much less of inks, or pens, or styles, or leaves, or other writing materials.
And we do find, on the contrary, passages which show the difficulties which arose every time that the memorial tradition by word of mouth of any of the sacred texts was interrupted, or threatened to be interrupted.
So, for instance, we find the case discussed of no one Bhikkhu, among all the Brethren dwelling in some particular place, knowing the Patimokkha. There was no other way out of the difficulty, save that of one of the Bhikkhus being sent out to some neighbouring fraternity, with the commission there to learn the Patimokkha by heart, either in its full extent (that is, as we take it, all the rules being learnt in full) or at least in abstract}.
And again, in a passage already quoted, we hear of the case of an Updsaka, who knows some important Suttanta, and is afraid that the knowledge of it will fade away. So he sends to a fraternity of Bhikkhus, and invites the Brethren to come over to him; and in that case an exception is made to the Rule forbidding the Brethren to travel in the rainy season, provided only that they do not stay away from home longer than seven days’.
We may quote in this connection a passage of the same tendency from the Anguttara Nikaya, in which, among the circumstances hurtful to the security and the propagation of the Buddhist faith, the possibility is mentioned of the well-instructed Bhikkhus neglecting to take pains to hand on to others the Suttantas which they know. Then, when they have passed away, ‘the root of that Suttanta is cut off, and it finds no place of refuge’,’
It is very plain from these last passages that the Buddhist community in its earliest days did not think of the
1 Mahavagga II, 17, 5.6. On this meaning of vittharena and samkhittena see also Mahavagga II, 15, 1. 2. °
possibility of using writing as a means of guarding against such painful accidents. Can this have arisen from any belief that writing the books would have been an irreverent treatment of them? We cannot think that among such a community as that of the Buddhists—who were so advanced in their views that they deliberately adopted the language of the people, and even took no thought, within the ranks of their community, of caste—any such consideration would have prevailed. It seems much more probable that, at the date referred to, the art of writing had not been taken advantage of for the purposes of any kind of literature; but that its use was wholly confined to recording short messages or notes, or private letters, or advertisements of a public character —a result which may well have been due to the want of any practical material on which to engrave the letters that were nevertheless evidently known}. ,
On the texts above quoted, and the inferences which may fairly be drawn from them, we would base two remarks. Firstly, that there can be no reasonable ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient tradition preserved in the well-known verse of ‘the Ceylon Chroniclers, when, speaking of the time of Va¢ta Gamazi, who began to reign 88 B.C., they say,
‘The text of the Three Pizakas, and the Commentary too thereon, The wise Bhikkhus of former time had handed down by word of mouth’: The then Bhikkhus, perceiving how all beings do decay, Meeting together, wrote them in books, that the Dhamma might last long 2)
But, secondly, though we must therefore believe that the
1 Compare Burnell, ‘Elements of South Indian Palaeography,’ p. 10.
3 Dipavamsa XX, 20, 21; Mahavamsa, p.207. As the stanza is common to both works it is taken in all probability, word for word, from the Old Commentary in Simhalese, the Sthalat¢hakath4, preserved in the Mahavihara in Anurddhapura, See H. Oldenberg’s Introduction to his edition of the Dipavamsa.,
Cc 2
XXXVI VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
As the stanza is common to both works it is taken in all probability, word for word, from the Old Commentary in Simhalese, the Sthalat¢hakath4, preserved in the Mahavihara in Anurddhapura, See H. Oldenberg’s Introduction to his edition of the Dipavamsa.,
Cc 2
XXXVI VINAYA TEXTS FROM THE PALI.
Vinaya, before it was reduced to writing, was handed down for about three hundred years solely by memory, and that it lived only in the minds of the VinayadharA, the Bhikkhus ‘who were versed in the Vinaya,’ we do not think it is at all necessary, or even possible, to impugn the substantial accuracy of the texts handed down in a manner that seems, to moderns, so unsafe. The Text, as it lies before us, stands so well against all proofs, whether we compare its different parts one with another, or with the little that is yet known of its northern counterparts’, that we are justified in regarding these Pali books as in fact the authentic mirror of the old Magadhi text as fixed in the central schools of the most ancient Buddhist Church. That text, in the dialect of Magadha, may have been lost to us, once for all; and we can scarcely hope, unless some isolated sentences may hereafter be found preserved here and there in Inscriptions, that this loss will ever be, even partially, made good. But we may well be thankful that the faithful zeal and industry of these old monks has preserved for us a translation, in a dialect so nearly allied to the original, and in so perfect and trustworthy a state as the Pali version of the Vinaya still undoubtedly presents.
We trust that the choice we have made from the literature of the Vinaya Pizaka for insertion in this Collection of Translations from the Sacred Books of the East will be considered to need little justification. As the oldest and in many respects most important material of the Vinaya literature we have included a version of the Patimokkha ; though confining ourselves to the Bhikkhu-PAtimokkha,
1 How little this is, is apparent from the fact that Burnouf, who had studied all those that were then accessible, did not even find the words paragika and samghadisesa (Introduction, &c., p. 301). To the Tibetan texts Csoma KGrdsi has devoted a few pages (‘ Analysis of the Dulva’ in Asiatic Researches, vol, xx. pp. 45 and foll.) | Of the Chinese we have only the brief notices of M. Rémusat (Foe Koue Ki, pp. 104 and foll.) and of Mr. Beal (in H. Oldenberg’s Introduction to the Vinaya, vol. i. pp. xliv, xlv), The last scholar also mentions several Vinaya works, of the contents of which however nothing further is known, in his Catalogue of Chinese Buddhist Works now in the India Office Library (pp. 67-71).
INTRODUCTION. XXXVII
Beal (in H. Oldenberg’s Introduction to the Vinaya, vol. i. pp. xliv, xlv), The last scholar also mentions several Vinaya works, of the contents of which however nothing further is known, in his Catalogue of Chinese Buddhist Works now in the India Office Library (pp. 67-71).
INTRODUCTION. XXXVII
as our predecessors, Mr. Dickson and Professor Minayeff, have done before us. We could not consider, even after their labours, that a new translation of this difficult text would be superfluous. And of the younger literature we have confined ourselves to the Khandhakas, both because these books, in their variety, and in the fulness of their contents, are better calculated to afford a correct view of the conditions, and the life, of that oldest and most influential of the many monkish orders, the Buddhist Samgha; and also because the Sutta-vibhanga is little more than an expansion of the Patimokkha, which we have already, for the reasons just stated, determined to include!.
T. W. RHYS DAVIDS. H. OLDENBERG.
November, 1880.
1 For the Upasampada-kammavaka see the passages recurring in the Khandhakas as pointed out above, p. xix.
AppitionaL Note on ManAvacaa III, 2, 2 (vassupandyik4).
As entering upon Vassa is called vassam upagakkfati or vassam upeti, we believe that upandyik4, the final member of the compound vassupan4yik4 (entrance upon Vassa), must not be derived from upa-ni, but from upa-i (upan-i). Comp. Satapatha-Brahmaza II, 3, 2, 2: ahar-ahar vai Nado Naishidho Yamam raganam dakshimata upanayati (Sayaza: upagaskhati) The preposition upan contained in upan-ayati will be treated of by Professor Jou. Scumipt in the 26th volume of Kuhn’s Zeitschrift.
~
PATIMOKKHA.
THE PATIMOKKHA. THE WORDS OF DISBURDENMENT.
REVERENCE TO THE BLESSED ONE, THE Hoty Ong, THE FuLty ENLIGHTENED ONE. __
\\ TY!
Ob THE
NIDANAL{UNIVERSI
INTRODUCTION. May the Chapter *, reverend Sirs, hear me! To-day is the sacred day (of the full, or ‘new, * moon), the fifteenth day of the half-month*. If it be convenient to the Chapter, let the Chapter hold Uposatha, let it repeat the Patimokkha. How is it with respect to the necessary preliminaries to a meeting of the Order? Let the reverend brethren announce their purity 4, and I will rehearse the Patimokkha!
We all gladly give ear and do attend 5!
* The whole of this Introduction, with the ancient commentary upon it (referred to above, in the Introduction), recurs in the Mah4vagga II,-3, where further notes will be found. The previous chapter in Dickson entitled the PuséhAvissaggana is not part of the ancient text of the Patimokkha.
* Samgho: of course not the whole Order, but those members then present, spoken of collectively.
5’ Uposatho pazmaraso. See below, Mahavagga, Book II, and especially chap. 14.
‘ That is, their freedom from any of those disabilities which are declared below, Book II, to incapacitate a member of the Order from assembling at a formal meeting on the Uposatha day.
5’ Uposatho pazmaraso. See below, Mahavagga, Book II, and especially chap. 14.
‘ That is, their freedom from any of those disabilities which are declared below, Book II, to incapacitate a member of the Order from assembling at a formal meeting on the Uposatha day.
5 On sabbe ’va santa compare ubho ’va santé in the ninth Nissaggiya, and the Old Commentary loc. cit.
“ (13) B
p. 2
Whosoever have incurred a fault, let him declare it! If no fault have been incurred it is meet to keep silence!
Now, venerable Sirs, it is by your silence, that I shall know whether you are pure. As to each one question put there must be an answer, so, in such a meeting as this, each question is put? as many as three times. Then if any Bhikkhu, when it has been three times put, knowingly omit to declare a fault incurred, he is guilty of uttering a conscious lie. Venerable Sirs, the uttering of a deliberate lie has been declared by the Blessed One to be a condition hurtful (to spiritual progress)*. Therefore a fault, if there be one, should be declared by that Bhikkhu who remembers it, and desires to be cleansed therefrom. For a fault, when declared, shall be light to him.
Venerable Sirs, the Introduction is now recited.
Thus do I question you, venerable Sirs, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A second time do I question you, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A third time do I question you, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
The venerable ones are pure herein. Therefore do they keep silence. Thus I understand.
Here endeth the recitation of the Introduction.
1 The spelling of the P&li word in the text should be anussavitam, and so below, anussaviyamane. By ‘the text’ we refer throughout to Mr. Dickson’s very careful edition, all the necessary corrections in which—they are mostly only misprints— will be noticed in the following notes.
2 See Mahavagga II, 3, 7.
p. 3
PARAGIKA DHAMMA.
Tue PArAeiIKA RULEs!.
Here these four Rules, concerning those acts which bring about Defeat *, come into recitation. 1. Whatsoever Bhikkhu who has taken upon
1 The whole of the following portion of the Patimokkha, together with the ancient commentary upon it, is contained in the first book of the Vibhanga, also called the Paragikam.
Dickson translates throughout Dhammé by ‘offences.’ He is no doubt right in taking the word, not in its ordinary sense of condition or quality, but in a more strictly technical, legal, sense. ‘ Offences’ is however not the right direction in which to limit the general sense. Dhamméa must here be ‘Rules,’ in accordance with the passages quoted in our Introduction, pp. xxviii-xxx.
‘ Offences’ is however not the right direction in which to limit the general sense. Dhamméa must here be ‘Rules,’ in accordance with the passages quoted in our Introduction, pp. xxviii-xxx.
* Childers (sub voce) follows Burnouf (Introduction, &c., p- 301) in deriving the word Pérfgika from AG with par4 prefixed, taking that compound in the sense of ‘to expel.’ Dickson’s translation ‘deadly sin’ rests upon the same basis. The Buddhist commentators refer the word to the passive of GI with para prefixed, in the sense of ‘to suffer defeat.’ So the Samanta-Pasadiké : Paragiko hotiti parégito paragayam Apanno. Now the root AG belongs to the Vedic dialect only, and is not met with in any Buddhist expressions, and even in the Vedas it does not occur with para prefixed. The Buddhist forms of speech have quite different and settled terms with which to convey the idea of expulsion. On the other hand, there was a considerable group of words in use in the Buddhist community with which pfragika stands in close connection: par4gi, ‘to suffer defeat ;’ pardgita, ‘defeated;’ paragaya, ‘defeat.’ We cannot therefore but think that the native commentators are right in associating pfragika also with this group, and that the word really means ‘involving defeat.’ This may mean specifically defeat in the struggle with Mara the Evil One; but more probably defeat in the struggle against evil generally, defeat in the effort to accomplish the object for which the Bhikkhu entered the Order, in the effort to reach the ‘ supreme goal’ of Arahatship.
B 2
4 PATIMOKKHA.
himself the Bhikkhus’ system of self-training and rule of life, and has not thereafter withdrawn from the training, or declared his weakness, shall have carnal knowledge of any one, down even to an animal, he has fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion ?,
2. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall take, from village or from wood, anything not given—what men call ‘theft ?’—in such manner of taking as kings would seize the thief for, and slay, or bind, or banish him, saying, ‘Thou art a thief, thou art stupid, thou art a fool, thou art dishonest,— the Bhikkhu who in that manner takes the thing not given, he, too, has fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion.
3. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall knowingly deprive
* of life a human being, or shall seek out an assassin
against a human being, or shall utter the praises of death, or incite another to self-destruction, saying, ‘Ho! my friend! what good do you get from this sinful, wretched life? death is better to thee than life !'—if, so thinking, and with such an aim, he, by various argument, utter the praises of death or incite another to self-destruction—he, too, is fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion °.
VJ
my friend! what good do you get from this sinful, wretched life? death is better to thee than life !'—if, so thinking, and with such an aim, he, by various argument, utter the praises of death or incite another to self-destruction—he, too, is fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion °.
VJ
1 ‘Declared his weakness’ refers to the permission (on the ground that it was better to leave the Order than to burn) for a Bhikkhu to acknowledge himself unfit for the discipline, and throw off the robe. ‘ Withdrawn from the training’ is the formal expression for thus throwing off the Robes, See below, Mahévagga II, 22, 3.
On sikkhasagivam, which is by no means only ‘Rules of the Order,’ see the Vibhanga (Par. I, 8, 1).
® The Vibhanga (Par. II, 3) takes theyya-samkhatam as meaning ‘with dishonest intent.’
8 The deviations here from Mr. Dickson’s version will, we hope, justify themselves. There is no commentary on h4araka, though
p. 5
4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, without being clearly conscious of extraordinary qualities, shall give out regarding himself that insight into the knowledge of the noble ones has been accomplished, saying, ‘Thus do I know, ‘Thus do I perceive:’ and at some subsequent time whether on being pressed, or without being pressed, he, feeling guilty, shall be desirous of being cleansed from his fault, and shall say, ‘ Brethren! when I knew not, I said that I knew ; when I saw not, I said that I saw—telling a fruitless falsehood ;’ then, unless he so spake through undue confidence he, too, has fallen into defeat, he is no longer in communion}.
Venerable Sirs, the four Conditions of Defeat have been recited, of which when a Bhikkhu has fallen into one or other, he is no longer allowed to be in co-residence with the Bhikkhus. As before, so afterwards, he is defeated, he is not in communion®.
the Vibhanga (P4r. III, 3, 1) explains the different kinds of Sattha, Papaka must be ‘sinful,’ not merely ‘poor;’ the suggestion is ‘by destroying your life you will escape from the possibility of sinning.’
‘1 The extraordinary qualities (literally, ‘superhuman qualities’) are defined to be the Vimokkhas, Sam4dhis, the Sam4pattis, the /Vanadassana, the having experienced the Noble Path, and having realised the Fruit thereof ; that is to say, Arahatship and the highest forms of spiritual emotion and intelligence which can accompany Arahatship. They are in fact, therefore, superhuman only in the sense of extraordinary ; as it is precisely human beings, and only human beings, who were supposed to be able to acquire these qualities.
Uddhakka, ‘ Self-righteousness,’ is also the last but one of the ten Samyoganas, or ‘Fetters,’ which the Arahat has to break.
2 The sentences which follow in the text, but are not here translated, and in which it is declared that all the following portions of the Patimokkha have already been heard, do not occur in the Vibhanga, They are not part of the Patimokkha; but only the
p. 6
2 The sentences which follow in the text, but are not here translated, and in which it is declared that all the following portions of the Patimokkha have already been heard, do not occur in the Vibhanga, They are not part of the Patimokkha; but only the
p. 6
In respect of them I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A second time I ask, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A third time I ask, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
The venerable ones are pure herein. Therefore do they keep silence. Thus I understand.
Here endeth the recitation of the Paragikas.
form to be used, when the Patimokkha cannot be recited in full, and all the remaining Rules are to be omitted. According to Mahavagga II, 15, 1, 4 this abridged recital may be used in certain cases of danger.
On Yatha pure tatha pak there is no explanation in the Old Commentary. The phrase probably means that the Bhikkhu is irrevocably defeated. He must remain for ever in the condition (of permanent exclusion from the Order) into which he has brought himself.
p. 7
SAMGHADISESA DHAMMA,
RULES WHICH REQUIRE, AS WELL IN THEIR EARLIER AS IN THEIR LATER STAGES, FORMAL MEETINGS OF THE ORDER}.
Here, venerable Sirs, the thirteen matters, which, as well in their earlier as in their later stages, require formal meetings of the Order, come into recitation.
1. The emission of semen by design, except by a person sleeping, is a Samgh4disesa. y 2. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, being degraded’, shall, with perverted * mind, come into bodily contact with a woman, by taking hold of her hand, or by taking hold of her hair, or by touching any part of her body— that is a Samghadisesa.
3. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, being degraded, shall, with perverted mind, address a woman with wicked words, exciting to passion as those of a young man to a maid—that is a Samgh4adisesa*.
1 The expression is curious, but the authorities given by Childers (sub voce) are decisive as to its meaning. Whereas the Paragika offences were dealt with in one meeting of the Order, these thirteen offences gave rise to the various Samghakammas (formal resolutions or proceedings at meetings of the Order), which are explained in detail in the third Khandhaka of the Kullavagga.
The text of, and the ancient commentary on this portion of the Patimokkha will be found in the Vibhanga in the Book on the Samghadisesas.
* Otizno, literally, ‘having gone down,’ which the old commentator in the Vibhanga explains as ‘lustfully, or with a mind bound by desire.’ Our word ‘degraded’ has often a very similar connotation.
5 Viparizatena, literally, ‘changed;’ here ‘changed for the worse. Compare Mah4-sudassana Sutta II, 39, and the Old Comment at Minayeff, p. 64.
* Compare the second Aniyata.
8 PATIMOKKHA.
5 Viparizatena, literally, ‘changed;’ here ‘changed for the worse. Compare Mah4-sudassana Sutta II, 39, and the Old Comment at Minayeff, p. 64.
* Compare the second Aniyata.
p. 8
4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, being degraded, shall, with perverted mind, magnify, in the hearing of a woman, ministration to himself! (by saying), ‘ This, Sister, would be the noblest of ministrations, that to so righteous and exalted a religious person as myself you should ministrate by that act,’ (meaning) sexual intercourse—that is a Samghdadisesa.
5. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall act as a go-between for a woman to a man, or for a man to a woman, or for a wife, or for a paramour, or even for a harlot— that is a Samgh4disesa.
6. A Bhikkhu who, begging (the materials) together, is having a hut put up for his own use, to belong to no one (else), must have it made of due measurement. And herein this is the measurement— in length twelve spans according to the accepted span’, in breadth seven spans (measured) inside.
1 Attakamaparikariy 4, perhaps ‘to his lusts ;’ but we follow the old commentator.
* Sugata-vidatthiya. Dickson translates ‘of the span of Buddha,’ Sugata being one of the many epithets applied to the Buddha in poetry, or poetical prose. Mr. James D’Alwis in the Ceylon Asiatic Society’s Journal for 1874 has a long article to show that this cannot be the correct meaning of the word ‘ Sugata’ in this connection ; and we think he is right, though his discussion as to what it does mean (evidently more than a simple span) seems to lead to no certain conclusion. The older Ceylon commentators take the expression as being equal to one and a half carpenter's cubits, a ‘carpenter’s cubit’ (Simhalese Wadu-riyana) being two ordinary cubits, so that ‘the Buddha’s span’ (as they translate it) would be four feet and a half! But the Bhikkhus of the present day in Ceylon take it to be equal to the length of the supposed foot-print of the Buddha on Adam’s Peak; that is, four ordinary cubits, or six feet. See Dickson’s note; and compare Nissaggiya 15, and P&kittiya 87-92.
There is no comment on the phrase in the Old Commentary,
p. 9
The Bhikkhus must be brought to the place to approve the site; and those Bhikkhus shall approve a site free from danger’, and with an open space around it®, If a Bhikkhu shall, at his own request, have a hut put up on a dangerous site, without the open space around it, or shall not bring the Bhikkhus to approve the site, or shall exceed the (due) measure—that is a SamghAdisesa.
7. A Bhikkhu who is having a large® residence made for his own use, and to belong (also) to others, shall bring the Bhikkhus to the place to approve the site; and those Bhikkhus shall approve a site free from danger, and with an open space around it. Ifa Bhikkhu shall have a large residence made on a dangerous site, without the open space around it, or shall not bring the Bhikkhus to the place to approve the site—that is a Samgh4disesa.
Ifa Bhikkhu shall have a large residence made on a dangerous site, without the open space around it, or shall not bring the Bhikkhus to the place to approve the site—that is a Samgh4disesa.
8. Whatsoever Bhikkhu‘, in harshness, malice, or anger, shall harass (another) Bhikkhu by a groundless (charge of having committed) a PAragika offence, thinking to himself, ‘Perchance I may (thus) get him to fall from this religious life *—and then at some later time, either when he is pressed, or without his being pressed, the case turns out to be groundftess, which is especially curious if the word Sugata meant ‘the Buddha’s,’ that is to say, the Buddha’s span, when that work was composed.
1 That is, either to living creatures (birds, ants, and so on) by clearing the site; or to the future resident after it is built. See the old commentator’s note on Sdrambha at Minayeff, p. 71.
2 «Sufficient for a cart drawn by a yoke of oxen to pass round it,’ according to the old commentator.
8 Mahallaka. Compare Xullavagga VI, 11, 1.
* In the text read, of course, Bhikkhu, not Bhikkht,
5 Te. to throw off the robes, to leave the Order.
p. 10
and the Bhikkhu confesses his malice '—that is a Samghadisesa.
g. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, in harshness, malice, or anger, shall harass another Bhikkhu by a groundless charge of having committed a Paragika offence, supporting himself by some point or other of no importance in a case that really rests on something of a different kind; thinking to himself, ‘Perchance I may thus get him to fall from this religious life’ —and then at some Iater time, either when he is pressed, or without his being pressed, the case turns out to rest on something of a different kind, and that Bhikkhu confesses his malice—that is a Samghadisesa?*.
10. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall go about to cause division in a community ® that is at union, or shall persist in calling attention to some matter calculated _ to cause division, that Bhikkhu should thus be addressed by the Bhikkhus: ‘Sir, go not about to cause division in a community that is at union;’ or, ‘Persist not in calling attention to a matter calculated to cause division;’ ‘Be, Sir, at one with the community, for the community, being at unity, in harmony, without dispute, dwells pleasantly under
1 Dosam was probably meant here to refer to the doso at the beginning of the rule.
2 For instance, the Bhikkhu has seen that A, who is a Khattiya, has committed some offence. He says either that he has seen a Khattiya commit that offence, and thus harasses an innocent person; or he says that A has committed a Pardgika offence, whereas the offence is of a lesser nature.
For £aveyyan in the text read AAveyyan.
® Samgha; that is, the company of the Brethren dwelling in one place, or in one district.
SAMGHADISESA DHAMMA, II
For £aveyyan in the text read AAveyyan.
® Samgha; that is, the company of the Brethren dwelling in one place, or in one district.
SAMGHADISESA DHAMMA, II
one authority!’ If that Bhikkhu, when he has thus been spoken to by the Bhikkhus, should persist as before, then let that Bhikkhu be (formally) admonished about it by the Bhikkhus as a body?, even to the third time, to the intent that he abandon that course. If, while being so admonished up to the third time, he abandon that course, it is well: if he abandon it not—that is a SamghAdisesa.
11. Now if other Bhikkhus, one, or two, or three, become adherents of that Bhikkhu, and raise their voices on his side; if they should say thus: ‘Say not, Sirs, anything against that Bhikkhu! That Bhikkhu both speaks according to the Dhamma, and-he speaks according to the Vinaya; it is our wish, too, and desire, that he adopts, and gives expression to; and he speaks, knowing that what he says appears to us also to be right:’—then let those Bhikkhus be addressed by the Bhikkhus thus: ‘Say not so, Sirs! That Bhikkhu speaks not according to the Dhamma, neither does he speak according to the Vinaya. Let not, Sirs, the causing of division in the community be pleasing to you! Be, Sirs, at one with the community ! for the community, being at unity, in harmony, without dispute, dwells pleasantly under one discipline. If those Bhikkhus, when they have thus been spoken to by the Bhikkhus, should persist as before, those Bhikkhus should be
1 Ekuddeso; that is, the authority of the rules recited in the Patimokkha.
? Samanubhdasitabbo, We think ‘admonish’ is not too strong a rendering of this term; and not inconsistent with the equality of the fraternity, as the admonition comes from the united body. The preposition sam need not imply a Samghakamma, which appears to have been necessary only after the Samgh&disesa offence had been completed. We occasionally render the word by ‘ adjure.’
p. 12
(formally) adjured by the Bhikkhus, as a body, even to the third time, to the end that they abandon that course. If, while being so adjured, up to the third time, they abandon that course, it is well: if they abandon it not—that is a Samgh4disesa.
If, while being so adjured, up to the third time, they abandon that course, it is well: if they abandon it not—that is a Samgh4disesa.
»/ 12. Should a Bhikkhu refuse to listen to what is said to him!; and when spoken to by the Bhikkhus, in accordance with the Dhamma, touching the precepts handed down in the body of recited law 8, will allow nothing to be said to him (objecting), ‘Say nothing to me, Sirs, either good or bad: and I will say nothing, either good or bad, to you. Be good enough, Sirs, to refrain from speaking to me !’—then let that Bhikkhu be addressed by the Bhikkhus thus: ‘Do not, Sir, make yourself a person who cannot be spoken to: make yourself rather, Sir, a person to whom we can speak. Speak to the Bhikkhus, Sir, in accordance with the Dhamma; and the Bhikkhus, Sir, will speak in accordance with the Dhamma to you. For thus has the church‘ of the Blessed One grown large; that is to say, by mutual converse, and by mutual help®.’ If that Bhikkhu, when he has thus been spoken to by the Bhikkhus, should persist as before, then let that Bhikkhu be
1 Dubbafo is not ‘ unruly,’ as Dickson has, following Childers, who gives ‘abusive, unruly, violent.’ It means rather ‘ difficult to reason with, averse to instruction.’ Compare GAtaka I, 151, 152.
2 Sahadhammikam, which is here adverbial; and where the Dhamma refers to the Rules, as is pointed out in the Introduction.
® Uddesa-pariyapannesu; uddesa being here practically the same as Patimokkha.
* Paris, ‘the retinue, the followers, the adherents,’ referring here to the Samgha only.
® In the text read vu/‘Aapanena,
p. 13
(formally) adjured by the Bhikkhus as a body, even to the third time, to the end that he abandon that course. If, while being so adjured, up to the third time, he abandon that course, it is well: if he abandon it not—that is a SamghAdisesa.
If, while being so adjured, up to the third time, he abandon that course, it is well: if he abandon it not—that is a SamghAdisesa.
VY 13- Should a Bhikkhu dwell near a certain village or town, leading a life hurtful to the laity, and devoted to evil, (so that) his evil deeds are seen and heard, and the families led astray by him are seen and heard, let that Bhikkhu be spoken to by the Bhikkhus thus: ‘Your life, Sir, is hurtful to the laity, and evil; your evil deeds, Sir, are seen and heard; and families are seen and heard to be led astray by you. Be so good, Sir, as to depart from this residence; you have dwelt here, Sir, long enough.’ If, when that Bhikkhu is thus addressed by the Bhikkhus he should answer the Bhikkhus thus: ‘The Bhikkhus are walking in longing, the Bhikkhus are walking in malice, the Bhikkhus are walking in delusion, the Bhikkhus are walking in fear; and, for a fault of a like nature, they send some away, and some they send not away’:’—then that Bhikkhu should be spoken to by the Bhikkhus thus: ‘Say not so, Sir! The Bhikkhus walk not in longing, the Bhikkhus walk not in malice, the Bhikkhus walk not in delusion, the Bhikkhus walk not in fear; and they send not some away, for a fault of a like nature, while they send others not away. Your life, Sir, is hurtful to the laity, and evil; your evil deeds, Sir, are seen and heard, and families are seen and heard, Sir, to be led astray by you. Be so good, Sir, as to depart from this residence ; you have dwelt
* On the use of Pabb4geti in this sense comp. the znd Pr.
p. 14
here, Sir, long enough.’ If that Bhikkhu, when thus spoken to by the Bhikkhus should persist as before, that Bhikkhu should be (formally) adjured by the Bhikkhus as a body, even to the third time, to the end that he abandon that course. If, while being so adjured, up to the third time, he abandon that course, it is well: if he abandon it not—that is a Samghdadisesa.
Venerable Sirs, the thirteen matters which require, as well in their earlier as in their later stages, formal meetings of the Order, have been recited; nine which become offences at once, and four which are not completed until the third admonition.
If a Bhikkhu have committed either one or other of these’, for as many days as he knowingly conceals his sin, for so many days must that Bhikkhu, even against his will, remain in probation*, When the probation is over, that Bhikkhu must, for six further days, undergo the Maénatta discipline ® (Penance). When the Penance has been removed, that Bhikkhu must be reinstated in some place where the community of the Bhikkhus forms a body of twenty. If a community of Bhikkhus forming a body of less than twenty, even by one, should reinstate that Bhikkhu, he is not reinstated, and that community is blameworthy. This is the proper course in that case.
1 Literally, ‘of which.’ In the text there should be no full stop after yavatatiyaka.
If a community of Bhikkhus forming a body of less than twenty, even by one, should reinstate that Bhikkhu, he is not reinstated, and that community is blameworthy. This is the proper course in that case.
1 Literally, ‘of which.’ In the text there should be no full stop after yavatatiyaka.
On the regulations respecting Pariv4sa (Probation), see Kullavagga II, 1-3.
5 On the regulations respecting M4natta (Penance), see Kullavagga II, 6-8.
p. 15
In respect of them I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A second time I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A third time I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
The venerable ones are pure herein. Therefore _ do they keep silence. Thus I understand,
Here endeth the recitation of the Samgh4disesas.
p. 16
ANIYATA DHAMMA}
RULES REGARDING UNDETERMINED MatTTERS.
Here, venerable Sirs, the two Rules regarding undetermined matters come into recitation.
./ 1. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall take a seat with a woman, one man with one woman, in secret, on a secluded seat, suitable? (for sexual intercourse) ; and if a believing woman, trustworthy of speech, who has seen (them so), shall lay it to his charge under one or other of three Rules, either under the Pér4gika’, or under the Samgh4disesa‘, or under the P4- Aittiya > Rules :—let then that Bhikkhu, if he acknowledge that he has so sat, be dealt with (according to the circumstances reported) for a P4ragika, or for a Samghadisesa, or for a Pakittiya ; or let that Bhikkhu be dealt with under that one of those three Rules under which the believing woman, trustworthy in speech, shall lay it to his charge.
This rule relates to a matter undetermined.
2. And furthermore, even if the seat be not secluded, and not convenient (for sexual intercourse), but be convenient for addressing a woman with wicked words ®, then whatsoever Bhikkhu shall takep. 17 a seat with a woman, one man with one woman, in secret, on such a seat, and a believing woman, trustworthy in speech, who has seen (them so), shall lay it to his charge under one or other of two Rules, either under the Samghddisesa, or under the PAéittiya Rule—let then that Bhikkhu, if he acknowledge that he has so sat, be dealt with (according to the circumstances reported) for a SamghAdisesa, or for a Paéittiya; or let that Bhikkhu be dealt with under that one of those two Rules under which the believing woman, trustworthy in speech, shall lay it to his charge. This rule relates to a matter undetermined.
1 The whole of the following portion of the Patimokkha, together with the Old Commentary on it, recurs in the Vibhanga, Book III.
* Alamkammaniye, an expression found only in this passage. The Vibhanga interprets it as above (Aniyata I, 2, 1).
8 The rst Péragika. * The 2nd Samghddisesa.
5 Pakittiya 44, 45; and compare also 7, 27.
* Compare the 3rd Samghadisesa, and probably the 4th is also referred to.
This rule relates to a matter undetermined.
Venerable Sirs, the two Rules regarding uncertain matters have been recited.
In respect of them I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A second time I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
A third time I ask the venerable ones, ‘Are you pure in this matter ?’
The venerable ones are pure herein. Therefore do they keep silence. Thus I understand.
Here endeth the recitation of the Aniyatas,
* [43] Cc
p. 18
NISSAGGIYA PAXITTIYA DHAMMA.
PAxITTIYA RULES INVOLVING FORFEITURE.
Here, venerable Sirs, the thirty P4éittiya Rules involving forfeiture come into recitation.
1. When the robes have been settled, when the Ka¢hina has been taken up by the Bhikkhu, an extra robe may be kept up to the end of a period of ten days. To him who goes beyond that there is a Pakittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
1 The following Rules, most of which have long ago fallen into abeyance, depend in great measure upon communistic customs of the ancient Fraternity, which are now somewhat difficult to understand. The following explanation of this rule, and more especially of the first few words of it, is therefore submitted with diffidence. At the end of the Vassa period (see below, Mahavagga, Books III and VII) the Samgha, or community of brethren in any place, was accustomed to give over to some one of the Bhikkhus such store of robes (Ka/hina-dussa) as it possessed; and it should here be observed that no Bhikkhu had a separate personal ownership over his robes, though nominally given to him for his own use, and really his own subject to the rules, they were, technically speaking, the property of the whole Samgha (that is, here, of the Order as a whole, not of the community residing together at that place). The Bhikkhu above referred to then spread the store of robes out to dry (suriye attharati); and afterwards satisfied out of it the wants of any brother whose robes, through the dampness of the season or other causes, had become spoiled. Meanwhile, each of the Bhikkhus had, of course, to wear something—it being one of the points most frequently insisted upon that a Bhikkhu should be decently clad, in direct contradiction to certain then popular views as to the sanctity of nakedness—but, during the interval, some of the rules about the robes were temporarily relaxed.
Now the Mahavagga (VII, 1, 7) gives eight reasons by which the Kashina license would be extinguished for any one particular Bhikkhu alone—as it would be for the community at that place
p. 19
2. When the robes have been settled, after the taking up of the Ka/dina by the Bhikkhu, if a Bhikkhu be without his three robes, even for a single night, unless with the permission of the Bhikkhus—that is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
When the robes have been settled, after the taking up of the Ka/dina by the Bhikkhu, if a Bhikkhu be without his three robes, even for a single night, unless with the permission of the Bhikkhus—that is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
by the formal ‘taking up of the store of robes’ (Ka/Ainuddh4ra or Ka¢hinassa ubbh4ra) ;—and with it that Bhikkhu’s claim to a share in the common store. These eight reasons are merely eight ways in which that particular Bhikkhu’s wants are already amply supplied; and the necessity, in his case, for a relaxation of the rules no longer exists.
One of these reasons is that his set of robes is settled or done for (Rivaram nit/hitam) ; which, according to the old commentator on our rule here, means that his set has been made, or spoiled, or destroyed, or burnt, or that his hope of receiving one from the laity has been disappointed (ni/hitafivarasmin ti Aivaram katam va hoti naséham va vinattham va daddham va kivarasd v4 upakkhinn, according to which the Scholion in Dickson’s note must be corrected). In each of these cases his wants are already supplied by the set of robes he has retained for wear during the process of drying: only the case of those Bhikkhus remains to be settled who have not had new robes made, and whose old ones were still good enough to wear during that process.
After the Ka/hinuddhara, either particular or general, no Bhikkhu can retain for his own use an atireka-Aivara, a spare robe. He must give it up to any brother who has need of it.
As to the ‘ten days,’ the Sutta Vibhanga has the following story. Ananda, after the Kastinuddhara, has a spare robe. He wants to give it to Sariputta; but the latter isin Saketa, and is not expected back till the ninth or tenth day. So the Buddha, to meet such cases, establishes the rule that the spare robe may be kept up to the tenth day.
The words ‘a PA&kittiya offence involving forfeiture,’ repeated at the end of each of the Nissaggiyas, are intended to mean that that offence involves, firstly, all that a Pakittiya involves ; and secondly, forfeiture,
* To this Rule there is the following story in the Sutta Vibhanga. Certain Bhikkhus left their robes in charge of the other Bhikkhus,
Cc 2
p. 20
3. When the robes have been settled, when the Ka/¢hina has been taken up by the Bhikkhu, if a set of robes should be offered to a Bhikkhu out of season, it may be accepted by that Bhikkhu, should he so wish. But when he has accepted it, it must be made up at once; and if it be not sufficient for him, it may be kept up to the end of a month by that Bhikkhu should he have any hope that the deficiency may be supplied. If he keep it beyond that time, even if there be hope of (the deficiency) being supplied—_ that is a Paéittiya offence requiring forfeiture.
4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have his soiled robe! washed, or dyed, or beaten by a Bhikkhunt (sister)? who is not related to him—that is a Paéittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have his soiled robe! washed, or dyed, or beaten by a Bhikkhunt (sister)? who is not related to him—that is a Paéittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
5. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall receive a robe from the hands of a Bhikkhunt not related to him, except in exchange—that is a PAéittiya offence involving forfeiture.
6. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall ask a householder, or a householder’s wife*, not being related to him, and went on a journey. The robes, being laid by for a long time, became spoilt. The Buddha thereupon forbad a Bhikkhu, under the circumstances stated in this Rule, to separate himself from his robes (ti-Aivara).
As regards the permission we have the story that a sick Bhikkhu was invited home that his friends might nurse him. He answers, ‘The Blessed One has forbidden us to separate ourselves from our robes. I am sick, and unable to travel in my robes.’ Then the Blessed One allows a sick brother to obtain leave to dispense with the Rule.
1 Literally, ‘an old robe,’ which the Vibhanga (Nissaggiya IV, 2, 1) explains as one that has been once worn.
2 And so, frequently, below.
5 Compare the 17th Nissaggiya.
* Householder is here gahapati; that is, pater familias. See Rh. D.’s note on Maha-sudassana Sutta I, 41.
p. 21
for a robe, except at the right season—that is a Pakittiya offence involving forfeiture.
Here the right season means when the Bhikkhu has been robbed of his robe, or when his robe has been destroyed. This is the right season in this connection.
7. If the householder, or the householder’s wife, should offer him a choice’ from (the materials for) many robes, that Bhikkhu may have robes made out of it up to the (due portion of) inner and outer.robes. If ‘he has robes made beyond this limit—that is a Paittiya offence involving forfeiture.
8. In case the value in barter of a set of robes has been laid by, for a particular Bhikkhu, by a householder who is not a relative of his, or a householder’s lady, with the intention ‘I will get a set of robes in exchange for this robe-fund, and so provide a dress for such and such a Bhikkhu :;’—in that case,
1 One MS. of the Vibhanga reads abhihasum ; but another reads abhihas/hum, as does Minayeff; while the Samanta-Pasddika makes it equal to abhiharitum. The right reading is probably abhihas‘hum. In any case, the unusual form and grammatical construction throw some doubt on the exact meaning of the phrase. The Samanta-Pas4dika, which explains it philologically as just mentioned, goes on in the next words to explain it syntactically as abhiharitva, which it refers to the subject of pavareyya, and states could be done either actually, or by words. Dickson’s rendering, ‘arrange to supply him,’ does not accurately convey the force of pavareyya; but the right rendering may be ‘should offer to bring forth for him (whatever he chose) from (amongst the material for) many robes.’ The only possible alternative is ‘should make him an offer to take whatever he chose from amongst the material for many robes.’ Compare the 34th Patittiya.
Santar-uttara-paramam is meant, according to the Vibhanga, to imply ‘to the extent of one inner, and one outer robe;’ but we preserve the ambiguity of the text.
p. 22
if that Bhikkhu, before the offer has been made to him, go and give directions as to the make of the robe, saying, ‘It would be well, Sir, to get in exchange such and such a sort of robe with that robefund to clothe me with;’ desiring something fine— that is a Pa&ittiya offence involving forfeiture!.
g. In case two persons, householders or householders’ ladies, have each laid by for a particular Bhikkhu the value in barter of a set of robes, with the intention, ‘We will each get a set of robes in exchange for this robe-fund, and so provide a dress for such and such a Bhikkhu :’—‘in that case, if that Bhikkhu, before the offer has been made to him, go and give directions as to the make of the robe, saying, ‘It would be well, Sirs, to get in exchange, with the value in barter you have each laid by, such and such a sort of robe to clothe me with, the two becoming one:’ desiring something fine—that is a Pakittiya offence involving forfeiture.
10. In case a Raga, or a Khattiya, or a Brahman, or a Gahapati should send by messenger, for a particular Bhikkhu, the value in barter of a set of robes, saying, ‘Get a set of robes in exchange for this robe-fund, and provide a dress for such and such a Bhikkhu!’ if then that messenger should go to that Bhikkhu and say, ‘I have brought, Sir, this robe-fund for your reverence. May your reverence
? Both Dickson and Childers have gone too far in rendering ketapetva by ‘purchase.’ The Samanta-Pasddika (Minayeff, 78) explains it by parivattetva. So Rh. D., ‘Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon,’ p. 6.
In the text read Ketapanam (compare Kagsayana, p. 322 of Senart’s edition); and it should not be rendered ‘money ;’ see Rh. D., loc. cit. The ‘Robe-fund’ consisted of things for barter.
In the text the va after at fiatakassa should be omitted.
p. 23
6.
In the text read Ketapanam (compare Kagsayana, p. 322 of Senart’s edition); and it should not be rendered ‘money ;’ see Rh. D., loc. cit. The ‘Robe-fund’ consisted of things for barter.
In the text the va after at fiatakassa should be omitted.
p. 23
accept the robe-fund!’ let then that monk answer that messenger thus: ‘We do not, my friend, accept the value in barter for a set of robes; but we may accept a set of robes, at the right time, and of the suitable kind.’ If then that messenger shall answer that Bhikkhu thus: ‘Has then your reverence a person who attends (to such matters for you)?’ then, Bhikkhus!, let the Bhikkhu, to whom the robes are to belong, point out, as his agent, the man who keeps the 4rama in order ?, or some believer, saying, ‘This man, my friend, is the Bhikkhus’ agent.’ If then that messenger, when he has made an appointment with that agent, shall come to that Bhikkhu, and say, ‘I have made an appointment, Sir, with that agent whom your reverence pointed out. Let your reverence come, and he will clothe you with the set of robes betimes!’ then, Bhikkhus?, let that Bhikkhu, to whom the set of robes is to belong, go to the agent and warn ‘him and remind him two or three times, saying, ‘Sir, I have need of a set of robes!’ If, while so warning and reminding ® two or three times, he should succeed in obtaining
1 This word of address is most noteworthy as standing quite isolated in the Patimokkha. It must be meant as an address by the Buddha himself to the Brethren ; for, if it were the address of the Bhikkhu reciting the Patimokkha, the expression used would necessarily be 4yasmanto, as in the closing words of each chapter, or other words to that effect. That it should have been left in is a striking proof of the faithfulness with which the Patimokkha has been preserved. Is it a survival of some form of words older even than the Patimokkha? or is it merely an ancient blunder ?
2 The 4r4ma is, literally, the grove or pleasure-ground in which the monks’ residence stood; but it had probably before this already come to include the residence, or vihara, itself.
° In the text read Aodayam4no, s4rayam4no; the medial participle with active sense, as often.
p. 24
2 The 4r4ma is, literally, the grove or pleasure-ground in which the monks’ residence stood; but it had probably before this already come to include the residence, or vihara, itself.
° In the text read Aodayam4no, s4rayam4no; the medial participle with active sense, as often.
p. 24
the robes, it is well. Should he not succeed in obtaining them, let him up to the fourth, fifth, or sixth time go and stand silently on that matter’. If, while so standing silently on that matter up to the fourth, fifth, or sixth time, he should succeed in obtaining the set of robes, it is well. Should he not succeed in obtaining them (so), and then, exerting himself beyond that point succeed in obtaining them—that is a Pafittiya offence involving forfeiture. (But) if he should not succeed in obtaining them, let him either go himself, or send a messenger (to the place) whence the robe-fund was brought to him, and say, ‘The robe-fund which your reverences sent for a Bhikkhu, that has in no wise advantaged that Bhikkhu. Take heed, your reverences, of your own, that your own go not to ruin!’ This is the proper course in that case *.
Here ends the first section, the ‘ Robe-section.’
11. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have a rug or mat made with silk in it—that is a Pafittiya offence involving forfeiture’.
' In the text read AAakkhattuparamam. This silent standing is the only mode of asking for food permitted to a Bhikkhu.
? Both here, and in the Conclusion of the SamghAdisesa, and further below in the 22nd Nissaggiya, where the same phrase occurs, Mr. Dickson takes it to mean, ‘ This is the way to Nirvama,’ We are unable to see any foundation for such a rendering.
5 The following rules were for use in a tropical climate, and refer not to bed coverings, but to materials spread over a hard seat or couch. The word translated ‘rug or mat’ is a more general term, meaning ‘a thing spread;’ but there is no corres-
p. 25
12. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have a rug or mat made of pure black wool of goats’ hair'—that is a Pa&ittiya offence involving forfeiture.
13. In case a Bhikkhu is having a new rug made, two parts should be taken of pure black wool of goats’ hair, the third part of white wool, and the fourth of the colour of oxen (reddish brown). Ifa Bhikkhu should have a new rug made without taking two parts of pure black wool, the third of white, and the fourth of tawny—that is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture ?.
14. When a Bhikkhu has had a new rug made, he should use it for six years. If he should have another new rug made within the six years, whether he has got rid, or has not got rid of the former one, . unless with the permission of the Bhikkhus *—that is a Pagittiya offence involving forfeiture.
15. When a Bhikkhu is having a new rug made to sit upon, a piece of the breadth of the accepted span‘ must be taken from all round the old one in
unless with the permission of the Bhikkhus *—that is a Pagittiya offence involving forfeiture.
15. When a Bhikkhu is having a new rug made to sit upon, a piece of the breadth of the accepted span‘ must be taken from all round the old one in ponding word in English, as ‘coverlet’ or ‘counterpane’ would imply a different state of things. .
1 The Sutta Vibhanga says that ka/aka is of two kinds, either gatiyd ka/aka or ragana-ka/aka; that is, that the wool is either naturally black, or dyed of that colour. Elaka is a goat, not a sheep.
® This is deliberately chosen as an ugly mixture, which. would lessen the commercial value of the rug, by making it unfashionable.
5 Regarding this permission the Vibhanga gives the following story. A sick monk was asked by his relatives to come home, that they might nurse him. He answered that he was too ill to carry his rug, could not get on without one, and could not have‘a new one made within six years. Then the Blessed One established this exception to the general Rule.
* See the note on the 6th Samghddisesa.
p. 26
order to disfigure it. If a Bhikkhu should have a new seat-rug made without taking a span’s width from all round the old one—that is a Pa£ittiya offence involving forfeiture.
16. In case a Bhikkhu should get some goats’ wool whilst he is on a journey’, let him accept it, if he likes; and when he has accepted it, he may carry it in his own hand, if there are no porters, for the distance of three leagues*. Should he carry it further than that, even if there are no porters—that is a Pakittiya offence involving forfeiture.
17. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall get goats’ wool washed, or dyed, or combed out by a Bhikkhuni who is not related to him—that is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture °.
18. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall receive gold or silver, or get some one to receive it for him, or allow it to be kept in deposit for him 4—that is a Paéittiya offence involving forfeiture.
1 Addh4na-magga-pafipanno; which the Kankha Vitarani (Minayeff, p. 80) explains as being on a long road, called addh4na (high-road). But one may be on a high-road without going a long journey.
2 Yoganas; a yogana being a trifle under eight miles. See Rh. D., ‘ Ancient Coins and Measures’ &c., pp. 16, 17.
5 Compare the 4th Nissaggiya.
* Upanikkhittam va sadiyeyya; which cannot possibly mean ‘if he thinks to appropriate money entrusted to him,’ as Mr. Dickson translates. See Rh. D.,‘ Ancient Coins’ &c., p. 7.
The method of procedure on a breach of this rule, or of the next, is thus described in the Vibhanga. The guilty Bhikkhu has to give up the gold or silver to the community (Samgha, not here, as elsewhere in sentences concerning forfeiture, ‘or to a gaza or toa puggala’). Then when an 4ramika or an up4saka comes, it is to be given to him, to buy ghee or oil with it for the Samgha; and whatever is bought is the common property of all the Samgha, save the guilty Bhikkhu. Should the layman object to undertake the
Then when an 4ramika or an up4saka comes, it is to be given to him, to buy ghee or oil with it for the Samgha; and whatever is bought is the common property of all the Samgha, save the guilty Bhikkhu. Should the layman object to undertake the
p. 27
19. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall engage in any one of the various transactions in which silver is used— that is a Paéittiya offence involving forfeiture.
20. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall engage in any one. of the various kinds of buying and selling—that is a PA&kittiya offence involving forfeiture.
End of the second section, the ‘ Silk-section.’
21. A spare bowl may be kept up to the limit of ten days. To him who exceeds that there is a Pakittiya offence involving forfeiture.
22. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall get another new bowl in exchange for an (old) one broken in less than five places—that is a Pafittiya offence involving forfeiture.
That bowl must be forfeited by that Bhikkhu to the company of Bhikkhus ; and whichever in that company of Bhikkhus shall be the worst bowl, that shall be given to that Bhikkhu with the words, ‘This, Bhikkhu, is thy bowl; it must be kept until it breaks.’ This is the right course in that case.
23. Now those medicines which may be used by the sick Bhikkhus—to wit, ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses—when they have received them, they may enjoy them, storing them up to the seventh day. To him who exceeds that there is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture.
spending of the gold or silver, he is to be asked to throw it away. Or, if this cannot be managed, then, as a last resource, some Bhikkhu is to be formally appointed ‘ Bullion-remover’ (Rfpiyakkhaddaka), and he is to go and throw it away somewhere, ‘animittam katva, (without making any mark at the place !)
p. 28
24. When he sees that a month of the hot days has yet to run, let a Bhikkhu provide himself with the materials for robes for the rainy season: when he sees that half a month of the hot days has yet to run, let him make them, and wear them. Should he provide himself with the materials for robes for the rainy season when more than a month of the hot days has yet to run; or should he make them, and wear them, when more than half a month of the hot days has yet to run—that is a Pafittiya offence involving forfeiture.
25. Whatsoever Bhikkhu, when he has himself given a set of robes to another Bhikkhu, shall thereafter, being angry or displeased with him, take them away, or get them taken away—that is a Paéittiya offence involving forfeiture.
26. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall himself ask for yarn, and have it woven up by weavers into’ cloth for a set of robes—that is a P&éittiya offence involving forfeiture.