The
Buddhist Monastic Code
Volume I
The Patimokkha Training
Rules
Translated & Explained
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
(Geoffrey DeGraff)
Part 6
Adhikarana-Samatha
![[go to top]](scrollup.gif)
This
term means, "the settlement of issues." The seven rules in this section
are actually principles and procedures for settling the four sorts of
issues mentioned under Pacittiya 63: disputes, accusations, offenses, and
duties. The Canon's explanations of these procedures are given not in the
Vibhanga, but in Cullavagga IV, which starts with a sketch of the
procedures, followed by a detailed discussion of how to apply them to each
of the four types of issues. We will follow the same mode of presentation
here.
For the
settling, the resolution of issues that arise:
1. A
verdict "in the presence of" should be given. This means that the formal
act settling the issue must be carried out in the presence of the
Community, in the presence of the individuals, and in the presence of the
Dhamma and Vinaya.
In the
presence of the Community means that the group of bhikkhus that has
gathered is competent to carry out the formal act under question. In other
words, it contains the minimum number of bhikkhus required, all the
bhikkhus in the designated area (sima) either are present or have sent
their consent, and none of the bhikkhus in the meeting makes protest
against having the matter settled by the group -- although as we noticed
under Pacittiya 80, if a formal act is being carried out against a bhikkhu,
his protest does not invalidate the act; any protest made by any other
member of the group, though, would invalidate it, even if he only informs
the bhikkhu sitting next to him (Mv.IX.4.8).
In the
presence of the individuals means that all the individuals involved in the
matter are present. For instance, in a dispute, both sides of the dispute
must be in the meeting; when the Community is carrying out a formal act
against one of its members, the accused must be there; in an ordination,
the bhikkhu-to-be must be present. There are a few cases where this factor
is not followed -- such as the ordination of a bhikkhuni by messenger and
the act of turning the bowl upside down (refusing to accept donations from
a lay person who has mistreated the Community) -- but these are rare.
In the
presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya means that all the proper procedures
laid down in the Vinaya are followed, and that bhikkhus who advocate what
is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya are not holding sway over the group.
2. A
verdict of mindfulness may be given. This is the verdict of innocence
given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully
that he did not commit the offense in question.
A
verdict of this sort is valid only if --
1) The
bhikkhu is pure and without offense.
2) He
is accused of an offense.
3) He
asks for the verdict.
4) The
Community gives him the verdict.
5) It
is in accordance with the Dhamma, the assembly of bhikkhus being complete
and competent to give it (Cv.IV.4.11).
According to the Commentary, factor (1) here -- the bhikkhu is pure and
without offense -- applies only to arahants, but the Canon makes no
mention of this point. There are other places in the Khandhakas where the
phrase "pure and without offense" is used to refer to any bhikkhu who has
not committed the offense of which he is accused (e.g., Mv.IX.1.7;
Mv.IX.4.9), with nothing to indicate that he would have to be an arahant.
If the Commentary's interpretation were correct here, there would be no
way that a bhikkhu in his right mind who is not an arahant could be
declared innocent of an offense at all, since the only three verdicts that
may settle an accusation are this one, the verdict of past insanity (for a
bhikkhu who was insane when he committed the offense in question), and the
act of (punishment for) further misconduct, for a bhikkhu who committed
the offense in question when he was in his right mind. The fourth rule
below -- acting in accordance with what is admitted -- which is sometimes
assumed to cover cases of innocence, actually applies only to cases where
the bhikkhu admits to having committed an offense before the matter goes
to interrogation, and not to cases where he is innocent and asserts his
innocence.
Thus we
will follow the general usage in the Khandhakas and say that the factor
"pure and without offense" is fulfilled by any bhikkhu -- arahant or not
-- who has not committed the offense in question.
3. A
verdict of past insanity may be given. This is another verdict of
innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was
out of his mind when he committed the offense in question and so is
absolved of any responsibility for it.
Such a
verdict is valid only if given to a bhikkhu who:
1) does
not remember what he did while insane;
2)
remembers, but only as if in a dream; or
3) is
still insane enough to believe that his behavior is proper. ("I act that
way and so do you. It is allowable for me and allowable for you!")
(Cv.IV.6.2).
4.
Acting in accordance with what is admitted. This refers to the ordinary
confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The
confession is valid only if in accord with the facts, e.g., a bhikkhu
actually commits a pacittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and
not as a stronger or lesser offense. If he were to confess it as a dukkata
or a sanghadisesa, that would be invalid.
5.
Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which
bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the
proper procedures are followed, and -- in the words of the Canon -- are
"wounding one another with weapons of the tongue." In cases such as these,
decisions can be made by majority vote.
Such a
vote is valid only if --
1) The
issue is major.
2) The
proper procedures have already been followed (in at least two or three
Communities, says the Commentary) and have failed to achieve a result.
3)
Those on the side of the Dhamma are in the majority and are perceived to
be in the majority.
4) It
is felt that such an act will not divide the Community.
5) The
Community present is competent to settle the issue.
6) All
the bhikkhus present agree to take a vote.
7)
There is no cheating (e.g., one bhikkhu taking two voting tickets).
8) Each
bhikkhu honestly votes in accordance with his views, and not, for example,
under fear of intimidation (Cv.IV.10).
6.
Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct. This refers to
cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the offense in question
only after being formally interrogated about it. He is then to be reproved
for his actions, made to remember the offense and to confess it, after
which the Community carries out a formal act of "further misconduct"
against him as an added punishment for being so uncooperative as to
require the formal interrogation in the first place.
The
Cullavagga (IV.11.2-12.2) contains three separate discussions of the
conditions that are necessary for the act to be valid. The discussions
overlap, but can be summarized as follows:
The act
is essentially the same thing as an act of censure, and as such can be
given to a bhikkhu who --
1) is a
maker of strife, quarrels, and dissension in the Community;
2) is
ignorant, full of offenses, and has not undergone the penalty for them; or
3)
lives in unbecoming association with lay people.
What
makes this act special is that it is aimed primarily at a bhikkhu who has
committed an offense that requires confession, but he does not confess it
until being formally interrogated. This is shown by the factors required
for the act to be valid:
1) The
accused is impure (i.e., he actually did commit the offense, and it is an
offense that requires confession).
2) He
is unconscientious (i.e., he didn't voluntarily confess the offense on his
own in the first place).
3) A
formal meeting has been called in which he is present and has been
interrogated: reproved for his actions, made to remember the offense, and
formally accused of having committed it. (The Commentary translates this
word -- sanuvada -- as meaning argumentative -- saupavada -- which also
fits the context. If the bhikkhu has been accused of the offense but at
first denies it, that would fulfill this factor.)
4) He
finally acknowledges the offense and confesses it.
5) The
Community carries out the act
6) in
accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and with a complete assembly.
Once
such an act has been carried out against a bhikkhu, he must observe the
following rules:
1) He
may not act as preceptor or teacher for another bhikkhu, nor is he to have
a novice attend to him.
2) He
may not accept authorization to exhort bhikkhunis; even if authorized, he
is not to exhort them.
3) He
should not commit the offense for which he is being punished, a similar
offense, or a worse one.
4) He
should not find fault with the formal act or with those who carried it
out.
5) He
should not accuse others of offenses or participate actively in any of the
procedures involved in a formal accusation -- e.g., suspending another
bhikkhu's right to join in the Patimokkha recitation, asking leave to
accuse, reproving, making remember, etc.
6) He
should not quarrel with bhikkhus (Cv.IV.12.4).
If he
abides by all these rules, and the Community is satisfied that he has seen
the error of his ways, they are to rescind the act and restore him to his
former status as a full-fledged bhikkhu.
7.
Covering over as with grass. This refers to situations in which both sides
of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done
much that is unworthy of a contemplative. If they were to deal with one
another for their offenses, the only result would be greater divisiveness.
Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhus gather in one place. (According
to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhus in the sima must attend.
No one should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.) A motion
is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One
member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of his
faction that he will make a confession for them. When both sides are
ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and
makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one
announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma).
This
clears all offenses except for --
1) any
heavy offense (parajika and sanghadisesa, says the Commentary) committed
by anyone in the group;
2) any
offenses dealing with the laity;
3) any
offenses of any member of either side who does not approve of the
procedure; and
4) any
offenses of any bhikkhu who does not attend the meeting. (This is the
reason for the Commentary's statement that even sick bhikkhus must
attend.)
Point
(3) here is interesting. If any member of either side were to dissent,
that would invalidate the whole procedure. This point is thus probably
added as a reminder to any bhikkhu who might be vindictive enough to want
to deal with his enemies case-by-case, that his offenses will also have to
be dealt with case-by-case. This might be enough to discourage him from
dissenting.
The
Commentary explains the name of this procedure by comparing the offenses
cleared in this way to excrement that has been so thoroughly covered with
grass that it can no longer send an oppressive smell.
* * *
According to the Cullavagga, the principle of "in the presence of" applies
to all four types of issues: disputes, accusations, offenses, and duties.
In addition, disputes may be settled "in accordance with the majority";
accusations must be settled either by a verdict of mindfulness, a verdict
of past insanity, or an act "in accordance with further misconduct"; and
offenses may be settled by acting in accordance with what is admitted or
by covering them over as with grass.
What
follows it a more detailed discussion of how these principles and
procedures apply in each of the four cases:
Disputes are heated disagreements over what the Buddha did and did not
teach, or -- in the words of the Cullavagga -- "when bhikkhus dispute,
saying:
'It is
Dhamma,' or 'It is not Dhamma;'
'It is
Vinaya,' or 'It is not Vinaya;'
'It was
spoken by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not spoken by the Tathagata;'
'It was
regularly practiced by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not regularly practiced
by the Tathagata;'
'It was
formulated by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not formulated by the Tathagata;'
'It is
an offense,' or 'It is not an offense;'
'It is
a light offense,' or 'It is a heavy offense;'
'It is
a curable offense,' or 'It is an incurable offense;'
'It is
a serious offense,' or 'It is not a serious offense.'
Whatever strife, quarreling, contention, dispute, differing opinions,
opposing opinions, heated words, abusiveness based on this, is an issue
arising from disputes." (Cv.IV.14.2)
Thus
not all disagreements on these matters are classed as issues. Friendly
disagreements or differences of interpretation aren't; heated and abusive
disagreements are.
The
Buddha advises that a bhikkhu who wants to bring up such questions for
discussion should first consider five points: 1) whether it is the right
time for such a discussion; 2) whether it concerns something true; 3)
whether it is connected with the goal; 4) whether he will be able to get
on his side bhikkhus who value the Dhamma and Vinaya; and 5) whether the
question will give rise to strife, quarreling, disputes, cracks and splits
in the Community. If the answer to the first four questions is yes, and to
the fifth question no (i.e., the discussion is not likely to lead to
strife), he may then go ahead and start the discussion. Otherwise, he
should let the matter rest for the time being (Cv.IX.4).
The
Cullavagga quotes the Buddha as saying that two sorts of mental states --
skillful and unskillful -- can turn disputes into issues. The unskillful
states are covetous, corrupt, or confused states of mind; the skillful
ones are states of mind that are not covetous, not corrupt, and not
confused. The Buddha adds, however, that six character traits can lead to
issues arising from disputes that will act towards the detriment of many
people. They are when a bhikkhu:
is
easily angered and bears ill will,
is mean
and spiteful,
is
jealous and possessive,
is
scheming and deceitful,
has
evil desires and wrong views,
is
attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.
Such a
bhikkhu, he says, lives without deference or respect for the Buddha, the
Dhamma, the Sangha, and does not complete the training. If one should see
any of these traits within oneself or others, one should strive for their
abandonment. If there are no such traits present, one should make sure
that they don't arise in the future (Cv.IV.14.3).
As
noted under Sanghadisesa 10, there are two sorts of disputes: those in
which one of the parties is aiming at schism and those in which neither
is. Disputes of the first sort are to be dealt with in line with the
procedures listed under Sanghadisesas 10 & 11; those of the second sort,
as follows:
In the
presence of -- Step 1: a) The Community meets, with at least four bhikkhus
-- the minimum to form a quorum -- present. All of the bhikkhus in the
sima are either present or have sent their consent, and none of the
bhikkhus present protests having the matter settled by the group.
b) Both
sides of the dispute are present.
c) The
meeting is carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down by the
Buddha, and the unanimous decision of the Community is in line with what
the Buddha actually laid down. This point is important: It means that no
Community -- even if it follows the proper form for the meeting -- can
legitimately replace the Buddha's teachings with its own preferences on
any point.
If the
Community can settle the manner in this way, it is properly settled and
should not be reopened.
Step 2:
If the Community cannot settle the matter, they should go to a monastery
where there are more bhikkhus, and ask them to help settle the matter. If
it so happens that the group is able to settle the matter among themselves
on the way to the other monastery, then it is properly settled, and they
may return home to their own monastery.
Step 3:
If the matter is still unsettled by the time they reach the second
monastery, they should ask the resident bhikkhus there to help settle the
matter. The resident bhikkhus should then meet and consider among
themselves whether or not they are competent to settle the matter. If they
feel they aren't, they shouldn't take it on. If they feel they are, they
should then ask the incoming bhikkhus how the dispute arose. (The
Commentary here adds that the residents should first stall for two or
three days -- saying that they have to wash their robes or fire their
bowls first -- as a way of subduing the pride of the incoming bhikkhus.)
Once
the resident bhikkhus have asked the history of the dispute, the incoming
bhikkhus are to say that if the resident bhikkhus can settle the dispute,
they (the incoming bhikkhus) will hand it over to them; if they can't
settle it, the incoming bhikkhus will still be in charge of the matter.
If the
resident bhikkhus can then settle the dispute, it is properly settled.
Step 4:
If they can't settle it in this way -- and, in the words of the Canon,
"endless disputes arise, and there is no discerning the meaning of a
single statement" -- the disputants should, with a motion and
announcement, hand the matter over to a panel of experts. The Commentary
recommends a panel of ten. Each member of the panel must meet the
following qualifications:
1) He
is moral, abiding scrupulously by the rules of the Vinaya.
2) He
is learned in all things dealing with the celibate life.
3) He
has memorized both Patimokkhas in detail.
4) He
is firm in his knowledge of the Vinaya and is not easily led off-track.
5) He
is skilled at reconciling both sides of a dispute.
6) He
is skilled at settling an issue.
7) He
knows what constitutes an issue.
8) He
knows how an issue arises (i.e., through skillful, unskillful, or neutral
states of mind).
9) He
knows when an issue is stopped.
10) He
knows the way leading to the stopping of an issue. (Notice that these last
four qualifications are similar in form to knowledge of the four Noble
Truths.)
The
Commentary notes that while the panel is discussing the issue, none of the
other bhikkhus is to speak. If the panel can settle the issue, it is
properly settled and should not be reopened.
Step 5:
If the panel has trouble in settling the issue, and there are members of
the panel who "hide the Dhamma under the shadow of the letter" -- i.e.,
use the letter of the rules to go against the spirit -- they may be
removed from the panel through a formal motion. If the panel can then
settle the issue, it is properly settled.
If not
-- and by this time, the Commentary says, at least two or three
monasteries have become involved -- the procedures of "in the presence of"
have been exhausted, and the dispute must go on to a settlement "in
accordance with the majority."
In
accordance with the majority: A decision by majority vote is valid only in
the following situation:
1) The
issue is important.
2) The
procedures of "in the presence of" have all been followed but have not
succeeded in settling the issue.
3) Both
sides have been made to reflect on their position.
4) The
distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority sides with the
Dhamma, or
5) that
the majority probably sides with the Dhamma.
6) The
distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will not lead to a
split in the Sangha, or
7) that
the procedure will probably not lead to a split in the Sangha.
8) The
tickets are taken in accordance with the rule (e.g., only one ticket per
bhikkhu, and the Dhamma side wins).
9) The
assembly is complete.
10) The
bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views (and not, for
example, under fear of coercion).
When
these factors are all present, the group should first ask one of its
members to act as a distributor of voting tickets. He should be free of
the four kinds of prejudice, and know what does and does not constitute
the taking of a voting ticket. Before accepting the role, he should
reflect on whether the situation meets the ten qualifying factors, and
accept only when it does. Once he accepts the role, he is to be authorized
by means of a formal motion and announcement.
He is
then to have voting tickets made -- a different color for each side -- and
conduct the ballot in one of three ways: secretly, by whispering in the
ear, or openly.
In
secret balloting, he is to tell each bhikkhu, "This color is for this
side, and that color for that. Take one, but don't show it to anyone."
According to the Commentary, this method is to be used when there are many
unconscientious bhikkhus in the assembly.
In
"whispering in the ear" balloting, he is to whisper to each bhikkhu, "This
color is for this side, and that color for that. Take one, but don't tell
anyone." This method, the Commentary says, is for assemblies in which
there are many foolish or trouble-making bhikkhus.
In open
balloting, the bhikkhus are to take the voting tickets openly. This method
is for assemblies where the distributor is certain that the conscientious
bhikkhus are in the majority.
Once
the vote is taken, the distributor is to assess the result before
announcing it. If he sees that the anti-Dhamma side has won, he is to
annul the balloting and take the vote all over again. According to the
Commentary, he may take the vote up to three times. If the anti-Dhamma
side is still in the majority, he should announce that the time is not
right for a vote, adjourn the meeting, and try to find more bhikkhus on
the side of the Dhamma to join the next meeting.
These
procedures make two interesting assumptions: One side of the dispute is
clearly in the right, and the distributor must belong to the right side.
If he belongs to the wrong side, the whole balloting is invalid, and the
issue may later be reopened without penalty. If neither side is clearly in
the right, the composers of the Cullavagga would probably consider the
issue unimportant and not worthy of a vote in the first place. If this is
true, then even if a vote is taken, it would not be a valid use of the
procedure, and the results would not be binding.
In all
of these steps for settling disputes, the important point to remember is
that in no way is a group of bhikkhus to rewrite the Dhamma or Vinaya in
line with their views. Even if they attempt it, following the procedures
to the letter, the fact that their decision goes against the Buddha's
teachings invalidates their efforts, and the issue may be reopened at any
time without penalty.
* * *
Accusations. When a bhikkhu has committed an offense, it is his
responsibility to undergo the penalty voluntarily so as to make amends for
it. If his fellow bhikkhus see, hear, or suspect that he has committed an
offense without undergoing the penalty, it is their duty to question and
admonish him in private, in accordance with the procedures discussed under
Sanghadisesa 8. The issue may be settled informally in one of two ways:
(1) The accused admits to the act, sees it as an offense, and undergoes
the penalty; or (2) he is truly innocent, professes his innocence, and can
convince his admonishers that their suspicions were ungrounded. If both
sides act in good faith and without prejudice, issues of this sort are
relatively easy to settle informally in this way.
If the
issue can't be settled, it should be taken to a meeting of the Community
for a formal interrogation and verdict.
When
the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be present, and
both must agree to the case's being heard by that particular group. (If
the original accuser is a lay person, one of the bhikkhus is to take up
the charge.) The accused is then asked if he remembers having committed
the offense in question, and is to be dealt with in accordance with what
he admits to having done (Mv.IX.6.1-4). The Cullavagga (IV.14.29) shows
that the other bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value.
They should press and cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that
he is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of three
verdicts:
1) If
he is innocent of the offense and can convince the group of his innocence,
he is to request a verdict of mindfulness -- expressing the request three
times -- and the Community is to give it to him by means of a formal
motion with three announcements.
2) If
he committed the offense while insane or possessed, he should request a
verdict of past insanity -- again, expressing the request three times --
and the Community is to give it to him by means of a formal motion with
three announcements.
3) If
he committed the offense while in his right mind, but admits to it only
after the interrogation has begun, the other bhikkhus are to make him
confess the offense and then give him a verdict of further misconduct by
means of a formal motion with three announcements.
As we
noted above, each of these three verdicts is valid only if in line with
the truth. If it so happens that a guilty bhikkhu is given a verdict of
mindfulness, a bhikkhu who committed the offense in question while he was
in his right mind is given a verdict of past insanity, or an innocent
bhikkhu is given a verdict of further misconduct, the case may be reopened
when new evidence surfaces, and the verdict rescinded or reversed.
There
are, however, two situations in which none of these three verdicts
applies, and the accusation -- at least for the time being -- remains
unsettled:
(1) If
a bhikkhu, in the course of an interrogation, admits to an action that is
an offense, but either refuses to see it as an offense or refuses to
confess it, he is subject to an act of suspension. Though this too may
later be rescinded on the basis of good behavior -- when he admits that
his action was an offense and confesses it -- it is a much stronger
penalty than the act for further misconduct.
(2) If
a bhikkhu denies having committed the act in question, and the bhikkhus
are not convinced of his innocence, there are various ways to pressure him
to tell the truth: The Cullavagga suggests intensive interrogation; the
Commentary, long bouts of group chanting. If neither works, and the
Community still has doubts about his innocence, the issue is to be
abandoned for the time being as unsettled: The accused is neither to be
punished nor declared innocent. As long as the issue remains unsettled,
though, there will be no peace of mind either for the accused or for the
Community as a whole.
Offenses. All offenses are settled by means of the principle of in the
presence of. Most are also settled by means of the procedure of in
accordance with what is admitted. Rare cases may be settled by covering
over as with grass.
In
accordance with what is admitted: When a bhikkhu has committed an offense
requiring confession and then confesses it truthfully in the presence of
another bhikkhu, group of bhikkhus, or complete Community, that is called
settlement in accordance with what is admitted. It also counts as having
been settled in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya and the individuals
-- i.e., the bhikkhu making the confession and the bhikkhu(s) witnessing
it are face to face.
If a
bhikkhu has committed a sanghadisesa offense, it is settled only after he
has confessed it and undergone penance and probation, both of which
require further confessions. Only then, when a Community of at least 20
bhikkhus has met to lift the penalty from him, is the offense considered
settled. Here, in the presence of would include not only the Dhamma,
Vinaya, and individuals, but also the Community, when it imposes the
penance and/or probation, and again when it lifts the penalty.
If a
bhikkhu has committed a parajika offense, it is settled only when he
admits that he is no longer a bhikkhu and returns to lay life. Here, in
the presence of would have the same factors as under confessable offenses,
above.
Covering over as with grass: This procedure has already been discussed in
detail above, and there is no need to add any further details here. In the
presence of, here, means in the presence of the Dhamma, Vinaya,
individuals, and the Community: In the presence of the individuals means
that those who make the blanket confession and those who witness it are
face to face. In the presence of the Community means that enough bhikkhus
for a quorum (four) have arrived, the assembly is complete (all the
bhikkhus in the sima have joined the meeting) and none of the bhikkhus,
having met, makes any protest.
Duties
are settled in the presence of --
(1)
when they are properly carried out in line with the procedures set out in
the Dhamma and Vinaya,
(2) if
the relevant individuals are present (e.g., the ordinand in an ordination,
the bhikkhu-to-be-banished in a formal act of banishment, etc.), and
(3) the
Community that has met to carry them out forms a quorum and a complete
assembly, with none of those present -- except the bhikkhu against whom a
formal act is to be carried out, if such is the case -- makes any protest.
Appendices
I.
Controversial points: Dawn
The
Canon lacks a clear-cut definition of precisely when dawn takes place.
This lack is especially felt in connection with NP 2, but it also affects
a number of other rules as well. The V/Sub-commentary is the only
commentarial text that tries to define dawn with any precision. Its
definition: "'Dawn' should be understood as the distinctive radiance of
increasingly intense red preceding sunrise." This definition is generally
followed in Burma, although it is not of much help when the horizon is not
visible. The Thais have worked out a more practical measure by defining
dawn as the period just prior to the point when, by natural light, one can
see the lines in one's hand while holding it out at arm's length. On a
bright moonlit night, they define dawn as just prior to the point where
leaves appear green. In Sri Lanka, however, dawn is defined as happening
much earlier, when the first faint white light on the horizon preceding
sunrise can be discerned from Adam's Peak, the tallest mountain on the
island. This means that Sri Lankan monks recognize dawn as happening at a
time when it is still quite dark outside. There is evidence from the
Canon, however, suggesting that this interpretation places dawn at a point
too early in the day.
Pacittiyas 37 & 38, taken together, require that a bhikkhu not accept alms
before dawn. If he did go for alms before dawn, he would not be able to
eat any of the food he accepted at that time, since Pacittiya 37 forbids
him from eating before dawn, and Pacittiya 38 forbids him from eating
after dawn any food received before dawn of that day. If the first
reddening or whitening on the eastern horizon did count as dawn, then
bhikkhus would be able to go for alms when it is still dark, since the
dark of night does not lift until the second reddening and whitening. A
passage in the Latukikopama Sutta (M. 66), however, states specifically
that once the rules were established, one of their benefits was that they
prevented bhikkhus from going for alms in the dark. This suggests that in
the time of the Canon, the first reddening and whitening did not count as
dawn. The passage runs as follows:
"(Ven.
Udayin -- the good Udayin, not the lax Udayin of the first five
sanghadisesas -- is addressing the Buddha:) 'It used to be, venerable sir,
that we ate in the evening, in the morning, and in the afternoon. Then
there was the time when the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying,
"Come now, bhikkhus, give up this afternoon meal." Because of that, I felt
sorry and upset: "The fine staple and non-staple food that householders
give us in the afternoon -- the Blessed One has us give them up! The
Sugata has us abandon them!" But on considering our love and respect for
the Blessed One, our sense of shame and conscience, we gave up that
afternoon meal, and ate (only) in the evening and in the morning.
"'Then
there was the time when the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying,
"Come now, bhikkhus, give up this evening meal." Because of that, I felt
sorry and upset: "The more highly regarded of our two meals -- the Blessed
One has us give it up! The Sugata has us abandon it!" It has happened,
venerable sir, that a man has gotten ingredients for curry during the day
and has told his wife, "Come, let's put this aside, and we'll all have it
together in the evening." Almost all cooking is done at night, sir, and
very little during the day. But on considering our love and respect for
the Blessed One, our sense of shame and conscience, we gave up that
evening meal.
"'It
used to be that bhikkhus going for alms in the dark gloom of night would
walk into a mud hole, fall into a cesspool, stumble into a thorny hedge,
stumble into a sleeping cow, encounter teenage gangs on the way to or from
a theft, and be propositioned by women. Once it happened when I was going
for alms in the dark gloom of night that a certain woman washing a bowl
saw me by a lightning flash. As soon as she saw me, she shrieked out in
terror, "I'm doomed! A demon is after me!"
"'When
she said that, I said to her, "I'm not a demon, sister. I'm a bhikkhu
waiting for alms."
"'"Well
then you're a bhikkhu whose mom is dead and pop is dead. It would be
better for you, bhikkhu, that your belly be cut open with a sharp
butcher's knife, than that you go prowling around for alms for your
belly's sake like this in the dark gloom of night!"
"'When
I remember this, sir, the thought occurs to me: "There are so many painful
things the Blessed One has rid us of, and so many pleasant ones he has
provided; so many unskillful things he has rid us of, and so many skillful
ones he has provided!"'"
This
shows clearly that once the rules were in effect, bhikkhus were saved from
the dangers of going for alms in the dark; and suggests that dawn can be
no earlier than the distinct reddening of the eastern sky.
II.
Controversial points: Sugata measures
The
Commentary to Sanghadisesa 6 states that the Buddha's cubit -- the
distance from his bent elbow to the tips of his fingers -- was three times
that of a normal man. This puts all the Sugata measures -- based on the
Buddha's cubit, handspan, and breadth of his fingers -- at three times
normal length and makes the Buddha freakishly tall.
How the
Commentary arrived at this figure is hard to say, for the Vinaya Mukha
cites several passages from the Canon showing that the Buddha, though
tall, was not abnormally so. The most telling passage is the one from the
Samaññaphala Sutta (D. 2), in which King Ajatasattu visits the Buddha
while the latter is sitting in an assembly of bhikkhus, and he is unable
to tell which one of the assembly the Buddha is. This, of course, is meant
to indicate the king's spiritual blindness, but if the Buddha had been
remarkably tall, it would have certainly been part of his general
reputation, and the king would not have had to ask.
The
Vinaya Mukha then goes on to suggest a variety of ways of calculating the
Buddha's measurements, the most useful being to assume the Buddha's cubit
to be 50 cm. This, at least roughly, fits a number of passages from the
Canon, as follows:
According to the Lakkhana Sutta (D. 30), the spread of the Buddha's arms,
outstretched, was equal to his height. Since a person's cubit is
one-fourth the spread of his outstretched arms, this would put the
Buddha's height at 2 meters, or approximately 6 feet 7 inches. The origin
story to Pacittiya 92 states that his half-brother, Nanda, was four
fingerbreadths shorter than he, and that when bhikkhus saw him coming from
afar, they would mistake him for the Buddha, partly on the basis of his
tall height. One fingerbreadth is said to be 1/24 cubit, or a little more
than 2 cm. by this reckoning, which would put Nanda at 1.92 meters, or
approximately 6 feet 4 inches tall.
These
figures would seem to fit the information in the Canon fairly well, in
that they allow for both Nanda and the Buddha to be tall, but not
outlandishly so.
Another
pair of passages supporting these measurements is the ruling under
Pacittiya 87 that the legs of a bhikkhu's bed not be more than eight
Sugata fingerbreadths tall, taken together with the passage in the
Cullavagga (VIII.1.5) that one should grope under the bed with one's hand
to make sure that nothing is there before placing one's bowl there. Our
measurements would put the maximum height for the bed legs at 18 cm. If
they were much taller than that, there would be no need to grope, for one
could easily see under the bed with a glance. If they were much shorter
than that, even a small bowl wouldn't fit.
Although there is no way of determining the Sugata measures with 100%
accuracy, the above considerations suggest that the following estimates
are reasonable:
The
Sugata cubit = 50 cm.
The
Sugata span = 25 cm.
The
Sugata fingerbreadth = 2.08 cm.
Applied
to the various rules, this would give us a hut 3 x 1.75 meters -- small,
but adequate; a rains-bathing cloth 1.5 x .625 meters -- enough to cover
one from the waist to the knees; and an skin-eruption covering cloth 1 x
.5 meters -- enough to cover one from the waist to just above the knees.
All of these figures seem appropriate, and so have been accepted for the
purposes of this book.
III.Controversial points: Meals
The
Cullavagga (VI.21.1) contains a passage in which the Buddha allows
bhikkhus to accept seven kinds of specially arranged meals, in addition to
the meals they receive on almsround. The passage runs as follows:
"Now at
that time Rajagaha was short of food. People were not able to provide a
meal for the Community, but they wanted to provide a designated meal, an
invitational meal, a meal by lots, a meal on a day of the waxing or waning
of the moon, on Observance (uposatha) days, and on the day after each
Observance day. They told this matter to the Blessed One. He said, 'I
allow, bhikkhus, a Community meal, a designated meal, an invitational
meal, a meal by lots, a meal on a day of the waxing or waning of the moon,
on an Observance (uposatha) day, and on the day after an Observance day.'"
Unfortunately, the Canon does not give any detailed explanation of these
terms. The Commentary explains Community meals as meals for the entire
Community, and the other terms as follows:
"(Having said,) 'Give 1, 2...10 bhikkhus designated from the Community,'
they wanted to provide a meal for the bhikkhus they got through that
designation. Later, having decided on bhikkhus in the same way (i.e., 1,
2...10 bhikkhus), and having invited them, they wanted to provide a meal
for them. Later, they wanted to provide a meal having decided on a
lottery. Later, having fixed a date -- the waxing or waning moons, the
Observance day or the day after -- they wanted to provide a meal for 1,
2...10 bhikkhus. This is the extent of the meals that fall under the terms
"designated meals, invitational meals (the Sub-commentary adds an 'etc.'
here.)"
These
definitions seem fairly clear: a designated meal is one in which the
donors do not specify which bhikkhus are to receive it, but simply ask for
x number of bhikkhus from the Community, leaving it up to the
bhattuddesaka (the "meal designator" -- the Community official responsible
for managing these various meals) to designate who the recipients will be.
An invitational meal is one in which the donors decide on the recipients
themselves. A lot meal is one in which the recipients are chosen by
drawing lots, while the remaining meals -- periodic meals -- are given
regularly to a rotating roster of x number of bhikkhus every time the
specified date comes around.
However, the Commentary's discussion of how the bhattuddesaka should
manage these meals blurs the lines between the first three categories. It
gives no detailed discussion of Community meals, but divides designated
meals into the following two types:
1a)
Meals for which the number of bhikkhus to be designated is equal to the
total number of bhikkhus in the Community.
1b)
Meals for which the number of bhikkhus to be designated is less than the
total number of bhikkhus in the Community.
Invitational meals come in the four types:
2a)
Meals to which the entire Community is invited.
2b)
Meals to which specific individuals or types of bhikkhus (e.g., no one but
senior bhikkhus) are invited.
2c)
Meals to which one bhikkhu is invited and asked to bring x number of his
friends.
2d)
Meals for which the donor simply asks for x number of bhikkhus, without
specifying in any way who they should be.
This
typology raises two questions. For one, why aren't #1a and #2a grouped
under Community meals? Is it because the donor uses the words "designated"
and "invited" when announcing his/her plans for the meal? If so, how does
one arrange for a Community meal that would not fall into these two types,
in line with the fact that a Community meal is said to be a separate
category?
The
second question is how type #2d differs from a designated meal. Is it,
again, because the donor does not use the word "designated" in announcing
the meal? If so, the difference is only formal, for the Commentary itself
states that the bhattuddesaka is to treat such a meal as he would a
designated meal, which shows that in essence it is the same thing.
As we
reasoned in the discussion of Pacittiya 32, that rule applies only to
invitational meals. If we follow the Commentary's original definitions of
the various categories of special meal -- and eliminate types 1a, 2a and
2d as redundant -- it is easy enough to determine in essence which types
of meals fall into this category and which don't. If we follow the
detailed typologies, though, the distinctions become more a matter of
formality and technicalities: For example, if the donor asks the
bhattuddesaka to "designate nine bhikkhus from the Community," the meal
would not violate Pacittiya 32, but if he simply asked for nine bhikkhus
-- even if he did not specify who they were to be -- the meal would be a
group meal, and any bhikkhus who ate it would be committing an offense. Or
again, if he asked that the entire Community be "designated" to come to
his meal, they would not incur a penalty in going, but if he simply asked
the entire Community to a meal, they would.
Since
the Commentary is a compendium of the opinions of many generations of
teachers, it may have been that the definitions of the categories of meals
were agreed on by one generation of teachers, and the typologies by
another. This would explain the discrepancies between the two. Or it may
have been that the entire discussion -- definitions and typologies -- was
the product of one generation, who did mean the categories to depend on
questions of formalities.
At any
rate, as with many areas where the Canon gives no definite guidance, this
is an issue where the wise policy for each bhikkhu is to follow the
standards of the Community to which he belongs.
IV.
Pali formulae: Determination
The
articles a bhikkhu must determine for his use have already been mentioned
under NP 1, 21, & 24.
Determination, according to the Commentary, may be done in either of two
ways: by the body or by word. To determine by the body means to grasp or
touch the object in question with any part of the body and to determine in
the mind that the object is for one's own particular use, in line with the
formula given below. To determine by word means to speak the formula out
loud. In this case, if the object is within the reach of the hand, use the
same formula as for determination with the body. If it is beyond the reach
of the hand, alter the formula, changing imam, this, to etam, that.
Articles to be worn -- i.e., robes, the rains-bathing cloth -- must first
be dyed the proper color and marked with small round dots at the corners
in accordance with Pacittiya 58.
The
Canon and commentaries make no mention of any formula to repeat while
marking, but the tradition in Thailand is to repeat:
Imam
bindu-kappam karomi,
which
means, "I make this properly marked."
The
words for determination, taking the bowl as an example, are:
Imam
pattam adhitthami,
which
means, "I determine this bowl" or "I determine this as a bowl."
To
determine other requisites, replace the word pattam, bowl, with the
appropriate name, as follows:
for the
outer robe: sanghatim
for the
upper robe: uttarasangam
for the
lower robe: antaravasakam
for the
sitting cloth: nisidanam
for the
skin-eruption cloth: kandu-paticchadim
for the
rains-bathing cloth: vassikasatikam
for the
sleeping cloth: paccattharanam
for the
handkerchief: mukha-puñchana-colam
for
other cloth requisites: parikkhara-colam
To
determine many cloths of the same sort at the same time, use the plural
forms: Change imam to imani; etam to etani; and the -am ending for the
name of the article to -ani. For example, to determine many miscellaneous
cloth requisites within reach of the hand, the formula is:
Imani
parikkhara-colani adhitthami.
A
bhikkhu may determine only one of each of the following five items for use
at any one time: the bowl, the basic set of three robes, and the sitting
cloth. If he wishes to replace an old one with a new one, he must first
withdraw the determination of the old item before determining the new one.
The formula for withdrawal, again taking the bowl as an example, is:
Imam
pattam paccuddharami,
which
means, "I relinquish this bowl." To withdraw the determination of other
items, replace the word pattam with the appropriate name, as above.
If an
item has been stolen, burnt, destroyed, lost, given away, or taken away on
trust, its determination automatically lapses, and there is no need to
withdraw the determination before determining a new item to replace it.
The Commentary explains destroyed as meaning that the bowl or any of the
three robes develops a hole of a certain size: for a clay bowl, a hole
large enough for a millet grain to pass through; for an iron bowl, a hole
large enough to let liquid pass through; for the robes, a complete break
at least the size of the fingernail of the small finger, located at least
one handspan in from the long edge of the robe, and four fingerbreadths
from the short edge of the lower robe, or eight fingerbreadths from the
short edge of the upper and outer robes.
Once
the robe or bowl develops a hole of this sort, it reverts to the status of
an extra robe or bowl. If the owner still wishes to use it, the hole must
be mended and the article redetermined before ten days elapse. Otherwise,
he is subject to the penalties imposed by NP 1 or 21.
V. Pali
formulae: Shared ownership
The
topic of shared ownership, together with the various controversies
connected with it, are discussed in detail under Pacittiya 59. Here we
will simply give the formulae.
There
are two formulae for sharing ownership in the presence of the second
owner. The first -- taking as an example a piece of robe-cloth within
reach of the hand -- is this:
Imam
civaram tuyham vikappemi,
meaning, "I share ownership of this robe-cloth with you (plural)."
To
place a bowl under shared ownership, change civaram to pattam. For more
than one piece of cloth, change imam civaram to imani civarani. For more
than one bowl, change imam pattam to ime patte. For articles beyond the
reach of the hand, change imam to etam; imani to etani; and ime to ete.
The
second formula -- less formal than the first -- is:
Imam
civaram itthannamassa vikappemi,
which
means, "I share ownership of this robe-cloth with so-and-so." Suppose, for
example, that the person's name is Nando. If he is one's senior, change
itthannamassa to Ayasmato Nandassa; if he is one's junior, change it to
Nandassa Bhikkhuno; if he is a novice, change it to Nandassa Samanerassa.
If he is very much one's senior, use the first formula, above. (Mv.I.74.1
shows that the tradition in the Buddha's time was not to use a very senior
or respected person's name when referring to him.)
To
share a bowl in this way, change civaram to pattam. Other changes, as
called for, may be inferred from the previous formulae.
To
place a piece of robe-cloth under shared ownership with two persons who
are absent, say to a witness:
Imam
civaram vikappanatthaya tuyham dammi,
which
means, "I give this robe-cloth to you to share." The witness should ask
the original owner the names of two bhikkhus or novices who are his
friends or acquaintances. In Pali, this is:
Ko te
mitto va sandittho va.
After
the original owner tells the names, the witness says:
Aham
tesam dammi,
which
means, "I give it to them."
To
rescind the shared ownership, the Vibhanga says that the witness in the
last case should say,
Tesam
santakam paribhuñja va vissajjehi va yatha-paccayam va karohi,
which
means, "Use what is theirs, give it away or do as you like with it."
As for
cases in which the article is placed under shared ownership in the
presence of the second owner, the Vibhanga gives no formula for rescinding
the arrangement. The K/Commentary suggests that the second owner should
say,
Mayham
santakam paribhuñja va vissajjehi va yatha-paccayam va karohi,
which
means, "Use what is mine, give it away or do as you like with it."
The
Pubbasikkha Vannana, though, suggests the following formula (for
robe-cloth within reach, rescinded by a bhikkhu who is senior to the
original owner):
Imam
civaram mayham santakam paribhuñja va vissajjehi va yatha-paccayam va
karohi,
which
means, "Use this robe-cloth of mine, give it away, etc." If the bhikkhu
rescinding the shared ownership is junior to the original owner, the verb
endings are more formal:
Imam
civaram mayham santakam paribhuñjatha va vissajjetha va yatha-paccayam va
karotha.
For a
bowl, change civaram to pattam. If more than one piece of cloth is
involved, the formula begins, Imani civarani mayham santakani... If more
than one bowl, Ime patte mayham santake... Changes for articles outside
the reach of the hand may be inferred from those for the earlier formulae.
VI.
Pali formulae: Forfeiture
As
noted in the conclusion to the chapter on Nissaggiya Pacittiya rules,
articles received in defiance of NP 18, 19, & 22 must be forfeited to a
Community. The words of forfeiture in these cases are:
NP 18.
For receiving gold and silver (money):
Aham
bhante rupiyam patiggahesim. Idam me nissaggiyam. Imaham sanghassa
nissajjami.
This
means, "Venerable sirs, I have received money. This of mine is to be
forfeited. I forfeit it to the Community."
NP 19.
For engaging in monetary exchange:
Aham
bhante nanappakarakam rupiya-sanvoharam samapajjim. Idam me nissaggiyam.
Imaham sanghassa nissajjami.
This
means, "Venerable sirs, I have engaged in various types of monetary
exchange. This of mine is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Community."
NP 22.
For asking for a new bowl when one's original bowl is still usable:
Ayam me
bhante patto unapañca-bandhanena pattena cetapito nissaggiyo. Imaham
sanghassa nissajjami.
This
means, "This bowl of mine, venerable sirs, asked for when the (previous)
bowl had less than five mends, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the
Community."
Articles used or received in violation of the remaining NP rules may be
forfeited to the Community, to a group, or to an individual. Here only the
formulae for forfeiting to an individual will be given. Formulae for rules
rarely broken -- e.g., involving bhikkhunis or felted rugs -- are not
listed.
NP 1.
For an extra robe (or robe-cloth) kept beyond ten days.
Idam me
bhante civaram dasahatikkantam nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami.
This
means, "This robe (robe-cloth) of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond ten
days, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you." If the speaker is senior
to the listener, change bhante to avuso. If many pieces of cloth are to be
forfeited at once, the forms should be changed to plural:
Imani
me bhante civarani dasahatikkantani nissaggiyani. Imanaham ayasmato
nissajjami.
For
robes beyond the reach of the hand, change idam to etam; imaham to etaham;
imani to etani; and imanaham to etanaham. For example, for one robe, one
would say:
Etam me
bhante civaram dasahatikkantam nissaggiyam. Etaham ayasmato nissajjami.
For
more than one robe beyond the reach of the hand, one would say:
Etani
me bhante civarani dasahatikkantani nissaggiyani. Etanaham ayasmato
nissajjami.
Once
the offense has been confessed, the robe (robe-cloth) is to be returned to
the original owner, using this formula:
Imam
civaram ayasmato dammi,
which
means "I give this robe (robe-cloth) to you."
For
more than one piece:
Imani
civarani ayasmato dammi.
Changes
in the formula for robe-cloth beyond the reach of the hand may be inferred
from the preceding example. These two formulae for returning cloth are
used in every case involving cloth and will not be repeated below.
NP 2.
For a robe separated from one for a night or more:
Idam me
bhante civaram ratti-vippavuttham aññatra bhikkhu-sammatiya nissaggiyam.
Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe of mine, separated (from me) for a night without
authorization of the bhikkhus, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
Change civaram to dvi-civaram for two robes, and to ti-civaram for three.
Other changes, as necessary, may be inferred from the formulae for rule
#1, above. The formulae for returning the robe(s) are also given there.
NP 3.
For out-of-season robe-cloth kept more than a month:
Idam me
bhante akala-civaram masatikkantam nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This out-of-season robe-cloth of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond
a month, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you." For more than one piece
of cloth:
Imani me bhante
akala-civarani masatikkantani nissaggiyani. Imanaham
ayasmato nissajjami.
Other
changes, as necessary, may be inferred from the formulae for rule #1.
NP 6.
For a robe (robe-cloth) requested from an unrelated householder:
Idam me
bhante civaram aññatakam gahapattikam aññatra samaya viññapitam
nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe (cloth) of mine, venerable sir, requested from an
unrelated householder at other than the proper occasion, is to be
forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
For
more than one robe:
Imani
me bhante civarani aññatakam gahapattikam aññatra samaya viññapitani
nissaggiyani. Imanaham ayasmato nissajjami.
NP 7.
For a robe (robe-cloth) requested from an unrelated householder during an
allowable occasion, but beyond the allowable limit:
Idam me
bhante civaram aññatakam gahapattikam taduttarim viññapitam nissaggiyam.
Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe (cloth) of mine, requested beyond that (allowable) from
an unrelated householder, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
For
more than one robe:
Imani
me bhante civarani aññatakam gahapattikam taduttarim viññapitani
nissaggiyani. Imanaham ayasmato nissajjami.
NP 8.
For a robe (robe-cloth) received after making a stipulation to an
unrelated householder:
Idam me
bhante civaram pubbe appavarito aññatakam gahapattikam upasankamitva
civare vikappam apannam nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "Without prior invitation, I approached an unrelated householder
and made stipulations about a robe (cloth). This robe (cloth) of mine,
venerable sir, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
NP 9.
For a robe (robe-cloth) received after making stipulations to two or more
unrelated householders, use the same formula as for the preceding rule,
changing aññatakam gahapattikam to aññatake gahapattike.
NP 10.
For a robe (robe-cloth) received after reminding one's steward too many
times:
Idam me
bhante civaram atireka-tikkhattum codanaya atireka-chakkhattum thanena
abhinipphaditam nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe (cloth) of mine, venerable sir, produced after more than
three reminders, after more than six standings, is to be forfeited. I
forfeit it to you."
NP 18 &
19. The formulae for these rules are given at the beginning of this
appendix.
NP 20.
For an article received in trade:
Aham
bhante nanappakarakam kaya-vikkayam samapajjim. Idam me nissaggiyam.
Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "Venerable sir, I have engaged in various types of trade. This of
mine is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
To
return the article:
Imam
ayasmato dammi,
which
means, "I give this to you."
NP 21.
For an extra bowl kept beyond ten days:
Ayam me
bhante patto dasahatikkanto nissaggiyo. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This bowl of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond ten days, is to be
forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
To
return the bowl:
Imam
pattam ayasmato dammi.
NP 22.
The formula for this rule is given at the beginning of this appendix.
NP 23.
For any of the five tonics kept beyond seven days:
Idam me
bhante bhesajjam sattahatikkantam nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This medicine of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond seven days, is
to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
To
return the medicine:
Imam
bhesajjam ayasmato dammi.
NP 25.
For a robe (robe-cloth) snatched back in anger:
Idam me
bhante civaram bhikkhussa samam datva acchinnam nissaggiyam. Imaham
ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe (cloth) of mine, venerable sir, snatched back after I
myself gave it to a bhikkhu, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
NP 28.
For a robe (robe-cloth) offered in urgency kept beyond the robe season:
Idam
me bhante acceka-civaram civara-kala- samayam atikkamitam nissaggiyam.
Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe-cloth-offered-in-urgency of mine, venerable sir, kept
beyond the robe season, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
NP 29.
For a robe separated from one for more than six nights:
Idam me
bhante civaram atireka-cha-rattam vippavuttham aññatra bhikkhu-sammatiya
nissaggiyam. Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This robe of mine, separated (from me) for more than six nights
without authorization of the bhikkhus, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to
you." Change civaram to dvi-civaram for two robes, and to ti-civaram for
three.
NP 30.
For gains intended for the Community that one has diverted to oneself:
Idam me bhante janam
sanghikam labham parinatam attano parinamitam nissaggiyam.
Imaham ayasmato nissajjami,
which
means, "This gift, intended for the Community and knowingly diverted for
myself, is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to you."
To
return the article:
Imam
ayasmato dammi.
VII.
Pali formulae: Confession.
Six
types of offense may be expiated through confession: thullaccaya,
nissaggiya pacittiya, pacittiya, patidesaniya, dukkata, and dubbhasita.
The
formula for confessing a patidesaniya is given in the training rules
themselves:
Garayham
avuso dhammam apajjim asappayam patidesaniyam. Tam patidesemi,
which
means, "Friend, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought
to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."
The
five remaining types of offenses are confessed as follows: One arranges
one's upper robe over the left shoulder, approaches another bhikkhu,
kneels down and, with hands raised palm-to-palm in respect, repeats the
formula of confession. The bhikkhu to whom the offense is to be confessed
must be part of the Community -- i.e., he does not belong to a schismatic
faction and has not been suspended -- and he must not be guilty, without
having made confession, of the same offense that one is confessing.
If all
the bhikkhus in a particular residence are guilty of the same offense, one
of them must go to another residence to confess the offense, and then
return to let the remaining bhikkhus confess their offenses in his
presence, or one after another in the presence of those who have already
confessed. If this cannot be arranged, then on the day of the Patimokkha
recitation one of the bhikkhus should announce the fact of their common
offense in the midst of the gathering. Only then may they go ahead with
the recitation.
As
bhikkhus are to declare their purity of unconfessed offenses before
listening to the Patimokkha, a bhikkhu who listens to the Patimokkha
knowing that he has an unconfessed offense must tell one of his
neighboring bhikkhus of the offense when the recitation comes to the
relevant rule and promise that he will confess it when the recitation is
over. Otherwise, if he tells no one, he incurs a pacittiya for telling a
conscious lie.
The
Cullavagga (IV.14.30) gives a formula for confessing an offense in the
presence of another bhikkhu:
Aham avuso ittannamam
apattim apanno. Tam patidesemi,
which
means, "Friend, I have fallen into an offense of such-and-such a name. I
confess it."
The
bhikkhu acknowledging the confession says,
Passasi?
which
means, "Do you see it (the offense)?"
The
bhikkhu confessing the offense says,
Ama,
passami,
which
means, "Yes, I see it."
The
bhikkhu acknowledging the confession then says,
Ayatim
sanvareyyasi,
which
means, "You should restrain yourself in the future."
The
formula most generally used at present is expanded from this. The major
changes include a vow, made by the confessant at the end of the exchange,
that he will exercise restraint; and the inclusion of the words "many" and
"of various sorts" to qualify offense(s) in the original confession. This
latter change is to streamline the confession. Rather than confessing each
offense of a particular class separately, one gathers them into a single
statement. As one is allowed to confess more offenses than one has
actually committed, and as it is possible in some cases to commit offenses
unknowingly, the current formula has been adopted to cover such unwitting
offenses.
Since
the formula is repeated by every bhikkhu before the recitation of the
Patimokkha, the procedure has become little more than a formality. The
Vinaya Mukha thus recommends that a bhikkhu conscious of having committed
a particular offense should mention it to the other bhikkhu in their own
language before making use of the Pali formula.
If the
bhikkhu making confession is junior to the one acknowledging him, the
exchange is as follows (taking thullaccaya offenses as an example):
Confessant: Aham bhante sambahula nana-vatthukayo thullaccayayo apattiyo
apanno. Ta patidesemi.
Acknowledger: Passasi avuso?
C: Ama
bhante, passami.
A:
Ayatim avuso sanvareyyasi.
C:
Sadhu sutthu bhante sanvarissami. (Three times.)
This
last sentence means, "Very well, venerable sir, I will be restrained."
If the
bhikkhu making confession is senior to the other bhikkhu, the exchange is
as follows:
C: Aham
avuso sambahula nana-vatthukayo thullaccayayo apattiyo apanno. Ta
patidesemi.
A:
Passatha bhante?
C: Ama
avuso, passami.
A:
Ayatim bhante sanvareyyatha.
C:
Sadhu sutthu avuso sanvarissami. (Three times.)
For
other categories of offenses, change thullaccayayo to
nissaggiyayo pacittiyayo,
pacittiyayo,
dukkatayo, or
dubbhasitayo,
as the
case may be. In confessing dubbhasita offenses, drop the word nana-vatthukayo,
as there is only one rule in this class
VIII. A
pupil's duties as attendant to his mentor
As
mentioned in Chapter 2, one is required to act as one's mentor's personal
attendant if he does not already have one. There I sketched out these
duties in general terms. What follows is a translation from Mv.I.25.8-19,
which lays them out in very specific terms. Some Communities have their
members follow these duties to the letter; others have adapted them to fit
in with what they see as changes in culture and technology (e.g., bathing
practices now differ from what they were then). Even in the latter cases,
though, it is useful to have the original standards down in writing as
practical guides to mindful action in daily life and sensitivity to one's
mentor's needs, for the role of attendant is an excellent opportunity for
learning the Dhamma and Vinaya in action on a day-to-day basis. A bhikkhu
who approaches this role with the proper attitude will benefit greatly
from it, much as Ven. Ananda benefited from the care and attention he
brought to bear in attending to the Buddha.
In the
following passages, statements in parentheses are from the Commentary;
statements in brackets are my own.
Having
gotten up early,
