Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
14. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA. 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,
21 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. 22 PATIMOKKHA. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA, 23
36. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA, 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. 24 PATIMOKKHA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
14. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA. 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,
21 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. 22 PATIMOKKHA. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA, 23
36. 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. NISSAGGIYA PAKITTIYA DHAMMA, 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. 24 PATIMOKKHA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.