   
   
   
   
                              CHAPTER SEVEN
                                           
                       Part Three: The Bowl Chapter
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                           
   
       21. An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most.  Beyond 
       that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   Alms bowls.  This rule deals only with alms bowls that are fit to be 
   determined for use.  According to the Commentary, this means any 
   that are -- 
   
     1) made of the proper material;
     2) the proper size;
     3) fully paid for;
     4) properly fired; and
     5) not damaged beyond repair.
   
     //Material//.  In the Cullavagga (V.8.2 & V.9.1), the Buddha 
   allows two kinds of alms bowls -- made of clay and made of iron -- 
   and forbids eleven:  made either of wood, gold, silver, pearl, 
   beryl, crystal, bronze, glass, tin, lead, or copper.  Using the 
   Great Standards, it has recently been decided that stainless steel 
   bowls are allowable, but aluminum bowls not.  In the time of the 
   Buddha, clay bowls were the more common.  At present, iron and steel 
   bowls are.  
     
     //Size//.  The Vibhanga contains a discussion of three proper 
   sizes for a bowl -- the medium size containing twice the volume of 
   the small, and the large twice the volume of the medium -- but they 
   are based on measurements that are not known with any precision at 
   present.  The author of the Vinaya Mukha reports having experimented 
   with various sizes of bowls based on a passage in the story of 
   Mendaka in the Dhammapada Commentary.  His conclusion:  A small bowl 
   is just a little larger than a human skull, and a medium bowl 
   approximately 27 1/2 English inches (70 cm.) in circumference, or 
   about 8.75 inches (22.5 cm.) in diameter. He did not try making a 
   large bowl.  Any size larger than the large size or smaller than the 
   small is inappropriate; any size between them falls under this rule.
     
     //Fully paid for//.  According to the Commentary, if a bowl-maker 
   makes a gift of a bowl, it counts as fully paid for.  If a bowl has 
   been delivered to a bhikkhu but has yet to be fully paid for, it may 
   not be determined and does not come under this rule until paid for 
   in full.
     
     //Fired//.  The Commentary states that a clay bowl must be fired 
   twice before it can be determined, to make sure it is properly 
   hardened; and an iron bowl five times, to prevent it from rusting.  
   Since stainless steel does not rust it need not be fired, but the 
   accepted practice is to find some way to make it gray -- either by 
   painting it on the outside or firing the whole bowl with leaves that 
   will give it a smoky color -- so that it will not stand out. 
     
     //Not damaged beyond repair//.  According to the Commentary, a 
   clay bowl is damaged beyond repair if it has at least ten inches 
   (fingerbreadths) of cracks in it, the smallest of the cracks being 
   at least two inches long.  (Cracks less than two inches long are 
   said not to merit mending, and so do not count.)  If a bowl has 
   fewer cracks than that, they should be mended either with tin wire, 
   sap (but for some reason not pure pine sap), or a mixture of sugar 
   cane syrup and powdered stone.  Other materials not to be used for 
   repair are beeswax and sealing wax.  If the total number of 
   countable cracks equals ten inches or more, the bowl becomes a 
   non-bowl, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new one.
     
     As for iron and steel bowls, a hole in the bowl large enough to 
   let a millet grain pass through is enough to make the determination 
   lapse, but not enough to make the bowl a non-bowl.  The bhikkhu 
   should plug the hole -- or have a blacksmith plug it -- with 
   powdered metal or a tiny metal plug polished smooth with the surface 
   of the bowl and then redetermine the bowl for use.  
     
     If the hole is small enough to be plugged in this way, then no 
   matter how many such holes there are in the bowl, they do not make 
   it a non-bowl, and the bhikkhu should mend it and continue using it.  
   If, however, there is even one hole so large that the metal used to 
   plug it cannot be polished smooth with the surface of the rest of 
   the bowl, the tiny crevices in the patch will collect food.  This 
   makes it unfit for use, and the owner is entitled to ask for a new 
   one to replace it.
     
     An extra alms bowl, according to the Vibhanga, is any that has not 
   yet been determined for use or placed under shared ownership.  Since 
   a bhikkhu may have only one bowl determined for use at any one time, 
   he should place any additional bowls he receives under dual 
   ownership if he plans to keep them on hand.  (The procedures for 
   placing bowls under determination and dual ownership, and for 
   rescinding their determination and dual ownership, are given in 
   Appendices IV & V.)  
     
     Effort.  According to the Commentary, once a bowl belonging to a 
   bhikkhu fulfills all the requirements for a determinable bowl, he is 
   responsible for it even if he has not yet received it into his 
   keeping.  For example, if a blacksmith promises to make him a bowl 
   and send word when it is finished, the bhikkhu is responsible for 
   the bowl as soon as he hears word from the blacksmith's messenger 
   that the bowl is ready, even if he has yet to receive it.  If the 
   blacksmith, prior to making the bowl, promises to send it when it is 
   done, then the bhikkhu is not responsible for it until the 
   blacksmith's messenger brings it to him.  (All of this assumes that 
   the bowl is already fully paid for.) 
     
     If, within ten days after becoming responsible for a new bowl, a 
   bhikkhu does not determine it for use, place it under dual 
   ownership, abandon it (give it or throw it away), or if the bowl is 
   not lost, stolen, damaged beyond repair, or taken on trust, then on 
   the tenth dawn after receiving it he incurs the full penalty under 
   this rule.  
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if the bhikkhu 
   thinks that ten days have not passed when they have, or if he thinks 
   that the bowl is damaged beyond repair or placed under dual 
   ownership, etc., when it isn't, he incurs the penalty all the same.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  The procedures for forfeiture, 
   confession, and return of the bowl are the same as under NP 1.  For 
   the Pali formulae to use in forfeiting and returning the bowl, see 
   Appendix VI.  As with the rules concerning robe-cloth, the bowl must 
   be returned to the offender after he has confessed his offense.  Not 
   to return it entails a dukkata.  Once the bowl is returned, the 
   ten-day countdown starts all over again.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if within ten days the bhikkhu 
   determines the bowl for use, places it under dual ownership, 
   abandons it, loses it, or if the bowl is stolen, damaged beyond 
   repair, or taken on trust.
   
       Summary:  Keeping an alms bowl for more than ten days 
       without determining it for use or placing it under dual 
       ownership is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       22. Should a bhikkhu with an alms bowl having less than five 
       mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and 
       confessed.  The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to 
       the company of bhikkhus.  That company of bhikkhus' final 
       bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) "This, 
       bhikkhu, is your bowl.  It is to be kept until broken."  
       This is the proper procedure here.
   
       "Now at that time a certain potter had invited the bhikkhus, 
       saying, 'If any of the masters need a bowl, I will supply 
       them with bowls.'  So the bhikkhus, knowing no moderation, 
       asked for many bowls.  Those with small bowls asked for 
       large ones.  Those with large ones asked for small ones.  
       The potter, making many bowls for the bhikkhus, could not 
       make other goods for sale.  (As a result,) he could not 
       support himself, and his wife and children suffered."
   
   According to the Commentary, the phrase, a bowl "having less than 
   five mends" refers to one that is not beyond repair, as explained 
   under the preceding rule.  Thus this rule does not apply to a 
   bhikkhu whose bowl is beyond repair:  As the K/Commentary notes, 
   whether or not the damage in his bowl is actually mended is not an 
   issue here.
   
     A bhikkhu whose bowl is not beyond repair incurs a dukkata in 
   asking for a new bowl, and a nissaggiya pacittiya in receiving it.
     
     Forfeiture, confession, & bowl exchange.  Once a bhikkhu has 
   received a bowl in violation of this rule, he must forfeit it and 
   confess the offense in the midst of the Community.  (See Appendix VI 
   for the Pali formula used in forfeiture.)  He then receives the 
   Community's "final bowl" to use in place of the new one he has 
   forfeited.
     
     The Community's final bowl is selected in the following way:  Each 
   bhikkhu coming to the meeting to witness the offender's forfeiture 
   and confession must bring the bowl he has determined for his own 
   use.  If a bhikkhu has an inferior bowl in his possession -- either 
   extra or placed under dual ownership -- he is not to determine that 
   bowl and take it to the meeting in hopes of getting a more valuable 
   one in the exchange about to take place.  To do so entails a 
   dukkata.  
     
     Once the bhikkhus have assembled, the offender forfeits his bowl 
   and confesses the offense.  The Community, following the pattern of 
   one motion and one announcement (//natti-dutiya-kamma//) given in 
   the Vibhanga, then chooses one of its members as bowl exchanger.  
   The bowl exchanger's duty is to take the forfeited bowl and show it 
   to the most senior bhikkhu, who is to choose whichever of the two 
   bowls pleases him more -- his own or the new one.  If the new bowl 
   is preferable to his own, and yet he does not take it out of 
   sympathy for the offender, he incurs a dukkata.  The K/Commentary 
   and Sub-commentary add that if he does not prefer the new bowl, 
   there is no offense in not taking it.  
     
     Once the most senior bhikkhu has taken his choice, the remaining 
   bowl is then shown to the bhikkhu second in seniority, who repeats 
   the process, and so on down the line to the most junior bhikkhu.  
   The bowl exchanger then takes the bowl left over from this last 
   bhikkhu's choice -- the least desirable bowl belonging to that 
   company of bhikkhus -- and presents it to the offender and tells him 
   to determine it for his use and care for it as best he can.  
     
     If the offender treats it improperly -- putting in a place where 
   it might get damaged, using it in the wrong sort of way -- or tries 
   to get rid of it, thinking, "How can this bowl be lost or destroyed 
   or broken," he incurs a dukkata.
     
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga states that a bhikkhu whose bowl is 
   not beyond repair incurs no penalty if he asks for a new bowl from 
   relatives or from people who have invited him to ask, or if he gets 
   a new bowl with his own resources.  He is also allowed to ask for a 
   bowl for the sake of another, which -- following the Commentary to 
   NP 6 -- means that Bhikkhu X may ask for a bowl for Y only if he 
   asks from his own relatives or people who have invited him to ask 
   for a bowl OR if he asks from Y's relatives or people who have 
   invited Y to ask.  Asking for and receiving a bowl for Y from people 
   other than these would entail the full offense.
   
       Summary:  Asking for a new alms bowl when one's current bowl 
       is not beyond repair is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       23.There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus:  
       ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses.  Having been 
       received, they are to be used from storage seven days at 
       most.  Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   Tonics.  The five tonics mentioned in this rule form one of four 
   classes of edibles grouped according to the time period within which 
   they may be eaten after being received.  The other three -- food, 
   juice drinks, and medicines -- are discussed in detail at the 
   beginning of the Food Chapter in the pacittiya rules.  Here is the 
   story of how this group came to be a special class:
   
       "Then as the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this line 
       of reasoning occurred to him:  'At present the bhikkhus, 
       afflicted by the autumn disease, bring up the conjey they 
       have drunk and the food they have eaten.  Because of this 
       they are thin, wretched, unattractive, and jaundiced, their 
       bodies covered with veins.  What if I were to allow medicine 
       for them that would be both medicine and agreed to be 
       medicine for the world, and serve as food, yet would not be 
       considered gross (substantial) food.'
   
       "Then this thought occurred to him:  'There are these five 
       tonics -- ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses -- 
       that are both medicine and agreed to be medicine for the 
       world, and serve as food yet would not be considered gross 
       food.  What if I were now to allow the bhikkhus, having 
       accepted them at the right time (from dawn to noon), to 
       consume them at the right time'....
       
       "Now at that time bhikkhus, having accepted the five tonics 
       at the right time, consumed them at the right time.  Because 
       of this they could not stomach even their ordinary coarse 
       meals, much less greasy ones.  As a result, afflicted both 
       by the autumn disease and this loss of appetite for food, 
       they became even more thin and wretched....So the Blessed 
       One, for this cause, for this reason, having given a Dhamma 
       talk, addressed the bhikkhus:  'I allow you, bhikkhus, 
       having accepted the five tonics, to consume them both at the 
       right time and at the wrong time (from noon to dawn).'"  
       (Mv.VI.1)
       
   The Vibhanga defines the five tonics as follows:
   
     //Ghee// means strained, boiled butter oil made from the milk of 
   any animal whose flesh is allowable for bhikkhus to eat (see the 
   introduction to the Food Chapter in the pacittiya rules).
     
     //Fresh butter// must be made from the milk of any animal whose 
   flesh is allowable.  None of the Vinaya texts go into detail on how 
   fresh butter is made, but the Bhumija Discourse (M.126) describes 
   the process as "having sprinkled curds in a pot, one twirls them 
   with a churn."  Fresh butter of this sort is still made in India 
   today by taking a small churn -- looking like an orange with 
   alternate sections removed, attached to a small stick -- and 
   twirling it in curds, all the while sprinkling them with water.  The 
   fresh butter -- mostly milk fat plus some milk solids -- coagulates 
   on the churn, and when the fresh butter is removed, what is left in 
   the pot is diluted buttermilk.  Fresh butter, unlike creamery butter 
   made by churning cream, may be stored unrefrigerated in bottles for 
   several days even in the heat of India without going rancid.
     
     Arguing by the Great Standards, creamery butter would obviously 
   come under fresh butter here.  A more controversial topic is cheese.
     
     In Mahavagga VI.34.21, the Buddha allows bhikkhus to consume five 
   products of the cow:  milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and 
   ghee.  Apparently, cheese -- curds heated to evaporate their liquid 
   content and then cured with or without mold -- was not known in 
   those days, but it seems proper to include it under one of the five.  
   The question is which one.  Some have argued that it should come 
   under fresh butter, since the composition is similar -- milk fat and 
   solids derived from curds.  Others have argued that it should come 
   under curds, as it generally regarded to be more of a gross food.  
   Since the texts give no guidance here, the best policy would seem to 
   be to follow the views of the Community to which one belongs.
     
     //Oil//, according to the Vibhanga, includes sesame oil, mustard 
   seed oil, "honey tree" oil, castor oil, and oil from tallow.  The 
   Mahavagga (VI.2.1) allows oil made from five kinds of tallow:  bear, 
   fish, alligator (shark?), pig, and donkey tallow.  Since bear meat 
   is one of the kinds normally unallowable for bhikkhus, the 
   Sub-commentary interprets this list as meaning oil from the tallow 
   of any animal whose flesh is allowable -- and from any animal whose 
   flesh, if eaten, carries a dukkata -- is allowable here.  Since 
   human flesh, if eaten, carries a thullaccaya, oil from human fat is 
   not allowed.  The Commentary adds that oil made from any plants not 
   listed in the Vibhanga carries a dukkata if kept more than seven 
   days.
     
     //Honey// means the honey of bees, although the Commentary lists 
   two species of bee -- //cirika//, long and with wings, and 
   //tumbala//, large, black and with hard wings -- whose honey it says 
   is very viscous and ranks as a medicine, not as one of the five 
   tonics.
     
     //Sugar/molasses// the Vibhanga defines simply as essence of sugar 
   cane.  The Commentary interprets this as meaning not only sugar and 
   molasses, but also fresh sugar cane juice.  The Vinaya Mukha 
   disagrees here, saying that sugar cane juice, if kept overnight, can 
   quickly turn into alcohol and so should be classed as a juice drink.  
   The Commentary also says that sugar or molasses made from any fruit 
   classed as a food -- e.g., coconut, date palm, sugar beet, etc. -- 
   ranks as a food and not as a tonic, but it is hard to guess at its 
   reasoning here, since sugar cane itself is also classed as a food.  
   The Vinaya Mukha seems more correct in using the Great Standards to 
   say that all forms of sugar and molasses, no matter what the source, 
   would be included here.  Thus artificial sweeteners would also come 
   under this rule.
     
     According to Mv.VI.16.1, even if the sugar has a little flour 
   mixed in with it simply to make it firmer -- as sometimes happens in 
   sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar -- it is still classed as a 
   tonic as long as it is still regarded simply as "sugar."  If there 
   is enough flour mixed in so that people are conscious of the flour's 
   being there, or if the flour is meant to serve more than simply as a 
   firming agent, the mixture counts as a food and may not be eaten 
   after noon of the day on which it is received.  
     
     Proper use.  According to Mv.VI.40.3, any tonic received today may 
   be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but not 
   with food or juice drinks received on a later day.  Thus, as the 
   Commentary points out, tonics received in the morning may be eaten 
   with food that morning; if received in the afternoon, they may not 
   be eaten mixed with food at any time at all.  
     
     Also, the Commentary says at one point, one may take the tonic at 
   any time during those seven days regardless of whether or not one is 
   ill.  At another point, though, it says that one may take the tonic 
   after the morning of the day on which it is received only if one has 
   a reason.  This statement the Sub-commentary explains as meaning 
   that any reason suffices -- e.g., hunger, weakness -- as long as one 
   is not taking the tonic for nourishment as food.  In other words, 
   one may take enough to assuage one's hunger, but not to fill oneself 
   up.
     
     Mv.VI.27, though, contains a special stipulation for the use of 
   sugar.  If one is ill, one may take it "as is" at any time during 
   the seven days; if not, then after noon of the first day one make 
   take it only if it is mixed with water.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  If a bhikkhu keeps a tonic past the 
   seventh dawn after receiving it, he is to forfeit it and confess the 
   nissaggiya pacittiya offense.  Perception is not a mitigating factor 
   here.  Even if he thinks that seven days have not yet passed when 
   they actually have -- or thinks that the tonic is no longer in his 
   possession when it actually is -- he incurs the penalty all the same 
   (%).
     
     The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the tonic 
   are the same as under NP 1.  The formula to use in forfeiting the 
   tonic is given in Appendix VI.  Once the bhikkhu receives the tonic 
   in return, he may not use it to eat or to apply to his body, 
   although he may use it for other external purposes, such as oil for 
   a lamp, etc.  Other bhikkhus may not eat the tonic either, but they 
   may apply it to their bodies -- for example, as oil to rub down 
   their limbs.
     
     Non-offenses.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if 
   within seven days the tonic gets lost, destroyed, burnt, stolen, or 
   taken on trust; or if the bhikkhu determines it for use, abandons it 
   or -- having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning 
   possession of it in his mind -- he receives it in return and makes 
   use of it (%).
     
     The Commentary has an extended discussion of the last three 
   points.
     
     1)  Determining the tonic for use means that, within the seven 
   days, the bhikkhu determines that he will use it not as a medicine, 
   but only to apply to the outside of his body or for other external 
   purposes instead.  In this case, he may keep the tonic as long as he 
   likes without penalty.
     
     2)  Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept X 
   number of days, the no-offense clauses here do not include 
   exemptions for tonics placed under dual ownership, but the 
   Commentary discusses "abandons it" as if it read "places it under 
   dual ownership."  Its verdict:  Any tonic placed under dual 
   ownership may be kept for more than seven days without incurring a 
   penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, but 
   after the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes.  
   The Sub-commentary adds that any tonic placed under dual ownership 
   may not be used at all until the arrangement is rescinded.
     
     3)  The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya 
   experts on the meaning of the last exemption in the list -- i.e., 
   "having given it away to an unordained person, abandoning possession 
   of it in his mind, he receives it in return and makes use of it."  
   Ven. Maha Sumatthera states that the phrase, "if within seven days" 
   applies here as well:  If within seven days the bhikkhu gives the 
   tonic to an unordained person, having abandoned possession of it in 
   his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for another seven days 
   if the unordained person happens to return it to him.
     
     Ven. Maha Padumathera disagrees, saying that the exemption 
   "abandons it" already covers such a case, and that the exemption 
   here refers to the situation where a bhikkhu has kept a tonic past 
   seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return, and then 
   gives it up to an unordained person.  If the unordained person then 
   returns the tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body.
     
     The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates 
   some problems, both textual and practical.  To begin with, the 
   phrase, "if within seven days," modifies every one of the other 
   no-offense clauses, and there is nothing to indicate that it does 
   not modify this one, too.  Secondly, every one of the other 
   exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense, and 
   not to ways of dealing with the forfeited article after it is 
   returned, and again there is nothing to indicate that the last 
   exemption breaks this pattern.   
     
     On the practical side, if the exemption "abandons it" covers cases 
   where a bhikkhu may give up the tonic to anyone at all and then 
   receive it in return to use for another seven days, bhikkhus could 
   spend their time trading hoards of tonics among themselves 
   indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless.  But as the 
   origin story shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing 
   such hoards that the rule was formulated in the first place.
   
       "Then Ven. Pilindavaccha approached the residence of King 
       Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, and on arrival sat down on an 
       appointed seat.  Then King Seniya Bimbisara... approached 
       Ven. Pilindavaccha and, paying homage, sat down to one side.  
       As he sat there, Ven. Pilindavaccha addressed him:  'For 
       what reason, great king, has the monastery attendant's 
       family been imprisoned?'
       
       "'Sir, in the monastery attendant's house was a garland of 
       gold:  beautiful, attractive, exquisite.  There is no 
       garland of gold like it even in our own women's quarters.  
       From where could he have gotten it?  It must have been 
       stolen.'
       
       "Then Ven. Pilindavaccha willed that the palace of King 
       Seniya Bimbisara be gold.  And it became made entirely of 
       gold.  'But from where did you get so much gold, great 
       king?'
       
       "(Saying,) 'I understand, sir.  This is simply the master's 
       psychic power,' he had the monastery attendant's family 
       released.  
       
       "The people, saying, 'The master Pilindavaccha displayed a 
       psychic wonder, a superior human feat, to the king and his 
       retinue,' were gladdened and delighted.  They presented Ven. 
       Pilindavaccha with the five tonics:  ghee, fresh butter, 
       oil, honey, and sugar.  
       
       "Now ordinarily Ven. Pilindavaccha was already a receiver of 
       the five tonics, so he distributed his gains among his 
       company, who came to live in abundance.  They put away their 
       gains having filled pots and pitchers.  They hung up their 
       gains having filled water strainers and bags.  These kept 
       oozing and seeping, and their dwellings were crawling and 
       creeping with rats.  People, engaged in a tour of the 
       dwellings, having seen this, were offended and annoyed and 
       spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives have inner 
       store rooms like the king....'"
   
     Thus it seems more likely that the Vibhanga's no-offense clauses 
   should be interpreted like this:  A bhikkhu is no longer held 
   responsible for a tonic if he abandons it or gives it away -- no 
   matter who he gives it to, or what his state of mind -- but he may 
   receive it in return and use it another seven days only if he has 
   given it to an unordained person, having abandoned all possession of 
   it in his mind. 
   
       Summary:  Keeping any of the five tonics -- ghee, fresh 
       butter, oil, honey, or sugar/molasses -- for more than seven 
       days, unless one determines to use them only externally, is 
       a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       24. When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may 
       seek a rains-bathing cloth.  When a half-month is left to 
       the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn.  
       If when more than a month is left to the hot season he 
       should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a 
       half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having 
       been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and 
       confessed.
   
   Bhikkhus in the time of the Buddha commonly bathed in a river or 
   lake.  Passages in the Canon give an indication of some of the 
   dangers involved:  They had to watch over their robes to make sure 
   they weren't stolen or washed away by the river, and at the same 
   time make sure they didn't expose themselves.  (S.II.10 tells of a 
   female deity who, seeing a young bhikkhu bathing, became smitten 
   with the sight of him wearing only his under robe.  She appeared to 
   him, suggesting that he leave the monkhood to take his fill of 
   sensual pleasures before his youth had past, but fortunately he was 
   far enough in the practice to resist her advances.)  A further 
   danger during the rainy season was that the rivers would become 
   swollen and their currents strong.  During this time, then, bhikkhus 
   would bathe in the rain.
   
     Rains-bathing cloth.  The Mahavagga (Mv.VIII.15.1-7) contains the 
   story of a servant girl who went to a monastery and -- seeing 
   bhikkhus out bathing naked in the rain -- concluded that there were 
   no bhikkhus there, but only naked ascetics.  She returned to tell 
   her mistress, Lady Visakha, who realized what was actually happening 
   and made this the occasion to ask permission of the Buddha to 
   provide rains-bathing cloths for the bhikkhus, because as she put 
   it, "Nakedness is repulsive."  He granted her request, and at a 
   later point (Mv.VIII.20.2) stated that a rains-bathing cloth could 
   be determined for use during the four months of the rainy season -- 
   beginning with the day after the full moon in July, or the second if 
   there are two -- and that at the end of the four months it was to be 
   placed under dual ownership.  This training rule deals with the 
   protocol for seeking and using such a cloth during the rains and the 
   period immediately preceding them.
     
     The protocol is sketched out in the Vibhanga, the details being 
   filled in by the Commentary as follows:  During the first two weeks 
   of the fourth lunar month of the hot season -- the lunar cycle 
   ending with the full moon in July, or the first if there are two -- 
   a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth and make it if he gets 
   enough material, but may not yet use it or determine it for use.  In 
   seeking the cloth he may directly ask for it from relatives or 
   people who have invited him to ask, or he may approach people who 
   have provided rains-bathing cloths in the past and give them such 
   hints as:  "It is the time for material for a rains-bathing cloth," 
   or "People are giving material for a rains-bathing cloth."   If he 
   asks directly from people who are not relatives or who have not 
   invited him to ask, he incurs a dukkata; if he then receives cloth 
   from them, he incurs the full penalty under NP 6.  If he gives hints 
   to people who have never provided rains-bathing cloths in the past, 
   he incurs a dukkata.
     
     During the last two weeks of the fourth lunar month of the hot 
   season he may now begin using his cloth, although he may not yet 
   determine it for use.  This shows clearly that this rule is 
   providing an exemption to NP 1, under which he otherwise would be 
   forced to determine the cloth within ten days after receiving it.  
   If he has not yet received enough material, he may continue seeking 
   for more in the way described above and make himself a cloth when he 
   receives enough.
     
     When the first day of the rainy season arrives, he may determine 
   the cloth.  If he does not yet have enough material to make his 
   rains-bathing cloth, he may continue seeking it throughout the four 
   months of the rains.  If he bathes naked in the rain when he has a 
   cloth to use, he incurs a dukkata, although he may bathe naked in a 
   lake or river without penalty.  If he has no cloth to use, he may 
   also bathe naked in the rain.
     
     At the end of the four months, he is to wash his cloth, place it 
   under dual ownership, and put it aside if it is still usable.  He 
   may begin using it again the last two weeks of the last lunar month 
   before the next rainy season and is to redetermine it for use on the 
   day the rainy season officially begins.
     
     Towards the end of his discussion of this rule, Buddhaghosa adds 
   his own personal opinion on when the rains-bathing cloth should be 
   determined for use if it is finished during the rains -- on the 
   grounds that the ancient commentaries do not discuss the issue -- 
   one of the few places where he overtly gives his own opinion 
   anywhere in the Commentary.   His verdict:  If one receives enough 
   material to finish the cloth within ten days, one should determine 
   it within those ten days.  If not, one may keep what material one 
   has, undetermined and throughout the rainy season if need be, until 
   one does obtain enough material and then determine the cloth on the 
   day it is completed.     
     
     Offenses.  As the K/Commentary points out, this rule covers two 
   separate offenses whose factors are somewhat different:  the offense 
   for seeking a rains-bathing cloth at the wrong time and that for 
   using it at the wrong time.
     
     //Seeking//.  The factors here are three:  object, effort, and 
   result.  The bhikkhu is looking for material for a rains-bathing 
   cloth, he makes hints to people during the time he is not allowed to 
   make hints, and he receives the cloth.  There is a dukkata in the 
   hinting and a full offense in receiving the cloth.
     
     //Using//.  The factors here are two:  object -- he has a 
   rains-bathing cloth -- and effort -- he has other robes to use, 
   there are no dangers, and yet he wears the cloth during the period 
   when he is not allowed to wear it.  (The conditions here are based 
   on the no-offenses clauses, which we will discuss below.)
     
     In neither of these cases is perception a mitigating factor.  Even 
   if a bhikkhu thinks that the right time to hint for the cloth or to 
   wear it has come when it actually hasn't, he is not immune from an 
   offense.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  A bhikkhu who has committed either of 
   the two full offenses here is to forfeit the cloth and confess the 
   offense.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of 
   the cloth are the same as under NP 1.  
     
     Non-offenses.  As the rule states, there is no offense for the 
   bhikkhu who hints for a rains-bathing cloth within the last lunar 
   month of the hot season, or for one who wears his rains-bathing 
   cloth during the last two weeks of that month.  
     
     The Vibhanga then refers to a situation that occasionally happens 
   under the lunar calendar:  The four months of the hot season end, 
   but the Rains Retreat is delayed another lunar cycle due to the fact 
   that a thirteenth lunar month has to be added to that year in order 
   to bring the lunar year back into line with the solar year.  (This 
   usually occurs when there are two full moons in July.)  In this 
   case, it says that the rains-bathing cloth -- having been sought for 
   during the fourth month and worn during the last two weeks of the 
   hot season -- is to be washed and then put aside.  When the proper 
   season arrives, it may be brought out for use (%).  
     
     The Commentary adds that there is no need to determine the cloth 
   in this period until the day the Rains Retreat officially starts, 
   but it doesn't say whether the proper season to use the cloth begins 
   with the Rains Retreat or two weeks before.  It would make sense to 
   allow the bhikkhu to begin using the cloth two weeks before, but 
   this is simply my own opinion. 
     
     The Vibhanga then adds three more exemptions:  There is no offense 
   for a "stolen-robe" bhikkhu, a "destroyed-robe" bhikkhu, or when 
   there are dangers.  The Commentary interprets "robe" here as meaning 
   rains-bathing cloth, and says that these exemptions apply to the 
   dukkata offense for bathing naked in the rain.  A bhikkhu whose 
   rains-bathing cloth has been stolen or destroyed may bathe naked in 
   the rain without incurring a penalty, as may a bhikkhu with an 
   expensive bathing cloth who would rather bathe naked because of his 
   fear of cloth thieves.
     
     Strangely enough,  Buddhaghosa's own K/Commentary makes the 
   Vibhanga's exemptions refer also to the full offense.  If a 
   bhikkhu's other robes have been stolen or destroyed, he may wear his 
   rains-bathing cloth out of season.  The same holds true when, in the 
   words of the K/Commentary, "naked thieves are plundering," and a 
   bhikkhu decides to wear his rains-bathing cloth out-of-season in 
   order to protect either it or his other robes from being stolen.  
     
     The Sub-commentary follows the K/Commentary in holding to both 
   interpretations.
     
     At present, much of this discussion is purely academic, inasmuch 
   as most bhikkhus -- if they use a bathing cloth -- tend to determine 
   it for use as a "cloth accessory" so as to avoid any possible 
   offense under this rule.
   
       Summary:  Seeking and receiving a rains-bathing cloth before 
       the fourth month of the hot season is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.  
   
       Using a rains-bathing cloth before the last two weeks of the 
       fourth month of the hot season is also a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       25. Should any bhikkhu, having himself given a robe-cloth to 
       (another) bhikkhu, and then being angered and displeased, 
       snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be 
       forfeited and confessed.
   
       "At that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan said to his brother's 
       student, 'Come, friend, let's set out on a tour of the 
       countryside.'
       
       "'I can't go, sir.  My robe is threadbare.'
       
       "'Come, friend, I'll give you a robe.'  And he gave him a 
       robe.  Then that bhikkhu heard, 'The Blessed One, they say, 
       is going to set out on a tour of the countryside.'  The 
       thought occurred to him:  'In that case I won't set out on a 
       tour of the countryside with Ven. Upananda the Sakyan.  I'll 
       set out on a tour of the countryside with the Blessed One.'  
       
       "Then Ven. Upananda said to him, 'Come, friend, let's set 
       out on that tour of the countryside now.'
       
       "'I won't set out on a tour of the countryside with you, 
       sir.  I'll set out on a tour of the countryside with the 
       Blessed One.'
       
       "'But the robe I gave you, my friend, will set out on a tour 
       of the countryside with //me//.'  And angered and 
       displeased, he snatched the robe back."
   
   As the Commentary points out, this rule applies to cases where one 
   perceives the robe-cloth as being rightfully one's own even after 
   having given it away, as when giving it on an implicit or explicit 
   condition that the recipient does not later fulfill.  Thus the act 
   of snatching away here does not entail a parajika.  If, however, one 
   has mentally abandoned ownership of the robe and then for some 
   reason snatches it back, the case would come under Parajika 2.
   
     The factors for an offense here are two.
   
     Object:  a piece of any of the six allowable kinds of robe-cloth, 
   measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.
     
     Effort.  One has given the cloth to another bhikkhu on one 
   condition or another and then, angered and displeased with him, 
   either snatches it back or has someone else snatch it back.  In the 
   latter case, one incurs a dukkata in giving the order to snatch the 
   robe, and the full offense when the robe is snatched.  Perception 
   (with regard to the recipient/victim) is not a mitigating factor 
   here.  If he actually is a bhikkhu, then whether or not one 
   perceives him to be so makes no difference as far as the offense is 
   concerned.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  A bhikkhu who has obtained robe-cloth in 
   violation of this rule is to forfeit it and confess the offense.  
   The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth 
   are the same as under NP 1.  The formula to use in forfeiting the 
   cloth is given in Appendix VI.
     
     Lesser offenses.  There is a dukkata for angrily snatching back 
   from a bhikkhu requisites other than cloth; and for angrily 
   snatching back any kind of requisite -- cloth or otherwise -- that 
   one has given to someone who is not a bhikkhu.  The Sub-commentary 
   adds that to give robe-cloth to a layman planning to be ordained, 
   and then to snatch it back in this way after his ordination, entails 
   the full offense.
     
     According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if the recipient 
   returns the robe of his own accord or if the donor takes it back on 
   trust (%).  The Commentary's discussion of the first exemption shows 
   that if the recipient returns the robe after receiving a gentle hint 
   from the donor -- "I gave you the robe in hopes that you would study 
   with me, but now you are studying with someone else" -- the donor 
   incurs no penalty.  But if the donor's hint shows anger -- "I gave 
   this robe to a bhikkhu who would study with me, not to one who would 
   study with somebody else!" -- he incurs a dukkata for the hint, but 
   no penalty when the recipient returns the robe.
   
       Summary:  Having given another bhikkhu a robe on a condition 
       and then -- angry and displeased -- snatching it back or 
       having it snatched back is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       26. Should any bhikkhu, having requested thread, have a robe 
       woven by weavers, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   The factors for an offense here are three: object, effort, and 
   result.
   
     1) //Object//:  thread or yarn of the six allowable types for 
   robe-cloth, that a bhikkhu -- with the purpose of making a robe -- 
   has requested from people who are not his relatives or who have not 
   invited him to ask.
     
     2) //Effort//:  He takes this thread to weavers who are unrelated 
   to him and have not offered their services for free, and gets them 
   to weave him robe-cloth measuring at least four by eight 
   fingerbreadths.
     
     3) //Result//:  He receives the cloth.
     
     Offenses.  The Commentary has a table that works out the various 
   combinations of offenses here based on two variables:  thread 
   properly or improperly received, and weavers proper or improper for 
   the bhikkhu to ask.  Thread properly received is any that the 
   bhikkhu has requested from people who are related to him or have 
   invited him to ask.  Similarly, weavers proper for him to ask are 
   any who are related to him or have offered him their services.  
     
     If both the thread and the weavers are classed as not proper, 
   there is a dukkata in getting them to weave cloth, and a nissaggiya 
   pacittiya in receiving the cloth when it is done.  
     
     There is a dukkata in receiving the cloth if the thread is proper, 
   but the weavers not; OR if the thread is not proper, but the weavers 
   are.  (For ease of remembrance:  a dukkata if one variable is proper 
   and the other not.)  
     
     If both variables are proper, there is no offense.
     
     The Commentary then has a field day working out the permutations 
   if two different weavers -- one proper and one improper -- work on 
   the cloth, or if proper and improper thread are used in the cloth -- 
   proper warp and improper woof, or alternating strands of proper and 
   improper thread -- which if nothing else goes to show how few truly 
   burning issues have sprung up around this rule.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  Robe-cloth received in a way that 
   entails the full offense under this rule is to be forfeited and the 
   offense confessed, following the procedure under NP 1.  
     
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga says that there is no offense "to sew 
   a robe, or in a binding, a belt, a shoulder-strap, a bag for 
   carrying the bowl, or a water-strainer."  The Commentary interprets 
   this as meaning that there is no offense in asking for thread or 
   yarn to sew a robe or to make any of the other things listed.  Since 
   these articles are small, and since bhikkhus are allowed looms 
   (Cv.V.28.2), perhaps they are things that bhikkhus could be expected 
   to make themselves.
     
     The no-offense clauses also say that there is no offense if they 
   -- the donors or the weavers -- are relatives, if they have invited 
   one to ask, if the cloth is for the sake of another, or if it is by 
   means of one's own property.  These exemptions apply both to asking 
   for thread and for getting weavers to weave cloth.  As under NP 6 & 
   22, "for the sake of another" means that one may ask from one's own 
   relatives or from those who have invited one to ask OR from 
   relatives of the other person or people who have invited him to ask.  
   Asking for his sake from people other than these would entail the 
   full offense.
     
     If the cloth is obtained by means of one's own property -- i.e., 
   one arranges to pay for the thread and hire the weavers -- the 
   Commentary states that one is responsible for the cloth as soon as 
   it is finished and fully paid for, whether or not it is delivered 
   into one's possession.  One must therefore determine it for use 
   within 10 days of that date so as not to commit an offense under NP 
   1.  If the weavers have promised to send word when the cloth is 
   done, one's responsibility starts when one receives word from their 
   messenger; similarly, if they have promised to send the cloth when 
   done, one's responsibility begins when their messenger delivers it.
   
       Summary: Taking thread that one has asked for improperly and 
       getting weavers to weave cloth from it -- when they are 
       unrelated and have not made a previous offer to weave -- is 
       a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
       27. In case a man or woman householder unrelated to a 
       bhikkhu has weavers weave robe-cloth for his sake, and if 
       the bhikkhu, not previously invited (by the householder), 
       having approached the weavers, should make stipulations with 
       regard to the cloth, saying, "This cloth, friends, is to be 
       woven for my sake.  Make it long, make it broad, make it 
       tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well scraped, well 
       smoothed, and perhaps I may reward you with a little 
       something;" and should the bhikkhu, having said that, reward 
       them with a little something, even as much as alms food, it 
       (the cloth) is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   Here the factors for an offense are four:
   
     Object:  a piece of any of the six allowable types of robe-cloth, 
   measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths, which is being made 
   for one's sake by the arrangement of a donor who is unrelated and 
   has not given an invitation to ask.
     
     Intention.  One wants to get better cloth than what the donors are 
   planning to give.
     
     Effort.  One approaches the weavers and gets them to increase the 
   amount of thread going into the cloth.  The Commentary explains that 
   the bhikkhu's words quoted in the rule are meant simply to be an 
   example of any way in which one might do this.  The Vibhanga defines 
   the reward of "alms food" as covering anything of even the slightest 
   material value -- food, a lump of powder, tooth wood, unwoven 
   thread, or even a phrase of Dhamma.  A bhikkhu who offers to pay for 
   the extra thread in full would thus also fulfill this factor.  
     
     The Sub-commentary adds that even if the bhikkhu doesn't deliver 
   the reward, this factor is fulfilled all the same as long as the 
   weavers, as a result of his stipulations, actually increase the 
   amount of thread from that which they and the donors had agreed on.
     
     Result.  One receives the cloth.
     
     Offenses.  The bhikkhu incurs a dukkata as soon as the weavers add 
   even a little extra thread to the cloth, and the full offense when 
   he receives it.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and 
   return of the cloth are the same as under NP 1.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if -- 
   
     the donors are relatives, 
     they have invited one to ask, 
     one asks for the sake of another, 
     one gets the weavers to make the cloth less expensive than the 
       donors had ordered, or 
     if it is by means of one's own property.  (This last point refers 
       only to cases where the bhikkhu was the one who had the weavers 
       hired in the first place.)
   
       Summary:  When donors who are not relatives -- and have not 
       invited one to ask -- have arranged for weavers to weave 
       robe-cloth intended for one:  Receiving the cloth after 
       getting the weavers to increase the amount of thread used in 
       it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       28.Ten days prior to the third-month Kattika full moon, 
       should robe-cloth offered in urgency accrue to a bhikkhu, he 
       is to accept it if he regards it as offered in urgency.  
       Once he has accepted it, he may keep it throughout the robe 
       season.  Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
     The //third-month Kattika full moon// is the full moon in October, 
   or the first if there are two.  This is the final day of the Rains 
   Retreat, and the day before the beginning of the robe season.
     
     //Robe-cloth offered in urgency// is any piece of the six 
   allowable kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight 
   fingerbreadths, offered by a person who does not want to wait until 
   the robe season to make an offering, either because his/her survival 
   is in doubt -- as when a soldier is going into war, a traveler is 
   about to set out on a journey, or a woman has become pregnant -- or 
   because he/she has developed new-found faith in the religion.
     
     The Commentary points out that the period allowed for giving 
   robe-cloth offered in urgency begins on the fifth day of the waxing 
   moon before the end of the Rains Retreat; and that robe-cloth 
   offered to an individual bhikkhu beginning on the sixth day of the 
   waning moon can, under NP 1, be kept throughout the robe season 
   because the tenth dawn after the sixth waning moon is the beginning 
   of the robe season. Thus it would seem that this rule is giving only 
   a one-day special allowance.  
     
     However, we should note that the Vibhanga implicitly, and the 
   Commentary explicitly, treat robe-cloth offered in urgency as 
   in-season cloth (see NP 3):  In other words, the cloth goes to the 
   Community, and is to be divided only among those bhikkhus who spend 
   the Rains Retreat in that Community.  Thus if a bhikkhu has broken 
   the retreat, he must return his share to the Community, as he no 
   longer has any right to it.
     
     The factors for an offense here are two:  //object// -- robe-cloth 
   offered in urgency; and //effort// -- one keeps it past the end of 
   the robe season:  the dawn after the full moon following the Rains 
   Retreat, if one does not participate in a kathina; or the end of 
   one's kathina privileges, if one does.  And, as noted above, if one 
   has broken one's Retreat, one has no right to any share in such 
   cloth and must return it to the Community immediately.  
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Thus if the period to 
   keep the cloth has passed even though one thinks it hasn't -- or if 
   it is not determined for use, etc., when one thinks it is -- one is 
   still subject to the offense all the same.
     
     The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the cloth 
   are the same as under NP 1.  See Appendix VI for the Pali formula to 
   use in forfeiting the cloth.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, before the robe season is 
   over, one determines the cloth, places it under dual ownership, or 
   abandons it (gives it away or throws it away); if it is lost, 
   destroyed, burnt, or stolen, or if someone else takes it on trust.
   
       Summary:  Keeping robe-cloth offered in urgency past the end 
       of the robe season after having accepted it during the last 
       eleven days of the Rains Retreat is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
       29. There are wilderness abodes that are considered dubious 
       and risky.  A bhikkhu living in such abodes after the 
       (fourth-month) Kattika full moon has passed may keep any one 
       of his three robes in a village if he so desires.  Should he 
       have any reason to live apart from the robe, he may do so 
       for six nights at most.  If he should live apart from it 
       longer than that -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it 
       is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   As we noted under NP 2, every bhikkhu who has spent the Rains 
   Retreat has the right to live separated from his set of three robes 
   during the following month.  This rule is a partial one-month 
   extension of this right for bhikkhus living in dangerous wilderness 
   areas.  The reason for this extension is that this one-month period 
   was when thieves were active -- perhaps because they knew that 
   bhikkhus had just received new cloth, or simply because now that 
   roads were passable again it was time for them to get back to their 
   work.
   
     The Commentary defines this situation in terms of four factors:
   
     1)  The bhikkhu has spent the first Rains Retreat -- the one 
       beginning with the full moon in July, or the second full moon if 
       there are two in that month -- without break.
     
     2) He is staying in a wilderness abode, defined in the Vibhanga as 
       one at least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest 
       village, this distance being measured by the shortest walkable 
       path between the two and not as the crow flies.  At the same 
       time, he is not so far from a village that he cannot go for alms 
       there in the morning and then return to eat in his abode before 
       noon.
     
     3)  The abode is dubious and risky:  dubious in that thieves are 
       known to be about, risky in that people are known to have been 
       hurt or plundered by them.
     
     4)  The time period for the extension is one month beginning the 
       day after the fourth Kattika moon, the full moon one month after 
       the end of the Rains Retreat. 
   
     The dawn after this full moon day is when the robe season normally 
   ends for those bhikkhus who have not participated in a kathina.  
   However, a bhikkhu living in the situation outlined above may keep 
   one of his set of triple robes in the village where he normally goes 
   for alms, and -- if he has a reason -- may stay apart from it six 
   nights at most.  As usual, nights are counted by dawns.  
     
     The factors for an offense here are two:  //object// -- one of a 
   bhikkhu's basic set of three robes; and //effort// -- staying away 
   from the robe past the sixth dawn after first being apart from it.  
   Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  Even if one thinks that 
   six nights have not passed when they actually have, one is not 
   immune from the offense.
     
     As the Sub-commentary points out, the Commentary and K/Commentary 
   differ in their definition of the factor of effort here.  According 
   to the K/Commentary, the bhikkhu staying in a forest abode during 
   the period in question is counted as being apart from his robe when 
   it is placed in the village, and thus can keep it there while he is 
   in his forest abode only six nights at a stretch.  Thus, it says, if 
   he is in his wilderness abode at the sixth dawn, he incurs the full 
   penalty.
     
     The Commentary, however, maintains that the bhikkhu staying in the 
   wilderness abode is not counted as being apart from his robe when it 
   is placed in the village, but if he leaves that abode on business 
   and lets his robe remain in the village, he may stay away from the 
   abode only six nights at a stretch.  Thus, it says, if in returning 
   from his business he cannot make it to his forest abode by the sixth 
   dawn, and the village is closer, he may stop over in the village 
   long enough to check up on the robe and still be immune from the 
   offense. 
     
     The second interpretation makes more sense, in that if the bhikkhu 
   is staying in his abode and going for alms in the village, he may 
   check up on his robe every day.  It is also more in line with the 
   Vibhanga's definition of "any reason" -- i.e., "any business" -- 
   which indicates situations where the bhikkhu would be away from his 
   abode.  The Sub-commentary, following Bhadanta Buddhadatta Thera, 
   adopts the second interpretation.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  A bhikkhu under these conditions who has 
   been away from his robe for more than six nights is to forfeit it 
   and confess the offense.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, 
   and return of the robe are the same as under NP 1.  The Pali formula 
   for forfeiting the robe is in Appendix VI.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense for a bhikkhu who has stayed 
   away from his robe six nights or less; or 
   
     if, having been apart from his robe six nights, he enters the 
       village boundary (and, according to the Commentary, stays long 
       enough to check up on his robe); 
     if, within the six nights, he rescinds the determination of the 
       robe, places it under dual ownership, abandons it; or the robe 
       gets lost, burnt, destroyed, stolen, or taken by someone on 
       trust;
     or if he has been authorized by the Community to be apart from his 
       robe.  (This, according to the Commentary, refers to the 
       authorization discussed under NP 2.)
   
     The commentaries refer the reader to NP 2 for the remaining 
   explanations to this rule, which would seem to indicate that if a 
   bhikkhu's kathina privileges are still in effect, he is also immune 
   from an offense under this rule during the period in question no 
   matter how many nights he is away from his robe.
   
       Summary:  When one is living in a dangerous wilderness abode 
       during the month after the fourth Kattika full moon and has 
       left one of one's robes in the village where one normally 
       goes for alms:  Being away from the abode and the village 
       for more than six nights at a stretch -- except when 
       authorized by the Community -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       30. Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to himself gains 
       that had been intended for a Community, they are to be 
       forfeited and confessed.
   
       "Now in Savatthi at that time a certain guild had prepared a 
       meal with cloth for the Community, (thinking,) 'Having fed 
       (the bhikkhus) we will supply them with cloth.'
       
       "Then some group-of-six bhikkhus went to where the guild 
       members were staying and on arrival said, 'Give us these 
       cloths, friends.'
       
       "'We can't, sirs.  We arrange alms with cloth for the 
       Community (like this) on a yearly basis.'
       
       "'The Community has lots of donors, my friends.  The 
       Community gets lots of meals.  It is in dependence on you, 
       looking to you, that we live here.  If you won't give to us, 
       is there anyone who will?  Give us the cloths, friends.'
       
       "So the guild, pressured by the group-of-six bhikkhus, gave 
       them what cloth they had prepared and then served the meal 
       to the Community.  The bhikkhus who knew that a meal with 
       cloth had been prepared, but not that the cloth had been 
       given to the group-of-six bhikkhus, addressed the guild 
       members:  'Present the cloth to the Community, friends.'
       
       "'There isn't any, sirs.  What cloth we had prepared, the 
       masters -- the group-of-six bhikkhus -- have diverted to 
       themselves.'
       
       "Those bhikkhus who were of few wants...were offended and 
       annoyed and spread it about:  'How can these group-of-six 
       bhikkhus divert to themselves gains intended for the 
       Community?'"
   
   There are four factors for an offense here.
   
     Object:  any requisite -- "robe-cloth, alms-food, lodgings, 
   medicine, even a lump of powder, toothwood, or unwoven thread" -- 
   that donors have indicated by word or gesture that they intend to 
   give to a Community.  As the Commentary notes, //donors// here 
   include not only lay people in general, but also one's fellow 
   bhikkhus and relatives -- even one's own mother:  The fact that a 
   gift is intended for a Community overrides all other considerations, 
   even when one is ill. 
     
     Perception.  One perceives that the donors have intended the 
   requisite for a Community (%). 
     
     Effort.  One tries to persuade them that they should give it to 
   oneself instead.  This in itself, following on the first two 
   factors, entails a dukkata.
     
     Result.  One receives the article from the donors.  This entails 
   the full offense.
   
     Forfeiture & confession.  Any gains received in violation of this 
   rule are to be forfeited and the offense confessed.  The procedures 
   here are the same as under NP 1.  The Pali formula for forfeiting 
   the gains is in Appendix VI.
     
     Related offenses.  If one knowingly tries to divert gains intended 
   for a Community to oneself, but the donors go ahead and give the 
   gains to the Community anyway, then the Commentary says that one 
   should not have a share in them.  If one does receive a share from 
   the Community, one should return it.  If, instead of returning it, 
   one shares it among lay people, the case is to be treated under 
   Parajika 2.
     
     If one is in doubt as to whether items are intended for the 
   Community but goes ahead and diverts them anyway, one incurs a 
   dukkata regardless of whether the items really were intended for the 
   Community or not (%).
     
     To divert items intended for a Community to another individual 
   entails a pacittiya under Pacittiya 82.  To divert items intended 
   for one Community of bhikkhus to another Community or to a shrine, 
   entails a dukkata.  The same holds true for diverting items intended 
   for a shrine to a Community, to an individual, or to another shrine; 
   and for diverting items intended for an individual to a Community, 
   to a shrine, or to another individual.  
     
     The Commentary states that the term //individual// here can mean 
   common animals as well as human beings, and that this last case thus 
   includes even such things as saying, "Don't give it to that dog.  
   Give it to this one."  This point is well-taken:  A bhikkhu has no 
   business interfering with the gains that are to be freely given to 
   another being, no matter what that being's current status.
     
     The Sub-commentary holds that once an item has been presented by a 
   donor, there is nothing wrong in diverting it elsewhere.  Thus, it 
   says, taking flowers presented to one shrine and placing them at 
   another -- or chasing a dog away from food that has been given to it 
   so that another dog can have a share -- would be perfectly all 
   right, but the Thai editors of the Sub-commentary state in a 
   footnote that they disagree.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in diverting items to oneself 
   if one does not perceive them as intended for a Community, another 
   individual, or a shrine, regardless of whether the donors intended 
   them that way or not.  Still, one should be careful not to do this 
   in such a way as to violate any of the other rules on asking from 
   people who are unrelated or have not given an invitation to ask.
     
     The no-offense clauses recommend a safer line of conduct:  If one 
   is asked, "To whom should we give this?" one may answer, "Give 
   wherever your gift would be used, or would be well-cared for, or 
   would last long, or wherever your mind feels inspired." 
   
       Summary:  Persuading a donor to give to oneself a gift that 
       he or she had planned to give to the Community -- when one 
       knows that it was intended for the Community -- is a 
       nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   A bhikkhu who commits an offense against any of these thirty 
   nissaggiya pacittiya offenses must first forfeit the item in 
   question before confessing the offense.  If he makes use of the item 
   before forfeiting it, he incurs an extra dukkata -- except for money 
   received in violation of NP 18 or 19, which would involve another 
   nissaggiya pacittiya if used in trade.  If the item gets lost or 
   destroyed before the bhikkhu forfeits it, he may simply confess a 
   pacittiya.
   
     Except in cases where forfeiture must be made to a Community of 
   four bhikkhus or more (NP 18, 19, & 22), the offender may forfeit 
   the item to a single bhikkhu, to a group of two or three, or to a 
   Community of four or more.  Once he has confessed the offense, he is 
   cleared of the penalty.
     
     In cases where he must forfeit the item to the Community, he may 
   not receive it in return.  In the remaining cases, though, the item 
   must be returned to him.  Not to do so entails a dukkata for the 
   bhikkhu(s) to whom it is forfeited.  In a few cases, there are 
   restrictions as to what use a bhikkhu may make of an item received 
   in return after forfeiture -- e.g., he may not use the five tonics 
   to treat his body internally or externally, and may not use felt 
   made with silk or composed of more than 1/2 black wool as a rug -- 
   but apart from this he is free to use the returned item as he likes.
     
     The act of forfeiture is thus symbolic in most cases, and the 
   effect of the rules is more internal:  The offender may not make use 
   of the item until he has confessed his wrong-doing, and this in 
   itself should give him time to reflect on his actions.  Similarly, 
   in the act of handing the nissaggiya item over to another, he has an 
   opportunity to reflect on whether or not is it worth whatever greed, 
   anger, or delusion it has sparked in his mind.
     
     Offenses of this and the remaining categories in this book are 
   classed as light offenses (//lahukapatti//) and are also termed 
   //desana-gamini//, meaning that they can be cleared through 
   confession.
   
                            * * * * * * * *
