  
  
  
  
                               CHAPTER EIGHT
                                           
                    Part Nine:  The Treasure Chapter
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  
  
       83. Should any bhikkhu, without being previously announced, 
       cross the threshold of a consecrated noble king's (sleeping 
       chamber) from which the king has not left, from which the 
       treasure (the queen) has not withdrawn, it is to be 
       confessed.
  
       "Having sat down to one side, King Pasenadi of Kosala said 
       to the Blessed One, 'It would be good,venerable sir, if the 
       Blessed One would appoint a bhikkhu to teach Dhamma in our 
       women's quarters'....So the Blessed One addressed Ven. 
       Ananda, 'In that case, Ananda, go teach Dhamma in the king's 
       women's quarters.' 
       
       "Replying, 'As you say, Lord,' Ven. Ananda entered the 
       king's women's quarters time and again to teach Dhamma.  
       Then one day early in the morning, Ven. Ananda, having put 
       on his lower robe, carrying his robe and bowl, went to King 
       Pasenadi's palace.  At that time King Pasenadi had gone to 
       lie down on a couch with Queen Mallika.  Queen Mallika saw 
       Ven. Ananda coming from afar and, on seeing him, got up 
       hurriedly.  Her blouse of burnished gold cloth slipped off.  
       Ven. Ananda turned around and went back to the monastery."
  
   The factors for the full offense here are two:  object and effort.
  
     Object.  A king -- a consecrated member of the noble warrior 
   class, pure in his lineage through the past seven generations -- is 
   in his sleeping chamber with his queen.  //Sleeping chamber// means 
   any place where his bed is prepared, even if it is outside, 
   surrounded only by a curtain or screen wall (as was the custom on 
   royal excursions in those days, a custom often depicted in murals on 
   the walls of Thai temples).
     
     Effort.  Unannounced, one steps -- with both feet -- over the 
   threshold of the sleeping chamber.  Perception as to whether or not 
   one has been announced is not a mitigating factor here.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if -- 
     
     one has been announced,
     the king is not a member of the noble warrior class or has not 
       been consecrated,
     the king and/or queen have left the sleeping chamber, or
     the room is not a sleeping chamber.
  
     Obviously, there is little chance that a bhikkhu will break this 
   rule at present.  However, in the course of formulating the rule, 
   the Buddha mentioned ten dangers for a bhikkhu who enters the king's 
   inner palace even at the king's request, and some of these dangers 
   still apply to any situation in which a bhikkhu is on familiar terms 
   with a person of influence, royal or not:
  
     1) "'There is the case where the king is on a couch together with 
       the queen.  A bhikkhu enters there.  Either the queen, seeing the 
       bhikkhu, smiles; or the bhikkhu, seeing the queen, smiles.  The 
       thought occurs to the king, "Surely they've done it, or are going 
       to do it....
     
     2) "And furthermore, the king is busy, with much to do.  Having 
       gone to a certain woman, he forgets about it.  On account of 
       that, she conceives a child.  The thought occurs to him, "No one 
       enters here but the one gone forth.  Could this be the work of 
       the one gone forth?".... 
     
     3) "And furthermore, some jewel in the king's inner palace 
       disappears.  The thought occurs to the king, "No one enters here 
       but the one gone forth.  Could this be the work of the one gone 
       forth?".... 
     
     4) "And furthermore, secret consultations in the confines of the 
       inner palace get spread abroad.  The thought occurs to the king, 
       "No one enters here but the one gone forth.  Could this be the 
       work of the one gone forth?".... 
     
     5) "And furthermore, in the king's inner palace the son is 
       estranged from the father, or the father from the son.  The 
       thought occurs to them, "No one enters here but the one gone 
       forth.  Could this be the work of the one gone forth?".... 
     
     6 & 7) "And furthermore, the king establishes one from a low 
       position in a high position...(or) one from a high position in a 
       low position.  The thought occurs to those displeased by this, 
       "The king is on familiar terms with one gone forth.  Could this 
       be the work of the one gone forth?"....
     
     8) "And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the wrong 
       time.  The thought occurs to those displeased by this, "The king 
       is on familiar terms with one gone forth.  Could this be the work 
       of the one gone forth?"....
     
     9) "And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the right 
       time, but has it turn around mid-way.  The thought occurs to 
       those displeased by this, "The king is on familiar terms with one 
       gone forth.  Could this be the work of the one gone forth?"....
     
     10) "And furthermore, bhikkhus, the king's inner palace is crowded 
       with elephants...horses...chariots.  There are enticing sights, 
       sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations unsuitable for one 
       gone forth.  This, bhikkhus, is the tenth danger for one who 
       enters the king's inner palace.'"
  
       Summary:  Entering a king's sleeping chamber unannounced, 
       when both the king and queen are in the chamber, is a 
       pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       84. Should any bhikkhu pick up or have (someone) pick up a 
       valuable or what is considered a valuable, except within a 
       monastery or within a dwelling, it is to be confessed.  But 
       when a bhikkhu has picked up or had (someone) pick up a 
       valuable or what is considered a valuable (left) in a 
       monastery or in a dwelling, he is to keep it, (thinking,) 
       "Whoever it belongs to will (come and) fetch it."  This is 
       the proper course here.
  
   The purpose of this rule is to prevent a bhikkhu from picking up 
   misplaced valuables belonging to other people, except when he finds 
   them in a monastery or a dwelling, for as the origin story shows, 
   there are dangers inherent in such an act even when done with the 
   best intentions.
  
       "Now at that time a certain bhikkhu was bathing in the 
       Aciravati River.  A certain Brahmin, having placed a bag of 
       500 gold pieces on the dry ground, had bathed in the river 
       and left, forgetting it.  The bhikkhu, (saying to himself,) 
       'Don't let this bag of the Brahmin's be lost,' picked it up.  
       Then the Brahmin, remembering, rushed back and said to the 
       bhikkhu, 'My good man, have you seen my bag?'
       
       "'Here, Brahmin,' he said, and gave it to him.
       
       "Then the thought occurred to the Brahmin, 'Now how can I 
       get away with out giving the five percent reward to this 
       bhikkhu?' So (saying,) 'I didn't have 500, my good man, I 
       had 1,000!' he detained him for a while and then let him 
       go."
  
     However, a bhikkhu who comes across a fallen valuable in a 
   monastery or in a dwelling he is visiting -- if he does not pick it 
   up -- may later be held responsible if it gets lost:  Thus the two 
   situations mentioned as exemptions in the rule.  In situations such 
   as these, a bhikkhu is allowed even to pick up money and other items 
   he is not normally allowed to take.  In fact, the Vinaya Mukha 
   states that if he does not pick up the valuable and put it in safe 
   keeping, he incurs a dukkata.  None of the other texts mention this 
   point, although it is probably justified on the grounds that the 
   bhikkhu is neglecting his duty in not following the "proper course" 
   here.
     
     The Vibhanga advises that if a bhikkhu has picked up a fallen 
   valuable in this way and put it in safe keeping, he should take note 
   of its features.  (The Commentary adds that if it is a bag of money, 
   he should open the bag and count how much it contains.  The same 
   would hold for such things as wallets at present.)  He should then 
   have an announcement made, "Let him come whose goods are lost."  If 
   a person comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should ask him/her to 
   describe it.  If the person describes it correctly, the bhikkhu 
   should hand it over.  If not, he should tell the person to "keep 
   looking."  If the bhikkhu is going to leave the monastery to live 
   elsewhere, he should entrust the item to another bhikkhu or -- if no 
   suitable bhikkhu is available -- to a suitable lay person (%).  
     
     The Commentary adds that if, after a suitable length of time, no 
   one comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should have it exchanged 
   for something of lasting use to the monastery.  If, after that, the 
   owner does come to claim the item, the bhikkhu should tell him/her 
   of the use to which it was put.  If the owner is satisfied, there is 
   no problem.  If not, the bhikkhu should arrange to have the owner 
   compensated.
     
     The factors for the offense here are four.
     
     1) //Object//:  a valuable or anything considered a valuable that 
   one finds left behind, except in a monastery or a dwelling that one 
   is visiting.
     
     2) //Perception//:  One does not perceive it as discarded.
     
     3) //Intention//:  One wants to keep it in safe keeping for the 
   owner.
     
     4) //Effort//:  One picks it up or has someone else pick it up.
     
     Object.  The Vibhanga defines a //valuable// as jewels or silver.  
   //What is considered a valuable// means anything that is of use to 
   people.  Items meeting these definitions at present would include 
   money, wallets, watches, keys, eyeglasses, cameras, etc.
     
     According to the K/Commentary, if the owner has given one 
   permission to take the article, it does not fulfill this factor.
     
     The Vibhanga defines //in a monastery// as follows:  If the 
   monastery is walled, then within the walls.  If not, then in the 
   immediate vicinity (according to the Commentary, a radius of one 
   //leddupata// -- the distance a man of average height can throw a 
   clod of dirt underarm -- around the monastery buildings).  As for 
   //in a dwelling//:  If the area around the dwelling is walled, then 
   within the walls.  If not, then in the immediate vicinity (according 
   to the Commentary, the distance one can throw a basket or a pestle 
   (!) from the dwelling).
     
     For some reason, the Commentary says that if the item has fallen 
   in an area of the monastery where many people come and go -- e.g., 
   the doorway to the Bodhi tree or public shrine -- one should not 
   pick it up.  What its reasoning is here, is hard to say, but it does 
   note that the Kurundi -- one of the ancient commentaries -- does not 
   agree with this position.
     
     It also notes that if someone asks to put his/her belongings in 
   safe keeping with a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should not accept -- so as 
   to avoid being responsible for them -- but if he/she leaves the 
   things with the bhikkhu and goes off in spite of his objections or 
   before giving him a chance to object, he should take the belongings 
   and put them away in safe keeping.    
     
     Perception & intention.  According to the Commentary, if one picks 
   up money for one's own use, for the Community, or for anyone aside 
   from the owner, the case would come under NP 18, rather than here.  
   The same holds true with dukkata objects, such as jewels and 
   semi-precious stones.  This judgment, though, would seem to hold 
   only in the case where one perceives the money, etc., as thrown 
   away.  If one does not perceive it as thrown away, and one is not 
   borrowing it or taking it on trust, the case would come under 
   Parajika 2, regardless of what the item is.
     
     The Commentary also makes the peculiar point that if one sees an 
   item belonging to one's mother or other close relative left behind 
   on the roadside, one would incur the full penalty under this rule 
   for picking it up to put in safe keeping for the owner, but no 
   offense if one took the item, on trust, for one's own.  Of course, 
   after taking it on trust like this, one could then without penalty 
   give it back to the owner as one liked.
     
     Effort.  For some reason, none of the texts go into detail on the 
   question of getting someone else to pick up the item.  Does one 
   incur the pacittiya simply in the act of asking/commanding, or only 
   if the other person actually picks the item up as asked?  None of 
   the texts say, but the usual pattern in other pacittiya rules is one 
   pacittiya for the asking, and another one when the other person does 
   as asked.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, within a monastery or a 
   dwelling, one picks up an item or has it picked up with the thought, 
   "Whoever this belongs to will come for it." (%)
     
     Also, according to the Vibhanga, there is no offense in taking an 
   item left behind anywhere if one takes it on trust, borrows it, or 
   perceives it as having been thrown away (%).  The Commentary notes, 
   though, that these last three allowances apply only if the item is 
   something a bhikkhu may normally touch and take; and not, for 
   instance, a dukkata or nissaggiya object as defined under NP 18.
  
       Summary:  Picking up a valuable, or having it picked up, 
       with the intent of putting it in safe keeping for the owner 
       -- except when one finds it in a monastery or in a dwelling 
       one is visiting -- is a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       85. Should any bhikkhu, without taking leave of an available 
       bhikkhu, enter a village at the wrong time -- unless there 
       is a suitable emergency -- it is to be confessed.
  
   As the origin story here indicates, the purpose of this rule is to 
   prevent bhikkhus from passing their time among householders talking 
   of things inappropriate for a bhikkhu to discuss.  The term used 
   here, "animal talk," means worldly talk about "kings, robbers and, 
   ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; 
   clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; 
   villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the 
   gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also, 
   philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the 
   Sub-commentary explains 'tales of diversity'), the creation of the 
   world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not."  The 
   Sub-commentary notes here that to discuss any of these topics in 
   such a way as to foster an understanding of the Dhamma -- e.g., 
   discussing politics to illustrate the impermanence of worldly power 
   -- is not improper.  
  
     The factors for the full offense here are two.
     
     1) //Object//:  a village (this would include larger inhabited 
   areas, such as towns and cities, as well).
     
     2) //Effort//:  One enters the village at the wrong time -- 
   without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu -- except when 
   there is an emergency.
     
     Object.  The Vibhanga says that if the village as a whole is 
   enclosed, everywhere inside the enclosure is considered to be in the 
   village.  If not, the area in the village includes all the buildings 
   and their immediate vicinity.  According to the Sub-commentary, this 
   means everywhere within a 2 //leddupata// radius of the buildings.  
   (One leddupata is the distance a man of average height can throw a 
   clod of dirt underarm.)
     
     If one is staying in a monastery located within a village or town, 
   the area covered by this factor begins at the boundary of the 
   monastery.
     
     Effort.  The Vibhanga defines the //wrong time// as from after 
   noon until the following dawn.  This rule thus dovetails with 
   Pacittiya 46, which deals with the period from dawn until noon on 
   days when one has been invited to a meal.
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if one perceives 
   the time to be morning when it is actually after noon, one's actions 
   would still fall under this rule.
     
     As under Pacittiya 46, another bhikkhu is said to be available for 
   taking one's leave if, in the Vibhanga's words, "It is possible to 
   go having taken leave of him."  That is, if there is another bhikkhu 
   in the monastery, and there are no obstacles to taking one's leave 
   from him (he is asleep, he is sick, he is receiving important 
   visitors), one is obliged to go out of one's way to inform him.
     
     According to the K/Commentary, //taking leave// in the context of 
   this rule means the simple act of informing the other bhikkhu that, 
   "I am going into the village," or any similar statement.  In other 
   words, one is not asking permission to go, although if the other 
   bhikkhu sees that one is doing something improper in going, he is 
   perfectly free to say so.  If one treats his comments with 
   disrespect, one incurs at least a dukkata under Pacittiya 54.  (See 
   the discussion under that rule for details.) 
     
     The Commentary states that if there is no bhikkhu in the monastery 
   to take leave from, there is no need to inform any bhikkhu one may 
   meet after leaving the monastery.  If many bhikkhus are going 
   together, they need only take leave from one another before entering 
   the village.
     
     For a new bhikkhu still living in dependence (//nissaya//) on his 
   mentor, though, taking leave //is// a matter of asking permission 
   from his mentor at all times, "wrong" or not.  The Mahavagga 
   (I.25.24; II.21.1) states that one of the duties of such a bhikkhu 
   is that he must receive permission from his mentor before entering a 
   village, going to a cemetery, or leaving the district.  Not to ask 
   permission before going, or to go after being denied permission, is 
   to incur a dukkata.  As for the mentor, if he gives permission for 
   his student to go when it is not appropriate, //he// is the one who 
   incurs the dukkata.
     
     As for the suitable emergencies under this rule -- which would 
   seem to exempt even new bhikkhus from having to take leave from 
   their mentors -- the Vibhanga gives the example of a bhikkhu rushing 
   to get fire to make medicine for another bhikkhu bitten by a snake.  
   Examples more likely at present would include rushing to get a 
   doctor for a sick bhikkhu or to get help when a fire has broken out 
   in the monastery.
     
     Further action.  Although there is no penalty for engaging in 
   "animal talk," a bhikkhu who enters a village frequently and engages 
   in it, even if he takes leave of other bhikkhus, can be subject to 
   an act of censure for "unbecoming association with householders" 
   (Cv.I.4).
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in entering a village when one 
   has taken leave of another bhikkhu, or in going when one has not 
   taken leave if -- 
  
     There is an emergency.
     
     There is no bhikkhu available (e.g., one is living alone; all the 
       other bhikkhus have left; all the bhikkhus in the monastery are 
       going together).
     
     One is on one's way to another monastery (%), to bhikkhunis' 
       quarters, to the residence of people ordained in another sect or 
       religion (located in a village, says the Commentary), or one is 
       returning from any of these places.
     
     One is going along a road that happens to pass through a village.  
       (According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu who wants to leave the 
       road and enter the village proper should take leave of another 
       bhikkhu if one is available.)
     
     There are dangers.  (Examples in the Commentary include seeing 
       lions or tigers approaching, or clouds building up and 
       threatening a storm.) 
  
       Summary:   Entering a village, town, or city during the 
       period after noon until the following dawn, without having 
       taken leave of an available bhikkhu -- unless there is an 
       emergency -- is a pacittiya offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       86. Should any bhikkhu have a needle case made of bone, 
       ivory, or horn, it is to be broken and confessed.
  
   The origin story here echoes the one for NP 22.
  
       "Now at that time a certain ivory-worker offered an 
       invitation to the bhikkhus:  'If any of the masters need a 
       needle case, I will supply them with needle cases.'  So the 
       bhikkhus asked for many needle cases.  Those with small 
       needle cases asked for large ones; those with large ones 
       asked for small ones.  The ivory-worker, making many needle 
       cases for the bhikkhus, was not able to make other goods for 
       sale.  He could not support himself, and his wife and 
       children suffered."
  
     There are three factors for the full offense here.
     
     1) //Object//:  a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn.
     
     2) //Effort//:  One acquires it after making it or having it made
     
     3) //Intention//:  for one's own use.
     
     Object.  Anything aside from a needle case -- such as a fastener 
   or ointment box -- is not grounds for an offense here, even if it is 
   made of bone, ivory, or horn.
     
     Effort.  The permutations under this factor are as follows:  the 
   act of making the needle box or having it made -- a dukkata;  
   acquiring the finished box -- a pacittiya.  This last penalty 
   applies regardless of whether the box was made entirely by oneself, 
   entirely by others, or whether one finished what others began or let 
   others finish what one began oneself.  In any event, one must break 
   the case before confessing the offense.
     
     Intention.  There is a dukkata in using a bone, ivory, or horn 
   needle box made for the sake of another person; and in making such a 
   box -- or having it made -- for another's use.
     
     The general principle.  The Vinaya Mukha derives a general 
   principle from this rule:  The Buddha, in formulating this rule, was 
   putting a halt to the sort of fad that can occur among bhikkhus when 
   certain requisites become fashionable to the point of 
   inconveniencing donors, and senior bhikkhus at present should try to 
   put a halt to any similar fads.   
  
       Summary:  Acquiring a needle box made of bone, ivory, or 
       horn after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own 
       use is a pacittiya offense requiring that one break the box 
       before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       87. When a bhikkhu is making a new bed or bench, it is to 
       have legs (at most) eight fingerbreadths long -- using 
       Sugata fingerbreadths -- not counting the lower edge of the 
       frame.  In excess of that it is to be cut down and 
       confessed.
  
     Tall furnishings. The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus 
   from making and using furnishings that are high and imposing.  
     
     The Canon contains many rules dealing with furnishings, especially 
   in the Khandhakas, and since furnishings in the time of the Buddha 
   were somewhat different from what they are now, it is often a matter 
   of guesswork as to what, precisely, the rules are referring to.  The 
   //bed// (//manca//) in this rule almost certainly refers to what we 
   mean by a bed.  The //bench// (//pitha//), according to the 
   K/Commentary, is shorter than a bed, but not so short that it is 
   square.  This comment comes from the passage in the Cullavagga 
   (Cv.VI.2.4) that allows bhikkhus to use an //asandika// -- 
   apparently a square stool, large enough to sit on but not to lie on 
   -- even if the legs are long.  Another piece of furniture with long 
   legs allowed in the same passage is the //sattanga//, a chair or 
   sofa with a back and arms.  The Vinaya Mukha includes a //pancanga// 
   -- a chair or sofa with a back but no arms -- under this allowance 
   as well.  The Canon and commentaries make no mention of this point, 
   but it seems valid:  Armless chairs and sofas are less imposing than 
   those with arms.
     
     The factors for the offense here are three.
     
     1) //Object//:  a bed or bench whose legs, measuring from the 
   lower side of the frame to the floor, are longer than eight Sugata 
   fingerbreadths (approximately 16.6 cm.)
     
     2) //Effort//:  One acquires it after making it or having it made
     
     3) //Intention//:  for one's own use.
     
     Object.  As mentioned above, Cv.VI.2.4 shows that stools, as well 
   as chairs and sofas with backs -- with or without arms -- would not 
   fulfill this factor.
     
     The Sugata measures are a matter of controversy, discussed in 
   Appendix II.  For the purposes of this book, we are taking the 
   Sugata span to be 25 cm., and since there are twelve Sugata 
   fingerbreadths in a Sugata span, that would put eight Sugata 
   fingerbreadths at 16.6 cm. 
     
     Effort. The permutations under this factor are as follows:  the 
   act of making the bed/bench or having it made -- a dukkata;  
   acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya.  This last penalty 
   applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by 
   oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others 
   began or let others finish what one began oneself.  In any case, one 
   must cut down the legs to the proper size before confessing the 
   offense. 
     
     Intention.  There is a dukkata in making a bed or bench with extra 
   long legs -- or having it made -- for the sake of another person, 
   and in using such a bed or bench made for another's use.  This last 
   penalty would seem to apply only inside the monastery, for Cv.VI.8 
   allows bhikkhus to sit -- but not to lie down -- on furnishings in a 
   lay person's house even if the furnishings are the sort not 
   allowable in the monastery.  There are three exceptions to this 
   allowance, the one piece objected to on account of its height being 
   the //asandi// -- apparently a square platform, large enough to lie 
   on, and very high.  Bhikkhus are not allowed to sit on such a thing, 
   even in a lay person's house.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in making a bed or bench -- or 
   having one made -- if the legs are eight Sugata fingerbreadths or 
   less; or in receiving a bed or bench with overly long legs if one 
   cuts the legs down to regulation size before using it.  The 
   Commentary notes that if one buries the legs in the ground so that 
   no more than eight fingerbreadths separate the ground from the lower 
   frame, that is also allowable.
  
       Summary:  Acquiring a bed or bench with legs longer than 
       eight Sugata fingerbreadths after making it -- or having it 
       made -- for one's own use is a pacittiya offense requiring 
       that one cut the legs down before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       88. Should any bhikkhu have a bed or bench upholstered, it 
       (the upholstery) is to be torn off and confessed.
  
   Upholstery & cushions.  Cotton down was apparently the most 
   luxurious material known in the Buddha's time for stuffing 
   furniture, cushions, and mattresses, inasmuch as bhikkhus are 
   forbidden from making beds and benches upholstered with cotton-down 
   (under this rule), and from sitting on cushions stuffed with cotton 
   down, even in the homes of lay people (Cv.VI.8).  The only article 
   of furnishing stuffed with cotton down allowed to bhikkhus is a 
   pillow (%) (not a squatting mat, as translated in some places), 
   although the pillow should be made no larger than the size of the 
   head (Cv.VI.2.6).  
     
     The Commentary's explanations of this point show that the pillow 
   used in those days was an oblong cushion, looking like a rectangle 
   when viewed from above and like a triangle when viewed from either 
   the right or left side (like the old style of pillow still in use in 
   Thailand).  Such pillows, the Commentary says, should be no more 
   than two cubits (1 meter) long, and one span plus four 
   fingerbreadths (32 cm.) from corner to corner on the sides.  A 
   bhikkhu who is not ill may use such a pillow for his head and feet; 
   an ill bhikkhu may line up a series of pillows, cover them with a 
   cloth, and lie down on them with no offense.
     
     Hair -- such as human hair and horse-hair -- was another forbidden 
   form of stuffing.  Cv.VI.8, in addition to forbidding bhikkhus from 
   sitting down on an //asandi// and cushions stuffed with cotton down, 
   also forbids them from sitting down on a //pallanka// -- a couch 
   stuffed with horse-hair -- even in the house of a lay person.   
   According to Cv.VI.14, though, if the bhikkhus are presented with 
   asandis, pallankas, and cushions stuffed with cotton down, they may 
   use the asandis after cutting the legs down to size, the pallankas 
   after removing the hair stuffing, and the cotton-down cushions only 
   after tearing them up and making them into pillows. 
     
     Mattresses and cushions stuffed with other materials, though, are 
   allowed even for use in the monastery.  Cv.VI.7 mentions five kinds 
   of allowable stuffing:  wool, cloth, bark, grass, and leaves.  
   (According to the Commentary, //wool// here includes all kinds of 
   animal fur and bird feathers.  Goose down would thus be allowable.  
   It also mentions that, according to the Kurundi, mattresses and 
   cushions stuffed with these materials are allowable whether covered 
   with leather or cloth.) 
  
     The purpose of all this is to keep bhikkhus from using furnishings 
   that are extravagant and ostentatious.  As the Vinaya Mukha 
   mentions, though, standards of what is extravagant and ostentatious 
   vary from age to age and culture to culture.  Some of the things 
   allowed in the Canon and commentaries now seem exotic and luxurious; 
   and other things forbidden by them, common and ordinary.  Thus the 
   wise policy, in a monastery, would be to use only those furnishings 
   allowed by the rules and regarded as unostentatious at present; and, 
   when visiting a lay person's home, to avoid sitting on furnishings 
   that seem unusually grand.
     
     The factors for the offense here are three.
     
     1) //Object//:  a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down.
     
     2) //Effort//:  One acquires it after making it or having it made
     
     3) //Intention//:  for one's own use.
     
     Object.  Cotton down, according to the Vibhanga, includes any 
   cotton down from trees, vines, and grass.  The Commentary to Cv.VI 
   interprets this as meaning cotton down from //any// plant, since 
   "trees, vines, and grass" is the Canon's usual way of covering all 
   plant life.  Kapok, flax fibers, jute, and cotton would thus all 
   come under this category.
     
     Because cotton-down cushions are forbidden in all situations, 
   //bed and bench// here would seem to include all forms of furniture, 
   including the stools, chairs, and sofas exempted from the preceding 
   rule.
     
     Effort.  The permutations under this factor are as follows:  the 
   act of making the bed/bench or having it made -- a dukkata;  
   acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya.  This last penalty 
   applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by 
   oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others 
   began or let others finish what one began oneself.  In any case, one 
   must tear off the upholstery before confessing the offense. 
     
     Intention.  There is a dukkata in making a bed or bench 
   upholstered with cotton down -- or having it made -- for the sake of 
   another person; and in using such a bed or bench made for another's 
   use. 
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense in using cotton down to stuff a 
   pillow, a belt, a shoulder strap, a binding, or a bag for carrying 
   the alms bowl; or to form the filter in a water strainer.  If one 
   obtains a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down made for another 
   person's use, there is no offense in using it if one removes the 
   upholstery first.
     
       Summary:  Acquiring a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down 
       after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is 
       a pacittiya offense requiring that one remove the stuffing 
       before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       89.When a bhikkhu is making a sitting cloth, it is to be 
       made to the standard measurement.  Here the standard is 
       this:  two spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 1 
       1/2 in width, the border a span.  In excess of that, it is 
       to be cut down and confessed.
  
   The origin story here follows on the passage in Mv.VIII.16.3, where 
   the Buddha allows bhikkhus to use a sitting cloth in order to 
   protect their robes from getting soiled by their furnishings, and 
   their furnishings from getting soiled by their robes and bodies.
  
       "Now at that time the Lord had allowed a sitting cloth for 
       the bhikkhus.  Some group-of-six bhikkhus...used sitting 
       cloths, without any limit in size, that hung down in front 
       and behind even on beds and benches."  (As a result, the 
       Buddha set the limit at 2 spans by 1 1/2.)  Now, Ven. Udayin 
       was very large.  Setting out his sitting cloth in front of 
       the Blessed One, he stretched it out on all sides before 
       sitting down.  The Blessed One said to him, 'Why is it, 
       Udayin, that when setting out your sitting cloth you stretch 
       it out on all sides like an old skin?'
       
       "Because the sitting cloth the Blessed One has allowed for 
       the bhikkhus is awfully small.'"  (Thus the Buddha added the 
       allowance for the border.)
  
     There are three factors for the full offense here.
     
     1) //Object//:  a sitting cloth larger than the standard measure.
     
     2) //Effort//:  One acquires it after making it or having it made
     
     3) //Intention//:  for one's own use.
     
     Object.  A sitting cloth, by definition, has to have a border, 
   regardless of whether it is made of felted or woven material.   
   However -- as none of the texts give any clear indication as to how 
   many borders it should have or how they should be patterned -- there 
   is no definitive measurement as to how large the overall cloth 
   should be.  A wise policy, then, is to take the origin story as a 
   guide:  Make the cloth large enough so that one can sit cross-legged 
   on it without soiling one's robes or furnishings, but not so large 
   that it extends out on any one side.
     
     Effort.  The permutations under this factor are as follows:  the 
   act of making the sitting cloth or having it made -- a dukkata;  
   acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya.  This last penalty 
   applies regardless of whether the cloth was made entirely by 
   oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others 
   began or let others finish what one began oneself.  In any case, one 
   must cut down the cloth to the proper size before confessing the 
   offense. 
     
     Intention.   There is a dukkata in making an overly large sitting 
   cloth -- or having it made -- for the sake of another person; and in 
   using such a cloth made for another's use.    
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if one receives an overly large 
   sitting cloth made for another person's use and cuts it down to size 
   before using it oneself.
  
       Summary:  Acquiring an overly large sitting cloth after 
       making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is a 
       pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to 
       size before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       90. When a bhikkhu is making a skin-eruption covering cloth, 
       it is to be made to the standard measurement.  Here the 
       standard is this:  four spans -- using the Sugata span -- in 
       length, two spans in width.  In excess of that, it is to be 
       cut down and confessed.
  
   Object.  The Mahavagga (VIII.17) allows bhikkhus to use a 
   skin-eruption covering cloth to protect their robes when they are 
   suffering from boils, running sores, rashes, or "thick scab" 
   diseases (large boils? psoriasis?).  The Vibhanga to this rule 
   states that the cloth is to cover the area from the navel down to 
   the knees, thus suggesting that the cloth is intended to be worn as 
   an inner robe beneath the lower robe.  As we already mentioned under 
   NP 1, one should determine these cloths for use when one is 
   suffering from such a disease and place them under shared ownership 
   when not.
     
     As mentioned under Pacittiya 87, above, the Sugata measures are 
   discussed in Appendix II.  Here we take the Sugata span to equal 25 
   cm., which would put the standard measurement for the skin-eruption 
   covering cloth at 1 meter by 50 cm.  If either of these measurements 
   is exceeded, the cloth would fulfill this factor for the full 
   offense.
     
     Effort, intention, & non-offenses.  The permutations of these 
   factors are the same as under the preceding rule.
  
       Summary:  Acquiring an overly large skin-eruption covering 
       cloth after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own 
       use is a pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth 
       down to size before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       91. When a bhikkhu is making a rains-bathing cloth, it is to 
       be made to the standard measurement.  Here the standard is 
       this:  six spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 2 
       1/2 in width.  In excess of that, it is to be cut down and 
       confessed.
  
   Object.  The rains bathing cloth has already been discussed in 
   detail under NP 24.  Taking the Sugata span to equal 25 cm., the 
   standard measurement for the rains-bathing cloth would be 1.5 meter 
   by 62.5 cm.  If either of these measurements is exceeded, the cloth 
   would fulfill this factor for the full offense.
  
     Effort, intention, & non-offenses.  The permutations of these 
   factors are the same as under Pacittiya 89.
  
       Summary:  Acquiring an overly large rains-bathing cloth 
       after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is 
       a pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to 
       size before confessing the offense.
  
  
  
                                 * * *
  
  
  
       92. Should any bhikkhu have a robe made the size of the 
       Sugata robe or larger, it is to be cut down and confessed.  
       Here, the size of the Sugata robe is this:  nine spans -- 
       using the Sugata span -- in length, six spans in width.  
       This is the size of the Sugata's Sugata robe.
  
   Object.  The term //Sugata// -- meaning well-gone or accomplished -- 
   is an epithet for the Buddha.
  
     //Robe// is not defined in the Vibhanga but apparently means any 
   of the three basic robes:  the lower robe, the upper robe, and the 
   outer robe.  This raises an interesting point:  Perhaps in the 
   Buddha's time all three of the basic robes were approximately the 
   same size.  This would have made it much more convenient than it is 
   at present to hold to the practice of using only one set of three 
   robes.  When washing one robe, one could wear the other two without 
   looking out of place.
     
     At any rate, taking the Sugata span to be 25 cm. would put the 
   size of the Buddha's robes at 2.25 m. by 1.50 m. -- much larger that 
   the lower robes used at present, but much smaller than present-day 
   upper and outer robes.
     
     As we will see under Appendix II, various theories have been 
   offered over the centuries as to the length of the Sugata span.  
   Beginning at least with the time of the Maha Atthakatha, one of the 
   ancient commentaries, the Buddha was assumed to be of super-human 
   height, and his handspan, cubit, etc., were assumed to be 
   three-times normal length.  Only recently, within the last century 
   or so, have Vinaya experts taken evidence from the Canon to show 
   that the Buddha, though tall, was not abnormally so, and thus the 
   estimate of the Sugata span, etc., has shrunk accordingly.  Still, 
   the traditional estimates of the Buddha's height continue to 
   influence the size of the robes that bhikkhus wear today throughout 
   the Theravadin countries; and although there was a movement in 
   Thailand during the mid-19th century to return to the original size 
   and style as shown in the earliest Indian Buddha images, the idea 
   never caught on. 
     
     Effort, intention, & non-offenses.  The permutations of these 
   factors are the same as under Pacittiya 89.
  
       Summary:  Acquiring an overly large robe after making it -- 
       or having it made -- for one's own use is a pacittiya 
       offense requiring that one cut the robe down to size before 
       confessing the offense.
  
                            * * * * * * * *
  
