | * b) The donor, knowing that a particular lay person has volunteered to act as a steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, gives the money to the lay person and informs the bhikkhu — or has someone else inform him — either before or after the fact. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //2) Indicated by the donor// covers cases where the donor chooses one of his/her own friends or employees to act as the steward for that particular gift, and informs the bhikkhu — or has someone else inform him — either before or after the fact. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //3) Indicated by neither// covers two separate cases: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu says that he has none. Another person happens to overhear the conversation and volunteers — in the presence of both — to act as the steward for that particular gift. | ||
+ | * b) The donor gives the gift to the lay person who is normally the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, this training rule covers only cases of the first sort — the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu — but not of the other two. This, however, is a controversial point. To understand the controversy, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The protocol in accepting.** The Vibhaṅga gives the following guidelines: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If donors offer money, they are to be told that bhikkhus do not accept money. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If they ask who the bhikkhus' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar adds that if the donor asks, "To whom should I give this?" or "Who will keep this?" one is not to point anyone out. It doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The protocol in obtaining requisites from the fund.** The rule states that a bhikkhu may give his steward up to three verbal and six silent promptings in order to get a requisite from the fund. The Vibhaṅga works out an arrangement whereby he may exchange two silent promptings for one verbal prompting, which leads the Kommentar to lay out the following scheme: A bhikkhu may make up to — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 6 verbal & 0 silent promptings | ||
+ | * 5 verbal & 2 silent promptings | ||
+ | * 4 verbal & 4 silent promptings | ||
+ | * 3 verbal & 6 silent promptings | ||
+ | * 2 verbal & 8 silent promptings | ||
+ | * 1 verbal & 10 silent promptings, or | ||
+ | * 0 verbal & 12 silent promptings. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga adds that when giving a verbal prompting, one may say only, "I need a robe (or whatever the requisite may be)," or statements to that effect. One may not say, "Give me a robe," "Get me a robe," "Buy me a robe," or "Get a robe in exchange for me," for these last two statements in particular would incur a penalty under [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, promptings are counted not by the number of visits to the steward but by the number of times the bhikkhu states his need/desire for the requisite. Thus if, in one visit, he states his need for a robe three times, that counts as three verbal promptings. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for silent promptings — or " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga also notes that during the period when a bhikkhu has yet to receive the requisite, he should not accept an invitation to sit down at the steward' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of verbal and silent promptings — or fewer — there is no offense. If one does not obtain the requisite after the maximum allowable number of promptings, one should inform the original donor and then leave the issue up to him/her. If the donor, being informed, then makes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there is no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar states that not to inform the donor here entails a dukkaṭa on the grounds that one is neglecting a duty. This statement, however, should be qualified to apply only in cases where one knows which donor gave which fund to which steward. If a single fund administered by a steward contains donations from many donors, one is unlikely to be in a position to inform all the donors if the steward does not respond to one's request. In such cases one should be duty bound to inform only one of the donors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Range of application.** As mentioned above, the Kommentar maintains that this rule applies only in the first of the three cases listed there: The steward has been indicated by the bhikkhu. As for the second case — the steward has been indicated by the donor — it maintains that one may make any number of promptings without committing an offense. If the article is not forthcoming, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated either by the donor or by a bhikkhu, the Kommentar says that, as far as that fund is concerned, the steward should be treated as a person who is not related and has not made an invitation to ask. In other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all unless he/she happens to invite one to make a request. The Kommentar gives no reasons for these positions, and they are hard to infer. In the first of the two instances under this sub-category — the volunteer temporary steward — the Kommentar depicts the steward as volunteering in the presence of both the bhikkhu and the donor, and this would seem to place the steward under some obligation to both. Thus the bhikkhu would seem to have the right to make a reasonable number of promptings; and the donor, the right to know if the article is not forthcoming. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for the second of the two instances — the donor gives the gift to the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, given these considerations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As we will note under [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The factors of an offense** here are three. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// a fund for the purchase of robe-cloth left with a steward. As noted above, the Kommentar extends this factor to cover any fund set aside for one's own requisites. | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One makes an excessive number of promptings. | ||
+ | * //3) Result:// One obtains the requested requisite. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a dukkaṭa for the excessive promptings. The requisite, when obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pācittiya offense confessed. The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the requisite in return are the same as in the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one has not given excessive promptings but perceives that one has, or is in doubt about the matter, the penalty for accepting the requisite is a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Other funds.** The Kommentar includes a long discussion of how this rule applies to funds other than those intended for an individual bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A few of the more relevant cases in the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Monetary funds for Saṅgha or group requisites.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, however, the donor says, "The money will be with your steward" | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a donor wants to make a gift of such things to the Saṅgha, the Kommentar says, the question of whether they may be accepted depends on how the donation is phrased. If the donor says, " | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the donor says, "This is for the purpose of the four requisites," | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a donor proposes to give pigs, chickens, or other animals used only for their meat to the Saṅgha, the bhikkhus are to say, "We can't accept gifts like this, but we will be glad to set them free for you." | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, after setting up an allowable arrangement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | How the proceeds from such arrangements are to be used depends on what they are: If money, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this money to buy such-and-such," | ||
+ | |||
+ | Apparently the Kommentar views this arrangement as acceptable because of its interpretation that [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the context of [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Many monasteries have donation boxes, and there is a question as to whether the bhikkhus may tell a donor in this case to put the money in the box. The Kommentar to [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | After the donor has placed the money, the bhikkhus may then tell the monastery steward what the donor said, but are not to tell him/her to take the money, as this would violate [[bmc1.ch07-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar mentions two other acceptable arrangements: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The donor places the money with the workmen and tells the bhikkhus that their only responsibility is to check on whether the work is being done poorly or well. | ||
+ | * 2) The donor says that the money will be kept with him/her or with his/her employees and that the bhikkhus' | ||
+ | |||
+ | This second arrangement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar says that because the steward in arrangements (1) and (2) is indicated by the donor, the bhikkhus may make as many requests as they like — i.e., in the first case, telling the workers what to do; in the second case, telling the steward or donor who is to be paid — but as we noted above, there seems no reason to follow the Kommentar in making this allowance. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In addition to building funds, it would seem that any charitable fund for schools, hospitals, etc. — such as some wealthy monasteries have — would come under the category of impersonal funds, as long as the fund is not for requisites for the Saṅgha, either as a group or individually. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Fund management.** The Kommentar states that if a Community fund has been set up for a particular requisite, it should as a general principle be used to buy only that requisite. If, however, the Community has enough of one kind of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Funds for lodgings and furniture, though, because they are // | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div chapter> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | [[bmc1.ch05|5]] | [[bmc1.ch06|6]] | 7.1 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div showmore> | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div f_zzecopy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 7.1", von Thanissaro Bhikkhu. //Access to Insight//, 23 April 2012, [[http:// | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # |