  
                                           
                                           
                                           
                             CHAPTER EIGHT
                                           
                 Part Six:  The Alcoholic Drink Chapter
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  
       51. The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquor is to be 
       confessed.
  
       "Then Ven. Sagata went to the hermitage of the coiled-hair 
       ascetic of Ambatittha, and on arrival -- having entered the 
       fire building and spread out a grass mat -- sat down 
       cross-legged with his body erect and mindfulness to the 
       fore.  The naga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. 
       Sagata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, 
       disgruntled, and emitted smoke.  Ven. Sagata emitted smoke.  
       The naga, unable to bear his anger, blazed up.  Ven. Sagata, 
       entering the fire element, blazed up.  Then Ven. Sagata, 
       having consumed the naga's fire with his own fire, left for 
       Bhaddavatika.
       
       "Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Bhaddavatika as long 
       as he liked, left on a walking tour to Kosambi.  Word 
       reached the lay followers of Kosambi:  'They say that Ven. 
       Sagata did battle with the Ambatittha naga!'
       
       "Then the Blessed One, having toured by stages, came to 
       Kosambi.  The Kosambi lay followers, after welcoming the 
       Blessed One, went to where Ven. Sagata was staying and, on 
       arrival, having bowed down and sat to one side, said to him, 
       'What, honored sir, is something the masters like that is 
       hard for you to get?  What can we prepare for you?'
       
       "When this was said, some group-of-six bhikkhus said to the 
       Kosambi lay followers, 'Friends, there is a strong liquor 
       called pigeon's liquor (the color of pigeons' feet, 
       according to the Commentary) that the bhikkhus like and is 
       hard for them to get.  Prepare that.'
       
       "Then the Kosambi lay followers, having prepared pigeon's 
       liquor in house after house, and seeing that Ven. Sagata had 
       gone out for alms, said to him, 'Master Sagata, drink some 
       pigeon's liquor!  Master Sagata, drink some pigeon's 
       liquor!'  Then Ven. Sagata, having drunk pigeon's liquor in 
       house after house, passed out at the city gate as he was 
       leaving the city.
       
       "Then the Blessed One, leaving the city with a large group 
       of bhikkhus, saw that Ven. Sagata had passed out at the city 
       gate.  On seeing him, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 
       'Bhikkhus, pick up Sagata.'
       
       "Answering, 'As you say, Lord,' the bhikkhus took Ven. 
       Sagata to the monastery and laid him down with his head 
       towards the Blessed One.  Then Ven. Sagata turned around and 
       went to sleep with his feet toward the Blessed One.  So the 
       Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'In the past, 
       wasn't Sagata respectful to the Tathagata and deferential?'
       
       "'Yes, Lord.'
       
       "'But is he respectful to the Tathagata and deferential 
       now?'
       
       "'No, Lord.'
       
       "'And didn't Sagata do battle with the Ambatittha naga?'
       
       "'Yes, Lord.'
       
       "'But could he do battle with even a salamander now?'
       
       "'No, Lord.'"
  
   Object.  //Alcohol means// any alcoholic beverage made from grain, 
   yeast, or any combination of ingredients.  Examples would include 
   whiskey, beer, vodka, and gin.  //Fermented liquor// means any 
   alcoholic beverage made from flowers, fruits, honey, sugar, or any 
   combination of ingredients.  Examples here would include wine, mead, 
   and rum.  Together, the two terms are meant to cover all kinds of 
   alcoholic beverages.
  
     There is some controversy as to what other substances would be 
   included in this factor in line with the Great Standards.  Since the 
   Canon repeatedly criticizes alcohol on the grounds that it destroys 
   one's sense of shame, weakens one's discernment and can put one into 
   a stupor -- as happened to Ven. Sagata -- it seems reasonable to 
   extend this rule to other intoxicants, narcotics, and hallucinogens 
   as well.  Thus things like marijuana, hashish, heroin, cocaine, and 
   LSD would fulfill this factor.  Coffee, tea, tobacco, and betel do 
   not have this effect, though, so there is no reason to include them 
   here.
     
     Items that look, smell, and taste like alcohol but are 
   non-alcoholic also do not come under this rule.  Thus, for example, 
   carbonated apple juice that resembles champagne would not fulfill 
   this factor.
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor under this rule.  A bhikkhu 
   drinking champagne that he thinks to be carbonated apple juice 
   //would// fall under this factor, regardless of his ignorance.
     
     Effort.  The Vibhanga defines //drinking// as taking even as 
   little as the tip of a blade of grass.  Thus taking a small glass of 
   wine, even though it might not be enough to make one drunk, would be 
   more than enough to fulfill this factor.
     
     According to the Commentary, the number of offenses involved in 
   taking an alcoholic drink is determined by the number of separate 
   sips.  As for intoxicants taken by means other than sipping, each 
   separate effort would count as an offense.
     
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga states that there is no offense in 
   taking alcohol "mixed in broth, meat, or oil."  The Commentary 
   interprets the first two items as referring to sauces, stews, and 
   meat dishes to which alcoholic beverages, such as wine, are added 
   for flavoring before they are cooked.  Since the alcohol would 
   evaporate during the cooking, it would have no intoxicating effect.  
   Foods containing unevaporated alcohol -- such as rum babas -- would 
   not be included under this allowance.
     
     As for alcohol mixed in oil, this refers to a medicine used in the 
   Buddha's time for afflictions of the "wind element."  The Mahavagga 
   (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for use only as long as the taste, 
   color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible.  From this 
   point, the Vinaya Mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics 
   used as pain killers are allowable as well.
     
     In addition, the Vibhanga states that there is no offense in 
   taking alcohol in molasses and embric myrobalan -- none of the texts 
   explain what this means -- or in taking fermented medicines that are 
   non-alcoholic, but whose color, taste, or smell is like alcohol.
  
       Summary:  Taking an intoxicant is a pacittiya offense 
       regardless of whether one is aware or not that it is an 
       intoxicant. 
  
  
  
                                 * * *
                                           
                                           
  
       52. Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.
  
       "Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhus were making one 
       of the group of 17 laugh by tickling him with their fingers.  
       Convulsed with laughter and unable to catch his breath, he 
       died."
  
   There are three factors for the full offense here.
  
     1)  //Object//:  another bhikkhu.
     2)  //Effort//:  One touches any part of his body with any part of 
       one's own body
     3)  //Intention//:  in order to to make him laugh.
  
     Object.  A bhikkhu is grounds for a pacittiya here; any unordained 
   person, grounds for a dukkata.  The Commentary notes that even a 
   bhikkhuni counts as an unordained person in the context of this 
   rule, so a bhikkhu looking for a little fun can tickle one without 
   incurring a penalty stronger than a dukkata.  There are occasional 
   attempts at humor in the Commentary, and we can probably write this 
   off as one of them.
     
     Effort.  This factor is fulfilled only by body-to-body contact, as 
   defined at length under Sanghadisesa 2.  The following actions, if 
   done with the intent of making the other person laugh, would be 
   grounds for a dukkata here regardless of whether the person was 
   ordained or not:
  
     using an item connected with the body -- such as a stick -- to 
       poke at the person;
     touching an item connected with the other person's body;
     tossing or dropping things on the other person.
     
     Intention.  If one has reasons for touching the other person aside 
   from wanting to make him laugh, there is no penalty in doing so.  
   Thus a bhikkhu massaging another bhikkhu's tired back commits no 
   offense if he inadvertently happens to touch a spot where the other 
   bhikkhu is ticklish.
  
     "Result" is not a factor here.  If one tickles another bhikkhu 
   with the thought of making him laugh, one commits the full offense 
   regardless of whether he actually laughs or not.
  
       Summary:  Tickling another bhikkhu is a pacittiya offense.
  
                                           
                                           
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       53. The act of playing in the water is to be confessed.
  
   Here again, the factors for the full offense are three.
  
     1) //Effort//:  One  jumps up or down, splashes or swims 
     2) //Object//:  in water deep enough to immerse one's ankle
     3) //Intention//:  for fun.
     
     Effort.  According to the Commentary, each individual effort 
   counts as a separate offense.  Thus if one is swimming for fun, one 
   incurs a pacittiya for each hand or foot stroke.   
     
     Object.  Jumping up or down in water less than ankle deep entails 
   a dukkata, as does splashing water with the hands, feet, a stick, or 
   a piece of tile; playing with water in a tumbler or a bowl; or 
   playing with such things as sour gruel, milk, buttermilk, colored 
   dyes, urine, or mud.
     
     The Vibhanga states that there is also a dukkata for playing in a 
   boat.  This the Commentary defines as paddling a boat with an oar, 
   propelling it with a pole or pushing it up on shore.
     
     Intention.  The Vibhanga defines this factor as "for a laugh," 
   which the Commentary translates as "for fun" or "for sport" 
   (//kiladhippayo//).  
     
     The question of swimming for fitness or exercise does not come up 
   in any of the texts, and seems to have been virtually unheard of in 
   Asia until recent times.  Swimming in most Asian countries has long 
   been regarded as a childish form of play, and the one mention in the 
   Canon of athletic bhikkhus keeping their bodies in strong shape is 
   disparaging:  In the origin story to Sanghadisesa 8, Ven. Dabba 
   Mallaputta assigned separate lodgings to different groups of 
   bhikkhus -- those who studied the Suttas, those who studied the 
   Vinaya, those who meditated, etc. -- and, finally, "for those 
   bhikkhus who lived indulging in animal talk and keeping their bodies 
   in strong shape, he assigned lodgings in the same place, 'So that 
   even these venerable ones will live as they like.'"  Thus it does 
   not seem likely that the Buddha would have recognized physical 
   fitness as an appropriate reason for bhikkhus to go swimming.
     
     On the other hand, if a bhikkhu has a medical reason for swimming 
   -- e.g., he has injured his shoulder, and his doctor has recommended 
   that he swim to help speed its healing -- this would probably count 
   as an instance of "having business to do in the water" and thus 
   would come under the relevant no-offense clause.
  
     Non-offenses.  The Vibhanga states that there is no offense in 
   jumping in or out of the water, swimming or using a boat -- 
  
     if one goes into the water not for fun but because one has 
       business to do -- examples would include bathing or helping a 
       person who cannot swim;
     if one is crossing to the other shore of a body of water; or 
     if there are dangers -- e.g., one is escaping a fire or a wild 
       beast.
     
       Summary:  Jumping and swimming in the water for fun is a 
       pacittiya offense. 
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       54. Disrespect is to be confessed.
  
   This rule refers to cases where one has been admonished for one's 
   behavior.  The factors for the full offense are two.
  
     1) //Object//:  One has been admonished by a fellow bhikkhu, who 
       cites a rule formulated in the Vinaya.
     2) //Effort//:  One shows disrespect for the bhikkhu or for the 
       rule.
     
     Object.  Only if the bhikkhu cites a rule in the Vinaya is this 
   factor grounds for a pacittiya.  If he criticizes one's actions, 
   citing standards of behavior outside of the Vinaya -- e.g., he says 
   that one has been insensitive, out of touch with modern attitudes, 
   or whatever -- this factor becomes grounds for a dukkata.
     
     If the person admonishing one is not a bhikkhu, then regardless of 
   whether he/she cites a rule in the Vinaya or standards of behavior 
   outside of the Vinaya, it is grounds for a dukkata.
     
     Whether or not one views the admonition as valid is not an issue 
   here.  Even if the other person is really an ignorant fool, has 
   misinterpreted the rule, or has cited some standard of behavior 
   having absolutely nothing to do with Buddhist practice, one should 
   be careful not to show disrespect in word or deed.   
     
     Effort.  There are two possible targets for one's disrespect -- 
   the person and the rule -- and two ways of showing it:  by word or 
   by gesture.
     
     //Disrespect for the person// includes -- 
  
     saying things that show disrespect in either a crude or subtle 
       way, e.g., "Who are //you// to tell //me//?"  "It's presumptuous 
       of you to pass judgment when you aren't in my position," "Your 
       critical attitude shows that you have some messy emotional 
       problems that you would be well-advised to look into," "Get 
       lost!" or "Go to hell!"
     
     or making a rude gesture or even a slight facial expression to 
       show one's contempt.
  
     //Disrespect for the rule// includes -- 
  
     saying, "That's a stupid rule," "That rule doesn't apply to me;"
     
     stubbornly repeating the action for which one was admonished (this 
       point is covered in Mv.IV,17.1-9);
     
     or making a rude gesture, saying, "This is what I think of that 
       rule."
  
     Further action.  If one persists in acting disrespectfully when 
   being admonished, one may also be subject to Sanghadisesa 12 or to a 
   formal act of suspension.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, being admonished, one 
   states simply that one was taught differently by one's teachers.
     
     As the Dhammapada (verse 76) says, one should regard a person who 
   points out one's faults as a guide who points out hidden treasure.  
   If one shows disrespect to such a guide, it is unlikely that he/she 
   will feel inclined to point out any hidden treasure ever again.
     
     A good example of how to receive admonishment was set by Ven. 
   Ananda during the First Council (Cv.XI.1.10).  Although he was 
   admonished for committing acts that the Buddha had not declared to 
   be offenses, and although he did not see that he had committed any 
   error, still he willingly confessed his actions as offenses so as to 
   show good faith in his fellow bhikkhus.
     
       Summary:  Speaking or acting disrespectfully when being 
       admonished by another bhikkhu for a breach of the training 
       rules is a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       55. Should any bhikkhu try to frighten another bhikkhu, it 
       is to be confessed.
  
   There are three factors for the full offense here.
  
     Intention.  One wants to frighten the other person.
     
     Effort.  One arranges a frightening sight -- such as hanging a 
   sheet in a dark room so that it looks like a ghost; makes a 
   frightening sound, etc.; or describes dangers from ghosts, robbers, 
   or wild animals.
     
     Object.  The other person is a bhikkhu.  Anyone who is not a 
   bhikkhu is grounds for a dukkata.
     
     "Result" is not a factor here.  If the three factors are 
   fulfilled, one commits the offense regardless of whether the other 
   person is actually frightened or not.
     
     Non-offenses.  To inform another person of dangers from ghosts, 
   robbers, etc., without intending to frighten him/her constitutes no 
   offense.
  
       Summary:  Attempting to frighten another bhikkhu is a 
       pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       56. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, seeking to warm 
       himself, kindle a fire or have one kindled -- unless there 
       is a suitable reason -- it is to be confessed.
  
       "Now at that time, in the winter months, bhikkhus warmed 
       themselves, having kindled a fire by a certain large hollow 
       log.  And in that hollow a cobra was scorched by the fire.  
       Coming out, it sprang at the bhikkhus.  The bhikkhus ran off 
       every which way."   
  
   Here again the factors for the full offense are three.
  
     1) //Object//:  One is not ill.
     2) //Effort//:  One lights a fire or gets someone else to light 
       one,
     3) //Intention//:  for the purpose of warming oneself.
  
     Object.  //Not ill//, in the context of this rule, means that one 
   can fare comfortably without warming oneself.  The Vibhanga makes 
   the point that perception is not a mitigating factor here:  Even if 
   one perceives oneself to be ill in these terms, but actually isn't, 
   that still fulfills this factor.  What this means is that when it is 
   chilly outside, one should be very sure that extra warmth is 
   necessary for one's health before going ahead and lighting a fire to 
   warm oneself.
     
     Effort.  //Lighting a fire// at present would include turning on 
   the flame in a heating system in one's dwelling for the sake of the 
   warmth.  Solar or electric heating systems, which do not use flames, 
   would not be included here.
     
     If, when not ill, one gets someone else to light a fire for the 
   purpose of warming oneself, there is a pacittiya in making the 
   order/request/suggestion, and another pacittiya when the other 
   person lights the fire.  To return a burning piece of fuel to a fire 
   is grounds for a dukkata; adding new fuel to a fire -- according to 
   the Commentary -- is grounds for a pacittiya.
     
     Intention.  There is no offense if one lights a fire, or has one 
   lit, for purposes other than warming oneself.  Thus one may light a 
   lamp or light a fire to boil water, burn dead leaves, or fire an 
   alms bowl without penalty.  The Cullavagga (V.32.1) says that if a 
   forest fire is approaching one's dwelling, one may light a 
   counter-fire to ward off its approach.  In other circumstances, 
   though, Pacittiya 10 would impose a penalty for lighting a fire on 
   top of "live" soil, and Pacittiya 11 would impose a further penalty 
   for damaging plant life.
     
     Non-offenses.  In addition, there is no offense in warming oneself 
   at raked-out coals or at a fire lit by someone else (not at one's 
   request).  And there is no offense in lighting a fire when there are 
   dangers, which the Commentary says refers to cases when one is 
   bitten by a snake (and wants to make the snake-bite medicine 
   mentioned under Pacittiya 40), when one is surrounded by robbers, or 
   disturbed by non-human beings or beasts of prey.
     
     Cv.V.14.1 allows bhikkhus to use a "fire hall," similar to a sauna 
   at present, for the purpose of inducing perspiration for health 
   reasons.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense in lighting 
   a fire in a place such as this.
     
     The purpose of this rule is suggested by a passage in the 
   Anguttara Nikaya (V.219) that lists the five disadvantages of 
   sitting around a fire:  It is bad for one's eyes, bad for one's 
   skin, bad for one's strength and (most importantly, in this context) 
   groups tend to form (that can turn into factions), and they spend 
   their time in "animal talk."
  
       Summary:  Lighting a fire to warm oneself -- or having it 
       lit -- when one does not need the warmth for one's health is 
       a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       57. Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half 
       a month, except at the proper occasions, it is to be 
       confessed.  Here the proper occasions are these:  the last 
       month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the 
       rains, these two and a half months being a time of heat, a 
       time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a 
       time of going on a journey; a time of wind or rain.  These 
       are the proper times here.
  
       "Now at that time bhikkhus were bathing in the hot spring 
       (at Rajagaha).  Then King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, 
       having gone to the hot spring with the thought, 'I will 
       bathe my head,' waited to one side, thinking, 'I will wait 
       as long as the masters are bathing.'  The bhikkhus bathed 
       until nightfall.  
       
       "Then King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha, after having bathed 
       his head at the wrong time (night) -- the gates of the city 
       being closed -- spent the night outside the city 
       walls....(The Buddha learned of the incident and rebuked the 
       bhikkhus:)  'How can you worthless men, having seen the 
       king, bathe not knowing moderation?'"
  
   The original formulation of this rule -- with no allowance for 
   "proper occasions" -- seems to have been intended as a temporary 
   disciplinary measure for the bhikkhus who had inconvenienced the 
   king.  (There was a similar temporary rule, against eating mangoes 
   (Cv.V.5.1), that the Buddha formulated when King Bimbisara had 
   invited the bhikkhus to help themselves to his mangoes, and some 
   group-of-six bhikkhus went and took all the mangoes in his park, 
   even the unripe ones.  The rule was later rescinded (Cv.V.5.2) when 
   the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to eat any and all fruit as long as it 
   was allowable in any of the five ways mentioned under Pacittiya 11.)
  
     As for this rule:  Once the proper occasions were added, they 
   relaxed it considerably.  For instance:
  
     //a time of illness// is any time when one does not feel 
       comfortable without bathing;
     
     //a time of work// can involve as little work as sweeping out 
       one's room;
     
     //a time of going on a journey// is whenever one is about to go, 
       is going or has gone on a trip of at least half a league 
       (approximately 5 miles/8 kilometers);
     
     //a time of wind and rain// is whenever a dusty wind blows and at 
       least two or three drops of rain fall on one's body.
  
     In addition, the Mahavagga (V.13) tells the story of Ven. Maha 
   Kaccana's leaving the middle Ganges Valley and settling in Avanti, 
   to the south.  After some time, one of his students -- Ven. Sona 
   Kutikanna -- asked permission to visit the Buddha.  Ven. Maha 
   Kaccana gave his permission, together with a request to convey to 
   the Buddha:  that certain rules inappropriate for areas outside of 
   the Ganges Valley -- this rule among them -- be rescinded for 
   bhikkhus living in outlying districts.  The Buddha complied with the 
   request and defined the outlying districts in such a way that there 
   is nowhere in the world outside of the middle Ganges Valley where 
   this rule applies.
     
     Offenses.  For those who live in the middle Ganges Valley, the 
   offenses for bathing more frequently than once a fortnight outside 
   of the proper occasions are these:  a dukkata for every time one 
   scrubs oneself with //chunam// (bathing powder) or clay (soap), and 
   a pacittiya when one has finished bathing.
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  Even if one miscounts 
   the days, one is still subject to the offense.
     
     Non-offenses.  In addition to the allowances to bathe more 
   frequently than once a fortnight during the proper occasions or in 
   areas outside the middle Ganges Valley, there is no offense in 
   bathing more frequently if one is crossing a river or if there are 
   dangers.  This last allowance the Commentary explains with an 
   example:  One is being chased by bees and so jumps into the water to 
   escape them.
  
       Summary:  Bathing more frequently than once a fortnight when 
       residing in the middle Ganges Valley, except on certain 
       occasions, is a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       58. When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, any one of three 
       means of discoloring it is to be applied:  green, brown, or 
       black.  If a bhikkhu should make use of a new robe without 
       applying any of the three means of discoloring it, it is to 
       be confessed.
       
       "Now at that time many bhikkhus and wanderers were traveling 
       from Saketa to Savatthi.  On the way, thieves came out and 
       robbed them.  Royal officials, coming out of Savatthi and 
       capturing the thieves with the goods, sent a messenger to 
       the bhikkhus, saying, 'Come, revered sirs, let each identify 
       his own robes and take them.'  The bhikkhus could not 
       identify their robes.  People were offended and annoyed and 
       spread it about, 'How can revered ones not identify their 
       own robes?'"
  
   Protocol.   As this rule indicates, a bhikkhu should wear robes only 
   that have been marked with an identifying mark.  The Vibhanga does 
   not go into any great detail on procedures for marking a robe, aside 
   from saying that the mark may be as small as the tip of a blade of 
   grass, and can be made with any of the colors mentioned in the rule.  
   (The color green in Pali also covers the color blue, so a mark made 
   with blue ink would be acceptable.)
  
     The Commentary goes into more detail:  After the robe has been 
   dyed, one should make a round mark no smaller than the size of a 
   bedbug's back and no larger than the iris of a peacock's eye in all 
   four corners of the robe, three corners, two, or one, as one sees 
   fit.  Only round marks are allowable.  Such things as lines or 
   angular marks (squares, triangles, or stars) are not.
     
     As the Vibhanga notes, once the robe has been marked, there is no 
   need to mark it again, even if the mark wears off, the marked part 
   of the robe gets torn (%), one sews a marked cloth together with an 
   unmarked one, or one patches, darns, or adds a hem to a marked robe.  
   If Bhikkhu X marks a robe and then gives it to Bhikkhu Y, Y may wear 
   it without having to mark it again.
     
     In Thailand at present, the custom is to make three small dots in 
   one corner of the robe, saying,"//Imam bindu-kappam karomi//," (I 
   make this properly marked) while making each dot.  This procedure 
   does not appear in the Canon or commentaries, but does not conflict 
   with any of them.  
     
     The factors for the offense here are two:  //object// -- a new 
   robe; and //effort// -- one makes use of it without first marking 
   it.
     
     Object.  According to the Vibhanga, a //new robe// here refers to 
   one made out of any of the six kinds of robe-cloth and not yet 
   marked.  Thus an unmarked cloth kept for a long time is still 
   regarded as new.  The Commentary adds that //robe// in the context 
   of this rule refers specifically to robes that can be worn over the 
   shoulders or around the waist -- i.e., lower robes, upper robes, 
   outer robes, rains-bathing cloths, skin-eruption covering cloths -- 
   and not to ordinary pieces of cloth or other cloth items such as 
   sitting cloths, handkerchiefs, or shoulder bags.  Any cloth 
   requisite that is not a robe in this sense is not grounds for an 
   offense.  Shoulder cloths (//ansa//) were not worn in the time of 
   the Commentary, but would seem to fall under this factor, as would 
   any other item a bhikkhu might wear around his body.
     
     Effort.  The Vibhanga defines this factor with the verb "use" 
   (//paribhunjati//), while the K/Commentary is more specific in 
   saying that this factor is fulfilled when one wears the robe over 
   the shoulders or around the waist.  Since the mark is to be added 
   only after the robe is dyed, this factor does not cover such things 
   as trying on a new robe while it is being sewn but has yet to be 
   dyed.
     
     Non-offenses.  As noted above, there is no offense -- 
  
     in using a robe that has been properly marked;
     in using a robe whose mark has worn off (as in washing); or
     in using a robe whose marked corner has been torn off or otherwise 
       destroyed.
     
     There is also no need to remark a marked robe if one sews it 
   together with an unmarked piece of cloth, or if one patches it, 
   darns it, or adds a new hem to it.
     
     The K/Commentary adds that if one's robes have been stolen, 
   destroyed, etc., one may wear an unmarked piece of cloth without 
   committing an offense.
  
       Summary:  Wearing an unmarked robe is a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       59. Should any bhikkhu, himself having placed robe-cloth 
       under shared ownership (vikappana) with a bhikkhu, a 
       bhikkhuni, a female probationer, a male novice, or a female 
       novice, then make use of the cloth without the shared 
       ownership's being rescinded, it is to be confessed.
  
   Shared ownership.  As mentioned in the explanations to NP 1, 
   //vikappana// is an arrangement whereby a bhikkhu places a robe or 
   robe-cloth under shared ownership so that he may store it for any 
   length of time without its being counted as an extra cloth.  One may 
   share ownership with novices, bhikkhunis, female probationers, and 
   female novices, as well as with one's fellow bhikkhus.
  
     Passages in the Mahvagga (VIII.20.2; VIII.21.1) show that shared 
   ownership is intended for cloth that is being stored, and not for 
   cloth in use.  Cloth that has not been made into a finished robe, 
   rains-bathing cloths being kept during the eight months of the year 
   outside of the rainy season, and skin-eruption covering cloths being 
   kept when they are not needed, may all be placed under shared 
   ownership.  The three basic robes, miscellaneous requisites, 
   handkerchiefs, and the sitting cloth may not.  As this rule states, 
   when a bhikkhu wants to use a piece of cloth placed under shared 
   ownership, the shared ownership must first be rescinded.
     
     Protocol.  The Vibhanga to this rule explains how cloth may be 
   placed under shared ownership, but unfortunately the explanation is 
   rather terse, so we will have to discuss two alternative 
   interpretations.
     
     //What the Vibhanga says//.  One may place a piece of cloth under 
   dual ownership only if it is one of the six kinds of robe-cloth 
   discussed under NP 1, and it measures at least four by eight 
   fingerbreadths.  There are two ways of placing it under dual 
   ownership:  in the presence of (the second owner presumably, 
   although this is a controversial point) or in the absence of (again, 
   this would seem to mean the second owner).
     
     In the first method, one says, "I place this robe-cloth under 
   shared ownership with you (plural)" or "with so-and-so."   (The Pali 
   formulae for this and the following procedures are in Appendix V.)  
   This is as far as the Vibhanga explains the method, but it seems to 
   refer to two ways of doing the procedure in the presence of the 
   second owner:  One uses "you (plural)" if the other owner is a 
   bhikkhu with more seniority than oneself; and the second owner's 
   name if he/she is a junior bhikkhu, a bhikkhuni, female probationer, 
   or male or female novice.  (Passages throughout the Canon show that 
   it was considered disrespectful to refer to a senior person by his 
   name in his presence.  Buddhists, for instance, would never address 
   the Buddha as Gotama, although members of other sects often did.  At 
   Mv.I.74.1, Ven. Ananda says that he is not worthy enough to refer to 
   Ven. Maha Kassapa by name, as the latter is his teacher.)
     
     The Vibhanga does not say how shared ownership is to be rescinded 
   in a case like this, although the K/Commentary gives a formula for 
   the second owner to say:  "Use what is mine, give it away, or do as 
   you like with it."
     
     In the second method, one gives the cloth to a witness and says, 
   "I give this robe-cloth to you to place under shared ownership."  
   The witness then says, "Who are your friends and acquaintances?"  
   One then names two of one's friends (with whom one has made an 
   arrangement for using one another's belongings on trust), and the 
   witness says, "I give it to them.  Use what is theirs, give it away 
   or do as you like with it."
     
     This second method, apparently, is for use in situations where one 
   has an extra cloth whose time span is almost up, and one is far away 
   from any co-religionist with whom one has made an arrangement to use 
   one another's belongings on trust.  
     
     What is happening in the procedure is that one is giving the cloth 
   away to the witness; the witness then places it with one as a gift 
   to one's friends.  Since one already has permission to use their 
   things on trust, one may freely make use of the cloth if one wants 
   to, or simply keep it for any number of days if not.  (See 
   Mv.V.13.13.)  Cases of placing gifts in trust in this way are 
   discussed in detail at Mv.VIII.31.2-3.  According to those passages, 
   the witness has no business in giving one permission to use the 
   cloth after having given it to the two other people; perhaps the 
   statement is included to show that all sides involved -- the witness 
   and the two new owners of the cloth -- are agreeable to one's making 
   use of the cloth.  If the two new owners have not previously given 
   one permission to use their belongings on trust, one may //not// 
   make use of the cloth until they give express permission to do so, 
   although one may keep it for any number of days without incurring a 
   penalty under NP 1.
     
     //What the K/Commentary says//.  The Commentary has nothing to say 
   about these procedures, while the K/Commentary goes into great 
   detail, reworking the Vibhanga's descriptions to come up with three 
   methods.
     
     In the first method, "in the presence of," one says in the 
   presence of the second owner, "I place this robe-cloth under shared 
   ownership with you."  The shared ownership is rescinded when the 
   second owner/witness gives one permission to use the cloth, give it 
   away, or do as one likes with it.
     
     In the second method -- which the K/Commentary also calls "in the 
   presence of" -- one says in the presence of a witness who is not the 
   second owner, "I place this robe-cloth under shared ownership with 
   so-and-so."  The shared ownership is rescinded when the witness 
   gives one permission to use the cloth, give it away, or do as one 
   likes with it.
     
     In the third method, "in the absence of," one gives the cloth to a 
   witness, saying, "I give this robe-cloth to you to place under 
   shared ownership."  The witness says, "Who is a friend or 
   acquaintance of yours?"  One names a friend, and the witness says, 
   "I give it to him/her.  Use what is his/hers, give it away, or do as 
   you like with it."  The shared ownership is rescinded when the 
   witness says this.
     
     There are a number of problems with the K/Commentary's 
   interpretations.  First, it is hard to see any practical difference 
   between its methods 2 and 3, why one should be called "in the 
   presence of" and the other "in the absence of," and in method 2 why 
   the witness should have the right to give one permission to use an 
   article that strictly speaking belongs to someone else.  
     
     Secondly, the K/Commentary's method for "in the absence of" 
   deviates from the Vibhanga's description of the method.  In the 
   Vibhanga's description, the witness places the cloth under shared 
   ownership with two of one's friends, while in the K/Commentary's 
   description, he/she places it under shared ownership with one.  Why 
   this should be the case, none of the texts explains.
     
     For these reasons, it would seem that the previous explanation -- 
   that there are two methods, as described in the Vibhanga -- is 
   preferable to the K/Commentary's.
     
     The factors for the offense here are two:  //object// -- any one 
   of the six kinds of robe-cloth, measuring at least four by eight 
   fingerbreadths, that one has placed under shared ownership; and 
   //effort// -- one uses the cloth without the shared ownership's 
   being rescinded.
     
     The K/Commentary notes that this rule applies not only to 
   robe-cloth, but also to bowls as well.  There is nothing in any of 
   the other texts on this point, but the Great Standards would seem to 
   support it.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in using an item placed under 
   shared ownership if the shared ownership has been rescinded, or if 
   one makes use of the item on trust.  The factors for legitimately 
   taking an item on trust are as follows (Mv.VIII.19.1):
  
     1) The other person is an acquaintance.
     2) He/she is one's friend.
     3) He/she has spoken of the matter.  (According to the Commentary, 
       this means that he/she has said, "You may take any of my property 
       you want.")
     4) He/she is still alive; and
     5) one knows that he/she will not mind.
  
     These factors are discussed in detail under Parajika 2.
     
     The K/Commentary's analysis of the factors involved in committing 
   an offense under this rule suggests that when an item placed under 
   shared ownership is taken on trust, the shared ownership is 
   automatically rescinded, and the item reverts to the status of extra 
   cloth or an extra bowl, as the case may be. 
     
       Summary:  Making use of cloth or a bowl stored under shared 
       ownership -- unless the shared ownership has been rescinded 
       or one is taking the item on trust -- is a pacittiya 
       offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       60. Should any bhikkhu hide (another) bhikkhu's bowl, robe, 
       sitting cloth, needle case, or belt -- or have it hidden -- 
       even as a joke, it is to be confessed.
  
     This is another rule that comes from some members of the group of 
   six teasing the children in the group of 17.  The factors for the 
   full offense are three.
     
     Object:  any of the requisites mentioned in the rule, belonging to 
   a bhikkhu.  //Robe// here means any piece of robe material measuring 
   at least four by eight fingerbreadths, except for sitting cloths, 
   which are mentioned separately.  //Needle case// covers not only 
   cases that contain needles and but also empty ones.  Any requisite 
   not mentioned in the rule but belonging to a bhikkhu is grounds for 
   a dukkata, as is any requisite belonging to a person who is not a 
   bhikkhu.
     
     Effort.  One hides the article or has it hidden.  In the latter 
   case -- assuming that the other factors are fulfilled -- there is a 
   pacittiya in making the request/command/suggestion, and another 
   pacittiya when the other person does one's bidding.
     
     Intention.  One is doing it as a game.  The Sub-commentary makes 
   clear that the "game" here can either be friendly or malicious.  If 
   one hides the other bhikkhu's requisites out of the perverse 
   pleasure of annoying him, or simply for a friendly laugh, one 
   commits the full offense all the same.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if -- 
     
     not as a game, one puts away properly items that have been put 
       away improperly (%), e.g., a bowl left hanging on a peg (see 
       Cv.V.8.5); or
     
     one puts away an item, thinking, "I will give it back (to him) 
       after having given him a Dhamma talk."  //Dhamma talk// here, the 
       Commentary says, refers to such admonitions as, "A contemplative 
       should not leave his requisites scattered around."  Hiding things 
       with this purpose in mind is sometimes an effective way for a 
       teacher to train his students to stop being careless with their 
       belongings, but it should be used with discretion, for it can 
       easily backfire.
  
       Summary:  Hiding another bhikkhu's bowl, robe, sitting 
       cloth, needle case, or belt -- or having it hid -- either as 
       a joke or with the purpose of annoying him, is a pacittiya 
       offense.         
  
  * * * * * * * *
