   
   
   
   
                             CHAPTER SEVEN
                                           
                       Part Two: The Silk Chapter
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   
       11.Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of a 
       mixture containing silk, it is to be forfeited and 
       confessed.
   
   //Santhata//, defined here as a felt blanket/rug, is a type of cloth 
   described in the texts simply by its method of manufacture:  Instead 
   of being woven, it is made by strewing threads over a smooth 
   surface, sprinkling them with a glue-like mixture made from boiled 
   rice, rolling it smooth, and then repeating the process until the 
   felt is thick and strong enough for one's purposes.  Although felt 
   made like this can be used for a number of purposes, its major use 
   in the time of the texts seems to have been as a small personal rug 
   for sitting or lying down, or as a rough blanket for wearing around 
   oneself when sick or cold.  Blanket/ rugs like this are still made 
   and used in parts of India even today, and as the no-offense clauses 
   to this and the following rules show, it is precisely to this type 
   of blanket/rug that these rules apply.
   
     There are three factors for the full offense here:
   
     1) //Object//:  a felt blanket/rug containing silk threads and 
       intended for one's own use.
     2) //Effort//:  One either makes it oneself, gets someone else to 
       make it, finishes what others have let unfinished, or gets 
       someone else to finish what one has left unfinished.
     3) //Result//:  One obtains it after it is finished (or finishes 
       it, if one is making it oneself).
   
     According to the Commentary, intention and perception are not 
   mitigating factors here.  Thus if one is making a felt blanket/rug, 
   and silk threads happen to float in on the breeze and land in the 
   felt, one commits an offense all the same.  Perhaps the Commentary's 
   interpretation here is why bhikkhus no longer use felt rugs, for 
   there is no way of knowing whether or not there are any stray silk 
   filaments in them that would make them unsuitable for use.
     
     There is a dukkata in the effort of making a blanket/rug with silk 
   mixed in it -- or in having it made -- and once it is obtained (or 
   finished, if one is making it oneself), it is to be forfeited and 
   the nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed. The procedures for 
   forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are 
   the same as in the preceding rules.  Since there is a dukkata in 
   using //any// felt blanket/rug made with silk in it, the bhikkhu 
   receiving such a rug in return after forfeiting it may use it only 
   in the ways described in the no-offense clauses.
     
     According to the Vibhanga, there is a dukkata in making a 
   blanket/rug with silk mixed in it for another's use, and a dukkata 
   in acquiring or using such a blanket/rug made for someone else.
   
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in making felt with silk mixed 
   in it to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow, 
   or a kneeling mat.
   
       Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug with silk mixed in it 
       for one's own use -- or having it made -- is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       12.Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of pure 
       black wool, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   The origin story to this rule indicates that a pure black felt 
   blanket/rug was considered stylish at that time, and thus 
   inappropriate for a bhikkhu's use.  This is a recurrent theme 
   throughout the Vinaya:  that stylish, luxurious, or elegant articles 
   are not in keeping with the bhikkhus' way of life.
   
     All other explanations for this training rule are the same as for 
   the preceding rule, simply replacing "a felt blanket/rug made with 
   silk mixed in it" with "a felt blanket made entirely of black wool."
   
       Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug entirely of black wool 
       for one's own use -- or having it made -- is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       13.When a bhikkhu is making a new felt (blanket/rug), two 
       parts of pure black wool are to be incorporated, a third 
       (part) of white, and a fourth of brown.  If a bhikkhu should 
       have a new felt (blanket/rug) made without incorporating two 
       parts of pure black wool, a third of white, and a fourth of 
       brown, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   This is a continuation of the preceding rule and its purpose is to 
   set the maximum amount of black wool a bhikkhu may include when 
   making his felt blanket/rug or having it made for his own use.  The 
   Vibhanga gives precise measures for how much black, white, and brown 
   wool one should use in making the rug, but the Commentary says that 
   these quantities are relative:  As long as black wool constitutes no 
   more than half the total amount of wool used, the bhikkhu making the 
   rug commits no offense.
   
     As in the preceding rules, there is a dukkata in acquiring and 
   using a felt blanket/rug that is more than one-half black wool no 
   matter who it is made for.  Thus if a bhikkhu makes such a rug, 
   forfeits it, and receives it in return, he may use it only in the 
   ways indicated by the no-offense clauses.
     
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga states that there is no offense if the 
   rug is more than one-quarter white wool, more than one-quarter brown 
   wool, or made entirely of white wool or of brown. The Sub-commentary 
   here reiterates that the important point is that the rug be no more 
   than one-half black wool.  There is also no offense if one is making 
   the felt -- or having it made -- for a canopy, a floor-covering, a 
   wall screen, a pillow, or a kneeling mat.
   
       Summary:  Making a felt blanket/rug that is more than 
       one-half black wool for one's own use -- or having it made 
       -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       14.When a new felt (blanket/rug) has been made by a bhikkhu, 
       it is to be kept for (at least) six years.  If after less 
       than six years he should have another new felt (blanket/rug) 
       made, regardless of whether or not he has disposed of the 
       first, then -- unless he has been authorized by the bhikkhus 
       -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
       "Now at that time bhikkhus were (each) having a new felt 
       blanket/rug made every year.  They were constantly begging, 
       constantly hinting, 'Give wool.  We need wool.'  People were 
       offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can these 
       Sakyan contemplatives have a new felt blanket/rug made every 
       year?...The felt blanket/rugs we make for ourselves last 
       five or six years, even though our children wet them and 
       soil them, and they get chewed on by rats.  But these Sakyan 
       contemplatives have a new felt blanket/rug made every year 
       and are constantly begging, constantly hinting, 'Give wool.  
       We need wool.'"
   
   There are three factors for an offense here.
   
     1) //Object//:  a new felt blanket/rug for one's own use.
     2) //Effort//:  One makes it or has it made less than six 
       //vassa// after one's last one was made, even though one has not 
       been formally authorized by the bhikkhus to do so.
     3) //Result//:  One acquires the rug when it is finished.
   
     The texts are silent on the factor of perception here, which 
   suggests that if a bhikkhu miscounts the passage of years -- making 
   a new rug when six years haven't passed even though he thinks they 
   have -- he fulfills the factor of effort all the same.
     
     According to the Vibhanga, there is a dukkata in the effort of 
   making the rug or having it made.  Once it is obtained (or finished, 
   if one is making it oneself), it is to be forfeited and the 
   nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed.  The procedures for 
   forfeiture, confession, and receiving the blanket/rug in return are 
   the same as in the preceding rules.  Since the no-offense clauses 
   allow one under these conditions to use a felt blanket/rug made for 
   someone else, it would seem that the rug here, unlike those 
   forbidden by the preceding rules, is not //ipso facto// unusable as 
   a rug.  Thus a bhikkhu who has forfeited his rug under this rule  
   should be able to use it as a blanket/rug after receiving it in 
   return.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if a bhikkhu makes a new felt 
   blanket/rug after six or more years have past; if he makes one for 
   another's use; if he uses one made for someone else; or if he makes 
   felt to use as a canopy, a floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow, 
   or a kneeling mat.
     
     Also, as the rule indicates, there is also no offense if within 
   less than six years he makes a felt blanket/rug for his own use 
   after being authorized to do so by the bhikkhus.  The Vibhanga 
   explains this by saying that the Community, if it sees fit, may 
   formally give this authorization to a bhikkhu who is too ill to do 
   without a new felt blanket/rug before his six years are up.  The 
   pattern for this formal act -- one motion and one announcement 
   (//natti-dutiya-kamma//) -- is in the Vibhanga.
   
       Summary:  Unless one has received authorization to do so 
       from the Community, making a felt blanket/rug for one's own 
       use -- or having it made -- less than six years after one's 
       last one was made is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       15. When a felt sitting rug is being made by a bhikkhu, a 
       piece of old felt a sugata span (25 cm.) on each side is to 
       be incorporated for the sake of discoloring it.  If, without 
       incorporating a piece of old felt a sugata span on each 
       side, he should have a new felt sitting rug made, it is to 
       be forfeited and confessed.
   
   A sitting cloth -- for protecting his robes from getting soiled by 
   any place where he sits down, and for protecting any place where he 
   sits down from being soiled by him -- is one of the requisites a 
   bhikkhu is allowed to have (Mv.VII.16.3).  In fact, if he goes 
   without one for more than four months, he incurs a dukkata 
   (Cv.V.18).  Pacittiya 89 gives stipulations for its size, and for 
   the fact that it should have at least one border piece.
   
     There is some question as to whether the felt sitting rug 
   described in this rule counts as a sitting cloth.  The Commentary to 
   Pacittiya 89 says yes, the Sub-commentary no, but the Vibhanga's 
   definition for sitting cloth under that rule states simply that it 
   "has a border," and since the felt sitting rug also "has a border," 
   it would seem to come under that definition, too.
     
     The Commentary to that rule describes the border piece of a felt 
   sitting rug as follows:  "Having made a felt rug, then on one end in 
   an area of one sugata span, cutting it at two points, one makes 
   three border pieces."  Whether these three pieces are to be left 
   flapping, or are to be sewn back together, it doesn't say.
     
     According to the Vibhanga, when one is making a felt sitting rug, 
   one should take a piece of old felt -- at least one span in diameter 
   or one span square -- and then either place it down in one part of 
   the new felt as is, or else shred it up and scatter the pieces 
   throughout the new felt.  This, it says, will help to strengthen the 
   new felt.
     
     //Old felt// the Vibhanga defines as worn wrapped around oneself 
   at least once:  This is one of the few places indicating that felt 
   was commonly used as a blanket.  The Commentary rewords the 
   Vibhanga's definition, saying "sat on or lied down upon at least 
   once," which -- at least in the days of the commentators -- was the 
   more common usage.  The Commentary adds that, in addition to wanting 
   to discolor the new felt sitting rug and make it stronger, one of 
   the Buddha's purposes in formulating this rule was to teach bhikkhus 
   how to make good use of old, used requisites, so as to maintain the 
   good faith of those who donated them.
     
     Offenses.  As with the previous rules, there is a dukkata for the 
   bhikkhu who makes a sitting rug -- or has one made -- that violates 
   this rule, whether it is for his own use or for that of another; and 
   a nissaggiya pacittiya offense when he acquires the rug thus made 
   for his own use (or finishes it, if he is making it himself).  The 
   procedures for forfeiture, confession, and receiving the rug in 
   return are the same as in the preceding rules.  Since the no-offense 
   clauses here, as under the preceding rule, allow one to use a felt 
   sitting rug made without old felt for the sake of another, it would 
   seem that a bhikkhu, having forfeited his rug, should be able to use 
   it as a sitting rug after receiving it in return.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, being unable to find a 
   large enough piece of old felt to provide the one-span piece, one 
   includes a smaller piece of old felt in the sitting rug; if, being 
   unable to find any old felt at all, one does not include any old 
   felt in the rug; if one makes use of a felt sitting rug made without 
   old felt for the sake of another; or if one is making a canopy, a 
   floor-covering, a wall screen, a pillow, or a kneeling mat.  It 
   seems logical that there would also be no offense for the bhikkhu 
   making a felt blanket/rug that does not have any border pieces and 
   that he is not planning to use for sitting, but for some reason none 
   of the texts mention this point.
   
       Summary:  Making a felt sitting rug for one's own use -- or 
       having it made -- without incorporating a one-span piece of 
       old felt is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       16. If wool accrues to a bhikkhu as he is going on a 
       journey, he may accept it if he so desires.  Once he accepts 
       it, he may carry it by hand -- there being no one else to 
       carry it -- three leagues (48 km.=30 miles) at most.  Should 
       he carry it farther than that, even if there is no one else 
       to carry it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
       "At that time wool accrued to a bhikkhu as he was on the 
       road in the Kosalan districts, going to Savatthi.  So, tying 
       the wool into a bundle with his upper robe, he went along 
       his way.  People who saw him teased him, 'How much did you 
       pay for it, venerable sir?  How much will the profit be?'"
   
   There are, in essence, three factors for an offense here:  object, 
   effort, and intention.
   
     Object.  //Wool//, under this rule, refers to wool that has not 
   been made into goods (%).  The Commentary explains that wool here 
   thus does not refer to woolen cloth, woolen felt, woolen yarn, or 
   even raw wool tied up with a thread, although this last point is in 
   contradiction to the origin story, where the bhikkhu carried his 
   wool tied up with a robe.
     
     The Commentary goes on to say, though, that wool here //does// 
   refer to even small quantities of "unmade" wool, such as wool placed 
   in the ear when one has an earache, or wrapped around scissors in 
   their sheath to protect them from rusting, so a bhikkhu should be 
   careful not to travel more than three leagues with such things.
     
     Effort.  This factor includes not only carrying unmade wool more 
   than three leagues oneself, but also placing it in a bundle or 
   vehicle belonging to someone else without his/her knowing about it, 
   and then letting him/her take it more than three leagues.  
   Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  If one travels more 
   than three leagues, even if one thinks one hasn't, that fulfills 
   this factor all the same.
     
     Intention.  The Vibhanga says that there is no offense for the 
   bhikkhu who, after traveling three leagues, cannot find a proper 
   place to stay and so carries his wool further until finding a proper 
   place.  Thus the offense under this rule is only for a bhikkhu who 
   carries wool past the three-league mark for reasons other than 
   looking for a place to stay.
     
     Non-offenses.  In addition to the issue of intention just 
   mentioned, the no-offense clauses say that there is no offense for 
   the bhikkhu who is retrieving lost or stolen wool; for the bhikkhu 
   who carries the wool three leagues and then carries it back; or for 
   the bhikkhu who gets someone else to carry the wool for him.
   
       Summary:  Carrying wool that has not been made into cloth or 
       yarn for more than three leagues is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       17.Should any bhikkhu have wool washed, dyed, or carded by a 
       bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and 
       confessed.
   
   The reason behind this rule is expressed succinctly in the following 
   conversation from the origin story:
   
       "Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One, and on 
       approaching, greeting him, stood to one side.  As she was 
       standing there, the Blessed One said to her, 'I trust, 
       Gotami, that the bhikkhunis remain uncomplacent, ardent, and 
       resolute?'
       
       "'Since when, Lord, is there uncomplacency among the 
       bhikkhunis?  The masters -- the group-of-six bhikkhus -- 
       keep having the bhikkhunis wash, dye, and card wool.  The 
       bhikkhunis, washing, dyeing, and carding wool, neglect...the 
       training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened 
       mind, and the training in heightened discernment.'"
   
     //Wool//, here, as in under the preceding rule, refers to wool 
   that has not been made into cloth or yarn.  Thus there is no offense 
   for a bhikkhu who gets a bhikkhuni unrelated to him to wash woolen 
   cloth or yarn that has not yet been used.
     
     Otherwise, all the explanations for this training rule are 
   identical with those for NP 4, except that here "beating" is 
   replaced by "carding."
   
       Summary:  Getting an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, dye, or 
       card wool that has not been made into cloth or yarn is a 
       nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       18. Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it 
       taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is 
       to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   As mentioned under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to 
   relieve a bhikkhu of the burden of ownership that comes as the 
   result of accepting gifts of money or having them accepted in one's 
   name.  The discourses contain passages, though, indicating other 
   purposes for this rule as well:
   
       "For whomever gold and silver are suitable, headman, the 
       five strands of sensuality are also suitable.  And for 
       whomever the five strands of sensuality are suitable, gold 
       and silver are suitable.  You may take it for certain that 
       this is not the way of a contemplative, not the way of a son 
       of the Sakyan." (S.XLII.10)
       
       "Bhikkhus, there are these four stains because of which the 
       sun and moon do not glow, do not shine, are not radiant.  
       What four?  Rain clouds...snow clouds...smoke and dust...an 
       eclipse.  In the same way, there are these four stains 
       because of which contemplatives and priests do not glow, do 
       not shine, are not radiant.  What four?  Drinking alcoholic 
       beverages...indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting 
       gold and silver...obtaining requisites through a wrong mode 
       of livelihood." (A.IV.50)
   
     Bhikkhus, in abandoning the use of money, make real their 
   abandonment of worldly pursuits and show others by example that the 
   struggle for wealth is not the true way to find happiness.
     
     The factors for an offense under this rule are two:  object and 
   effort.
   
     Object. The Vibhanga defines //gold// so that it includes anything 
   made of gold.  //Silver// it defines to cover coins made of silver, 
   copper, wood, or lac, or whatever is used as a medium of exchange in 
   business.  The Commentary adds such examples as bones, pieces of 
   hide, fruit, seeds of trees used as currency, whether they have been 
   stamped with a figure or not.  At present, the term would include 
   coins and paper currency, but not checks, credit cards, bank drafts, 
   or promissory notes, as these -- on their own and without further 
   identification of the person carrying them -- do not function as 
   true currency.
     
     The Commentary, in discussing this training rule, also gathers a 
   list of items from the Canon carrying a dukkata, rather than a 
   nissaggiya pacittiya, when accepted by a bhikkhu.  They include 
   pearls and precious stones, unhusked grain, slaves, fields, 
   orchards, and livestock.  For convenience's sake, we will refer to 
   these items from here on as dukkata objects (//dukkata-vatthu//), or 
   D.O. for short.
     
     Effort.  This factor may be fulfilled by any of three actions:
     
     1)  //Accepting//.  According to the K/Commentary, this includes 
   receiving gold or money when it is offered as a gift or picking up 
   gold or money left lying around ownerless.  (As the no-offense 
   clauses show, this factor does not cover cases where one picks up 
   money left lying around the monastery or a house where one is 
   visiting if one's purpose is to keep it in safekeeping for the 
   owner.  See Pacittiya 84.)  According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu 
   who accepts money wrapped up in a bolt of cloth would also commit an 
   offense here, which shows that this act includes receiving or taking 
   the money not only with one's body, but also with items connected 
   with the body.  Thus accepting money in an envelope or having it 
   placed in one's shoulder bag as it hangs from one's shoulder would 
   fulfill this factor as well.
     
     The Vibhanga states that perception is not a mitigating factor.  
   Thus a bhikkhu accepting an envelope that unbeknownst to him 
   contains money would fall under this factor, too.
     
     The K/Commentary adds the stipulation that in the taking there 
   must be some movement of the money from one place to another.  It 
   offers no explanation for this point, but it probably refers to 
   cases where money is forced on a bhikkhu, as when he is on alms 
   round and a lay donor, against the bhikkhu's protestations, places 
   money in his bowl.  In this case, the bhikkhu could simply stand 
   right there until he gets the donor or someone else to remove the 
   money, and he would be absolved of an offense under this rule.
     
     The commentaries add an extra factor -- the full offense is 
   entailed only if the bhikkhu is taking the money for his own sake -- 
   but there is no mention of this in the Vibhanga, so the added factor 
   does not seem warranted.  Thus whether the bhikkhu takes the money 
   for himself or for others is not an issue here.
     
     2)  //Having money accepted//,  according to the K/Commentary, 
   includes getting someone else to do any of the actions covered under 
   accepting, as described above.  Examples from the texts include such 
   things as telling the donor to give the money to a steward, telling 
   the donor that so-and-so will take the money for him, telling the 
   steward to take the money, to put it in a donation box, to "do what 
   he thinks appropriate," or any similar command.
     
     Anything that falls short of a command, though, would not fulfill 
   this factor, as we have already seen under NP 10.  Thus simply 
   telling the donor that X is the bhikkhus' steward -- or that the 
   monastery's stewards have placed a donation box in such-and-such a 
   place -- would not be a factor for an offense here.  Also, if the 
   donor leaves money, say, on a table as a gift for a bhikkhu, then if 
   the bhikkhu tells his steward what the donor did and said, without 
   telling the steward to do anything with the money -- letting the 
   steward figure things out on his/her own -- this too would not 
   entail a penalty.  The Commentary's discussion of stewards under the 
   next point shows that while a bhikkhu who tells a volunteer steward 
   to put such a donation in a donation box would incur a penalty, a 
   bhikkhu who simply points out the donation box would not.
     
     3)  //Consenting to money being deposited//.  The Vibhanga defines 
   this action as follows:  "He (the donor), saying, 'This is for the 
   master,' places it, and the bhikkhu consents." (%)  According to the 
   K/Commentary, //placing// covers two sorts of situations:
   
     (1) The donor places money anywhere in the bhikkhu's presence, and 
       says, "This is for the master;" OR
     
     (2) The donor tells him, "I have some money placed in 
       such-and-such a location.  It's yours."  (One of the implications 
       of this second case is that any monastery with a donation box 
       should make clear that money left in the box is being placed with 
       the steward.)
   
     //Consenting// in either of these cases, says the Commentary, 
   means that one does not refuse either in thought, word, or deed.  
   Refusing in thought means thinking, "This is not proper for me."  
   Refusing in word means telling the donor that such a gift is not 
   allowable.  Refusing in deed means making a gesture to the same 
   effect.  If one refuses in any of these ways -- e.g., one wants to 
   accept the money, but tells the donor that it is not allowable; or 
   one says nothing, but simply reminds oneself that such gifts are not 
   proper to accept -- one avoids the penalty here.
     
     The question of whether or not it is best to express one's refusal 
   outwardly lies beyond the scope of the Vinaya, and often depends on 
   the situation.  Ideally, one should inform the donor so that he/she 
   will know enough not to present such gifts in the future, but there 
   are also cases where the donor is still new to the idea of rules and 
   will simply be offended if the bhikkhu objects to what he/she means 
   as a well-intentioned gesture.  This is thus a matter where a 
   bhikkhu should use his discretion.
     
     The Commentary contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu should 
   do if, after he refuses such a donation, the donor goes off leaving 
   it there anyway:  If someone else comes along and asks the bhikkhu, 
   "What is this?", the bhikkhu may tell him/her what he and the donor 
   said, but may not ask him/her to do anything about it.  If the 
   person volunteers to put the money into safekeeping, the bhikkhu may 
   point out a safe place but may not tell him/her to put it there.
     
     Once the money is in a safe place, one may point it out to other 
   people -- one's steward, for instance -- but may not tell anyone to 
   take it.  The Commentary gives directions for how to arrange an 
   exchange with such money so as not to violate NP 19 & 20, but I will 
   save this part of the discussion until we come to those rules.
     
     The Vibhanga's definition of the action of "placing" money for a 
   bhikkhu indicates that in this case the question of who the money is 
   for //does// make a difference, since the nature of the donor's 
   action is defined by what he or she says.  If the donor means the 
   money for the bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu accepts, that fulfills the 
   factor here.  This covers cases where the donor says, "This is for 
   you," or "This is for you to give to X."
     
     If the donor simply says, "This is for the Community," or "This is 
   for Bhikkhu Y," and Bhikkhu X consents to its being placed down near 
   him, then according to the Commentary, X incurs a dukkata.  It does 
   not say, though, what should be done with the money, aside from the 
   fact that any bhikkhu who uses anything bought with it also incurs a 
   dukkata.  Its discussion of the following rule, though, would seem 
   to imply that it should be returned to the original donor.
     
     If money for Bhikkhu Y is placed near Bhikkhu X in this way, and Y 
   in turn accepts the donation for himself, then of course Y would 
   incur the full penalty under this rule.  The Commentary's discussion 
   under NP 10 indicates that if money for the Community is placed near 
   Bhikkhu X, the Community is said to have accepted it only when all 
   members of the Community unanimously agree to it.  If one member 
   disagrees, he saves all the other members from committing an offense 
   -- except for X, who still has his dukkata.
     
     The Commentary here also says that a bhikkhu who accepts monetary 
   donations "placed nearby" him for monastery buildings incurs a 
   dukkata as well.  This refers to cases where the donor says, "This 
   is for the Community to use in building such-and-such," and places 
   the money down next to the bhikkhu.  As the Commentary itself says 
   under NP 10,  if the donor does not mention the name of the bhikkhu 
   or the Community as custodians or recipients of the funds, the 
   donations are not to be refused.  Rather, they are to be left there 
   and the steward told of what the donor said.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  A bhikkhu who accepts money or gold, has 
   it accepted, or consents to its being placed down for him must 
   forfeit the money and confess the offense in the midst of a formal 
   meeting of the Community.  The formula for forfeiture is given in 
   Appendix VI.  This is one of the few rules where the offender may 
   not confess the offense to an individual bhikkhu or to a group of 
   less than four.  Once he has forfeited the money, the Community is 
   not to return it to him, as there is no way a bhikkhu is allowed to 
   possess money.
     
     If a lay person then comes along, the bhikkhus should tell him, 
   "Look at this."  If he asks, "What should be bought with this?", the 
   bhikkhus are not to tell him to buy anything, although they may tell 
   him what in general is allowable for bhikkhus, such as the five 
   tonics, as under NP 23 below.  If he takes the money and purchases 
   any proper items, all the bhikkhus except for the one who originally 
   accepted the money may make use of them.  If it so happens that one 
   of the bhikkhus tells him explicitly to buy something, then the 
   Commentary says that the item(s) bought this way may be used by all 
   the bhikkhus except for the original offender and the bhikkhu who 
   gave the order to buy.  If the lay person does not volunteer to buy 
   anything with the money, the bhikkhus should tell him to get rid of 
   it.
     
     If he does not get rid of it, they are to choose one of their 
   number as the "money-remover," by means of the formal act -- one 
   motion and one announcement (//natti-dutiya-kamma//) -- given in the 
   Vibhanga.  The money-remover's duty is to throw the money away 
   without taking note of where it falls.  If he does take note, he 
   incurs a dukkata.  The Commentary recommends that, "Closing his 
   eyes, he should throw it into a river, over a cliff, or into a 
   jungle thicket without paying attention to where it falls, 
   disinterested as if it were excrement."
     
     None of the texts mention what a bhikkhu is to do with dukkata 
   objects he has received, but as we shall see under the following 
   rule, the Commentary would seem to suggest that he return them to 
   their donors.
   
     Non-offenses.  As mentioned above, there is no offense for the 
   bhikkhu who, finding money lying around the monastery or in a house 
   he is visiting, puts it away in safe keeping for the owner.  This 
   point is discussed in detail under Pacittiya 84.
   
       Summary:  Taking gold or money, having someone else take it, 
       or consenting to its being placed down as a gift for oneself 
       is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       19. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of monetary 
       exchange, it (the income) is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   There are two factors for an offense here:  object and effort.
     
     Object.  The Vibhanga defines //money// in the same terms it uses 
   to define gold and silver in the preceding rule:  any type of gold, 
   whether shaped into an ornament or not; and any coins or currency 
   used in business exchange.
     
     Effort.  The Vibhanga's description of the kind of exchange 
   covered by this rule differs from that given in the Commentary, so 
   it is best to discuss them separately.
     
     //The Vibhanga's interpretation//.  Monetary exchange refers 
   primarily to the type of business and speculation a gold dealer 
   would engage in -- exchanging currency, trading gold ore for gold 
   shaped into ornaments or vice versa, trading gold ore for gold ore, 
   or gold ornaments for gold ornaments -- but the Vibhanga's 
   discussion of the factor of perception shows that the factor of 
   effort here includes any exchange in which the bhikkhu ends up with 
   gold or money as the result of the exchange.  Thus it would cover 
   cases where a bhikkhu sells any kind of item -- allowable or 
   unallowable -- for money.
     
     At first glance, this would seem redundant with the preceding rule 
   against receiving money, and the following rule against engaging in 
   trade, but actually it closes a number of loopholes in those rules.  
   In the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may point out a steward to a person 
   who brings money intended for him; and in the following rule he can, 
   if he words it right, propose a trade or tell a steward to arrange a 
   trade for him.  Thus, given just those two rules, it would be 
   possible for a bhikkhu using "proper" procedures to have his steward 
   engage in currency speculation and other money-making activities 
   without committing an offense.
     
     This rule, though, includes no such exceptions for "wording things 
   right (//kappiya-vohara//)," and so closes those loopholes as far as 
   this type of trading is concerned.  As a result, a bhikkhu may not 
   express a desire to his steward that he/she sell something belonging 
   to him or take funds dedicated for his use and invest them for 
   monetary return.  And if the bhikkhu is going abroad, he must leave 
   it up to his steward to figure out that his funds may have to be 
   exchanged for foreign currency if they are going to be of any use.
     
     //The Commentary's interpretation//.  According to the Commentary, 
   monetary exchange refers to any trade in which money is involved -- 
   whether as the item the bhikkhu brings into the trade, gets out of 
   the trade, or both.  Buddhaghosa states that this interpretation is 
   based on a passage that is not in the Vibhanga but logically should 
   be.  The Sub-commentary supports him, explaining that if monetary 
   exchange covers trades in which money forms one side of the trade, 
   it shouldn't matter which side of the trade it is on.
     
     This, however, contradicts a number of points in the Vibhanga. (1) 
   Its table of the possible actions covered by this rule includes only 
   cases where the outcome of the trade for the bhikkhu is money.  As 
   we noted in the Introduction, we have to trust that the Vibhanga 
   arrangers knew what was and was not an offense under a certain rule, 
   and that if they had meant the rule to cover more than the 
   alternatives listed in the table, they would have included them.  
   (2) In the Vibhanga's discussion of how the forfeiture is to be 
   conducted, it consistently refers to the offender as the "one who 
   purchased money" and to the bhikkhu who throws the forfeited object 
   away as the "one who removes the money."  (3) If //monetary 
   exchange// covers cases where the bhikkhu uses money to buy 
   allowable things, then the discussion of how a bhikkhu could get his 
   steward to use money rightfully placed with the steward to buy such 
   things would have been included under this rule; instead, it is 
   included under the following rule.  All of this seems to indicate 
   that the Commentary is on shaky ground when it tries to force its 
   interpretation on the Vibhanga here.
     
     Still, the Commentary's interpretation is widely followed and 
   fairly complex, so it will be good to discuss it in some detail.
     
     As under the preceding rule, the Commentary divides articles into 
   three sorts:
   
     //nissaggiya objects// (N.O.), i.e., articles such as gold and 
       money, which entail a nissaggiya pacittiya when they are 
       accepted,
     
     //dukkata objects// (D.O.), articles such as pearls, precious 
       stones, unhusked grain, fields, orchards, slaves and livestock, 
       which entail a dukkata when they are accepted;
     
     //allowable objects// (A.O.), articles that a bhikkhu may 
       rightfully accept and possess.
   
     It then works out the following scheme to cover all possible sorts 
   of trade involving these objects:
   
     Using  to buy  results in
     ~~~~~  ~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~
     N.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya
     N.O. >   D.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya
     N.O. >   A.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya
     D.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya
     D.O. >   D.O.   a dukkata*
     D.O. >   A.O.   a dukkata*
     A.O. >   N.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya
     A.O. >   D.O.   a dukkata*
     A.O. >   A.O.   a nissaggiya pacittiya under NP 20
   
     The trades marked with asterisks point out one of the anomalies of 
   the Commentary's interpretation:  Why trades involving D.O. should 
   entail only a dukkata, while A.O. > A.O. trades should entail a 
   nissaggiya pacittiya is hard to fathom.
     
     At any rate, to continue with the Commentary's explanations: N.O. 
   > A.O. trades cover two possible cases, depending on whether the 
   money was obtained properly or improperly under the preceding rule.  
   If improperly, the object bought with the money is unallowable for 
   all bhikkhus.  This holds whether the bhikkhu makes the purchase 
   himself or a steward makes it for him.  The only way the item can be 
   made allowable is to have an equal sum of money returned to the 
   original donor and the item returned to the person who sold it, and 
   then arrange for a proper exchange as allowed under the following 
   rule.  (At first glance, it may seem strange for the Commentary to 
   insist that the price of the A.O. be returned to the original donor 
   of the N.O., since the bhikkhus are in no way in his/her debt; this 
   is probably the Commentary's way of ensuring that if the seller 
   returns the purchase price of the A.O. to the  bhikkhus' steward, it 
   is not used to repurchase the A.O.)
     
     If, however, a bhikkhu engages in a N.O. > A.O. trade using money 
   obtained properly under the preceding rule, the item bought is 
   unallowable only for him, but allowable for other bhikkhus once he 
   has forfeited it.  If N.O. > A.O. exchanges really were covered by 
   this rule, though, this would contradict the Vibhanga, which insists 
   that the item obtained as a result of this rule either has to be 
   given to a lay person or thrown away.  Thus it seems better to 
   follow the Vibhanga in treating cases of this sort under the 
   following rule.
     
     The Commentary makes no mention of what should be done with items 
   resulting from trades that carry a dukkata here, but its discussion 
   of how to "undo" a trade so as to make the item allowable suggests 
   the following scheme:
   
     For a D.O > D.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person 
       who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess 
       the offense.
     For a D.O. > A.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person 
       who sold it, return the original object to the donor, and confess 
       the offense.  If one wants to, one may then approach the person 
       who sold the allowable object and arrange a proper trade in 
       accordance with the following rule.
     For an A.O. > D.O. trade:  Return the object bought to the person 
       who sold it and confess the offense.
   
     As an intellectual exercise, the Commentary considers the question 
   of a trade that results in an A.O. that can never be made allowable, 
   and comes up with the following scenario:  A bhikkhu takes money 
   improperly obtained under the preceding rule, uses it to get iron 
   mined, smelted and made into a bowl.  Since there is no way to undo 
   these transactions -- the iron can never be returned to its state as 
   ore -- there is no way any bhikkhu may ever properly make use of the 
   iron no matter what is done with it.
     
     As mentioned above, the Commentary's explanations here contradict 
   the Vibhanga on a number of points, and contain several anomalies as 
   well.  It seems preferable to treat a number of cases it mentions 
   here -- N.O. > D.O., N.O. > A.O., D.O. > D.O., D.O. > A.O., A.O. > 
   D.O., or in other words, any trade resulting in an allowable or a 
   dukkata object -- under the following rule instead.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  When a bhikkhu has obtained gold or 
   money in violation of this rule he is to forfeit it in the midst of 
   a formal meeting of the Community, following the procedures 
   explained under the preceding rule.  The Pali formula for forfeiture 
   is in Appendix VI.
     
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga's no-offense clauses contain nothing 
   but the blanket exemptions mentioned under Parajika 1.
     
       Summary:  Obtaining gold or money through trade is a 
       nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       20. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of trade, 
       (the article obtained) is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
       "Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had become 
       skilled at robe making.  Having made an outer robe of old 
       rags, having dyed it well and stitched it nicely, he wore 
       it.  A certain wanderer, wearing a very expensive cloak, 
       went to where he was staying and on arrival said to him, 
       'Your outer robe is beautiful, my friend.  Give it to me in 
       exchange for this cloak.'
       
       "'Do you know (what you are doing), my friend?'
       
       "'Yes, I know.'
       
       "'Very well, then.' And he gave him the robe.
       
       "Then the wanderer went to the wanderers' park wearing the 
       outer robe.  The other wanderers said to him, 'Your outer 
       robe is beautiful, friend.  Where did you get it?'
       
       "'I got it in exchange for my cloak.'
       
       "'But how long will this outer robe last you?  That cloak of 
       yours was better.'
       
       "So the wanderer, thinking, 'It's true what the wanderers 
       said.  How long will this outer robe last me?  That cloak of 
       mine was better,' went to where Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was 
       staying, and on arrival said, 'Here is your outer robe, my 
       friend.  Give me my cloak.'
       
       "'But didn't I ask you, "Do you know what you are doing?"  I 
       won't give it to you.'
       
       "So the wanderer was offended and annoyed and spread it 
       about, 'Even a householder will give another householder the 
       item he regrets (trading).  How can one who has gone forth 
       not give (extend the same courtesy) to one who has gone 
       forth?'"
   
   As we noted under NP 10, one of the purposes of this rule is to 
   relieve bhikkhus of the responsibilities that come with making 
   trades -- the responsibility of having to get a fair price for one's 
   goods and at the same time offering a fair deal to the person making 
   the trade.
   
     The factors for an offense here are two:  object and effort.
     
     Object.  The Vibhanga defines //various types of trade// as 
   covering deals involving the four requisites, "even a lump of 
   powder, a tooth-cleaner or unwoven thread" -- these being its 
   standard examples of objects with the least possible material value.  
   The Commentary interprets this as limiting this rule to deals 
   involving nothing but allowable objects (A.O. > A.O.), but there is 
   nothing in the Vibhanga to suggest that this is necessarily so.  The 
   emphasis in the Vibhanga seems to be that this rule covers even 
   allowable objects of the least possible value, and all the more so 
   more valuable and restricted objects.  In fact, since the Vibhanga 
   explicitly limits the preceding rule to trades that result in money 
   for the bhikkhu (N.O. > N.O.; D.O. > N.O.; A.O. > N.O.), it seems 
   best to interpret this rule as covering all types of trade not 
   covered in that rule:
   
     N.O. > D.O.; N.O. > A.O.;
     D.O. > D.O.; D.O. > A.O.;
     A.O. > D.O.; and A.O. > A.O.
   
     The Vibhanga and commentaries also mention that the goods one 
   offers in trade are one's own goods, but they do not mention 
   explicitly whether or not this also includes goods belonging to 
   someone else that have been placed on trust in one's keeping (such 
   as monastery funds placed under the supervision of a monastery 
   official).  Since the no-offense clauses make no exemptions for a 
   bhikkhu who trades using goods received on trust from someone else, 
   though, it would seem that such cases do fall under this rule as 
   well.
     
     Effort.  //Engaging in trading//, according to the Vibhanga, 
   involves two steps:
   
     (1) The bhikkhu proposes an exchange, saying, "Give this for 
       that," or "Take this for that," or "Exchange this for that," or 
       "Purchase this with that."
     
     (2)  The goods exchange hands, the bhikkhu's goods ending up with 
       the other person, and the other person's goods ending up with the 
       bhikkhu.
   
     The first step entails a dukkata; both steps together, a 
   nissaggiya pacittiya.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  
   If a bhikkhu manages an exchange in a way that he thinks avoids a 
   penalty under this rule but in fact doesn't (see below), he commits 
   the full offense all the same.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  Once a bhikkhu has received an article 
   from trading, he is to forfeit it either to an individual bhikkhu, 
   to a group of two or three, or to a full Community of four or more.  
   Only then may he confess the offense.  The procedures for 
   forfeiture, confession, and the return of the article are the same 
   as under NP 1.  The Pali formula for forfeiture is in Appendix VI.  
   The Vibhanga makes no mention of what the bhikkhu may and may not do 
   with after receiving it in return, but we may borrow a page from the 
   Commentary's discussion of the preceding rule and say that:
     
     //If the exchange was N.O. > D.O.//, he should return the D.O. to 
       its seller.  If the N.O. was properly obtained under NP 18, there 
       is nothing further to be done.  If not, the bhikkhu should 
       confess the offense for violating that rule.  (If he accepts the 
       purchase price in return, he must forfeit it in the midst of the 
       Community.  If not, he should simply confess the pacittiya 
       offense.)
     
     //If the exchange was N.O. > A.O.//, then if the N.O. was obtained 
       in violation of NP 18, no bhikkhu may make use of the A.O. unless 
       it is returned to the seller, the price of the article is turned 
       over to the original donor of the money, and the A.O. is then 
       repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.  (Again, if 
       the seller refunds the purchase price, the offender should 
       forfeit it in the midst of the Community.  If not, he should 
       simply confess the pacittiya offense.)
     
     //If the N.O. in this case was properly obtained//, then the 
       purchased article is allowable for other bhikkhus, but not for 
       the offender.  (Some might object that if the N.O. was properly 
       obtained it should be treated as A.O., but we must remember that 
       a bhikkhu who orders his steward to use money to buy an object is 
       assuming ownership of the money, which goes against the spirit of 
       NP 18 and the protocol of having a steward in the first place.)
     
     //If the exchange was D.O. > D.O.//, the bhikkhu should return the 
       purchased article to the seller and the original article (if the 
       seller returns it to him) to the original donor.
     
     //If the exchange was D.O. > A.O.//, the purchased article is not 
       allowable for any bhikkhu unless it is returned to the seller, 
       the D.O. is returned to the original donor, and the A.O. is then 
       repurchased in a way that does not violate this rule.
     
     //If the exchange was A.O. > D.O.//, the bhikkhu should return the 
       purchased article to the seller.
     
     //If the exchange was A.O. > A.O.//, the bhikkhu may make use of 
       the article as he likes.
     
     //If the exchange was wages in payment for services rendered//, 
       the Commentary notes that there is no way the bhikkhu can 
       rightfully get the payment back, so he should simply confess a 
       pacittiya offense.
   
     Non-offenses.  In the origin story to NP 5, the Buddha allows 
   bhikkhus to trade allowable articles with other bhikkhus, 
   bhikkhunis, female probationers, and male or female novices.  The 
   present rule thus covers trades made only with people who are not 
   one's co-religionists.
     
     As for trades with people who are not one's co-religionists, the 
   Vibhanga here adds that a bhikkhu commits no offense --
   
     if he asks the price of an object;
     if he tells a steward (wording the request properly, as under NP 
       10);
     or if he tells the seller, "I have this.  I have need of 
       such-and-such," and then lets the seller arrange the exchange as 
       he/she sees fit.
   
     This last point may seem like a lot of hair splitting, but we must 
   remember that if a trade is arranged in this way, the bhikkhu is 
   absolved from any responsibility for the fairness of the deal, which 
   seems to be the whole point of the rule.
   
     The Commentary, in discussing these exemptions, raises the 
   following points:
   
     1)  A bhikkhu who tries to avoid the technicalities of what is 
       defined as engaging in trading by saying simply, "Give this.  
       Take that," may do so only with his close relatives.  Otherwise, 
       telling a lay person to take one's belongings as his/her own is a 
       "theft of faith" (//saddha-deyya//) -- i.e., a misuse of the 
       donations that lay supporters have sacrificed for the bhikkhu's 
       use.  (See Mv.VIII.22.1)  On the other hand, telling an unrelated 
       lay person to give something is a form of begging, which carries 
       a dukkata unless the lay person is related or has invited one to 
       ask in the first place.  (From this we may deduce that bhikkhus 
       should not bargain after having asked the price of goods or 
       services -- e.g., a taxi fare -- even in situations where 
       bargaining is the norm.)
     
     2)  A bhikkhu desiring to get an article may tell his steward, 
       "Having taken that, give (the seller) this."  This, however, 
       contradicts other passages in the Commentary itself, in which 
       this form of speech is said to violate this rule when spoken 
       directly to the seller.  Since the Vibhanga includes orders to X 
       to purchase an item as coming under this rule, it would seem that 
       only the forms of speech allowed under NP 10 -- "I have need of 
       such-and-such;" "I want such-and-such" -- would be allowed under 
       the no-offense clauses here as well.
     
     3)  Under the previous rule, the Commentary mentioned that a 
       bhikkhu engaging in an otherwise allowable trade for profit 
       incurs a dukkata.  Here it says that if a bhikkhu, proposing a 
       trade by wording it right (//kappiya-vohara//), deceives the 
       seller as to the value of his goods, he is to be treated under 
       Parajika 2.
     
     4)  If a bhikkhu goes with his steward to a store and sees that 
       the steward is getting a bad deal, he may simply tell the 
       steward, "Don't take it."
     
     5)  The Commentary to NP 10 describes how a bhikkhu may make a 
       purchase when his steward has left funds in safe-keeping on the 
       bhikkhu's premises but is not around to arrange a trade when, 
       say, a bowl-seller comes along.  The bhikkhu may tell the seller, 
       "I want this bowl, and there are funds of equal value here, but 
       there is no steward to make them allowable."  If the  seller 
       volunteers to make them allowable, the bhikkhu may show him where 
       they are but may not tell him how much to take.  If the seller 
       takes too much, the bhikkhu may cancel the sale by saying, "I 
       don't want your bowl after all."
   
     In general it is not a wise policy to have funds left for 
   safe-keeping on one's premises -- a Community allowing this exposes 
   itself to the dangers of robbery and assault -- but the Commentary 
   here seems less interested in describing ideal behavior than in 
   simply drawing the line between what is and is not an offense.
     
     Special cases.  1) The Bhikkhunis' Nissaggiya Pacittiya rules 4-10 
   show that if a lay donor gives money to a store owner to pay for 
   whatever a bhikkhuni will request from the store, the bhikkhuni may 
   avail herself of the arrangement.  If the donor stipulates that this 
   arrangement applies only to certain things, or to things worth a 
   certain amount, she may request only what falls under the 
   stipulation:  This is the point of the rules.  In effect, what this 
   is doing is making the storeowner her steward.  Such an arrangement 
   would thus also seem allowable for bhikkhus, as long as they word 
   their requests to the store owner properly, as advised under NP 10.
     
     2)  As mentioned under NP 18, checks, credit cards, bank drafts, 
   and traveler's checks do not count as gold or money, but any trade 
   arranged with them would come under this rule.  With checks, the 
   point where the full offense is committed is when the bhikkhu hands 
   the check over to the seller -- or tells his steward to hand it over 
   -- in exchange for goods or services.  Simply signing a check does 
   not come under this rule.  Thus a bhikkhu responsible for monastery 
   building funds of the sort discussed in the Commentary to NP 10 -- 
   where the donor makes the bhikkhu(s) responsible for saying who 
   money should go to -- may sign checks drawing on the fund without 
   committing an offense here, unless he hands the check over to the 
   seller or tells the steward, "Use this to buy X."
     
     Similarly with credit cards:  The offense is committed when the 
   bhikkhu hands the signed credit card receipt -- or has it handed -- 
   to the seller.  The receipt is an acknowledgement of goods purchased 
   or services rendered, which in the context of the card holder's 
   agreement with the credit card company is his promise to repay the 
   loan he is making on the company.  This promise is what he is 
   trading with the seller.
   
       Summary:  Engaging in trade with anyone except one's 
       co-religionists is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
                            * * * * * * * *
