The venerable ones are pure herein. Therefore do they keep silence. Thus I understand.
Here endeth the recitation of the Aniyatas.
1 8 PATIMOKKHA.
NISSAGGIYA PAATITTIYA DHAMMA.
Pajqttiya Rules involving Forfeiture.
Here, venerable Sirs, the thirty Paiittiya Rules involving forfeiture come into recitation.
i. When the robes have been settled, when the
Ka^ina 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
Pa/£ittiya offence involving forfeiture1.
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 under- stand. 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 Sa/rcgha, or community of brethren in any place, was accus- tomed to give over to some one of the Bhikkhus such store of robes (KaMina-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 pro- perty of the whole Sangria (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, i, 7) gives eight reasons by which the Ka/$ina license would be extinguished for any one particular Bhikkhu alone — as it would be for the community at that place
Nissaggiya Pazittiya Dhamma. 1 9
2. When the robes have been settled, after the
taking up of the KaMina by the Bhikkhu, if a
Bhikkhu be without his three robes, even for a
single night, unless with the permission of the
Bhikkhus — that is a Pa^ittiya offence involving
forfeiture1.
by the formal 'taking up of the store of robes' (Ka/^inuddhara or Ka/^inassa ubbh&ra); — and with it that Bhikkhu' s claim to a share in the common store. These eight reasons are merely eight ways in wrhich that particular Bhikkhu's wants are already amply supplied; and the necessity, in his case, for a relaxation of the rules no longer exists.
One of these reasons is that his set of robes is settled or done for (£ivara/ra ni/Mita;^); which, according to the old commen- tator on our rule here, means that his set has been made, or spoiled, or destroyed, or burnt, or that his hope of receiving one from the laity has been disappointed (ni///£ita>£ivarasmin ti ^ivara^ katazrc va hoti xi&tlhdim va vina///$a#z va faddhzm va ^ivarasa va upa^Minna, ac- cording 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/^inuddhara, either particular or general, no Bhikkhu can retain for his own use an atireka-^ivara, a spare robe. He must give it up to any brother who has need of it.
As to the ' ten days,' the Sutta Vibhahga has the following story. Ananda, after the Ka/^inuddhara, has a spare robe. He wants to give it to Sariputta ; but the latter is in 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/£ittiya offence involving forfeiture/ repeated at the end of each of the Nissaggiyas, are intended to mean that that offence involves, firstly, all that a Pa&ttiya involves ; and secondly, forfeiture.
1 To this Rule there is the following story in the Sutta Vibhanga. Certain Bhikkhus left their robes in charge of the other Bhikkhus,
20 PATIMOKKHA.
3. When the robes have been settled, when the
Ka^ina 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 Pa/Httiya offence requiring forfeiture.
4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have his soiled robe 1
washed, or dyed, or beaten by a Bhikkhuni (sister)2
who is not related to him — that is a Pa/£ittiya offence
involving forfeiture3.
5. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall receive a robe from
the hands of a Bhikkhuni not related to him, except
in exchange — that is a Pa/£ittiya offence involving
forfeiture.
6. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall ask a householder, or a householders wife4, 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-^ivara).
As regards the permission we have the story that a sick Bhikkhu was invited home that his friends might nurse him. He answers, 1 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 Vibhahga (Nissaggiya IV, 2, 1) explains as one that has been once worn.
2 And so, frequently, below.
3 Compare the 17th Nissaggiya.
4 Householder is here gahapati; that is, pater familias. See Rh. D.'s note on Maha-sudassana Sutta I, 41.
NISSAGGIYA PAtflTTIYA DHAMMA. 21
for a robe, except at the right season — that is a Paiittiya 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 householders wife,
should offer him a choice1 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
Pa^ittiya 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 house-
holder 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 Tibhanga reads abhiha/u/ra; but another reads abhiha//$u#z, as does Minayeff; while the Samanta-Pasadika makes it equal to abhiharitu^. The right reading is probably abhiha/Z^u/^. In any case, the unusual form and grammatical construction throw some doubt on the exact meaning of the phrase. The Samanta-Pasadika, which explains it philologically as just men- tioned, 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 ren- dering, ' 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 Pa&ttiya.
Santar-uttara-paramaTft is meant, according to the Vibhahga, to imply ' to the extent of one inner, and one outer robe ;' but we preserve the ambiguity of the text.
2 2 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 ex-
change such and such a sort of robe with that robe-
fund to clothe me with;' desiring something fine —
that is a Pa/^ittiya offence involving forfeiture1.
9. In case two persons, householders or house-
holders' 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
Pa/£ittiya offence involving forfeiture.
10. In case a Ra^a, 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
1 Both Dickson and Childers have gone too far in rendering £etapetva by ' purchase/ The Samanta-Pasadika (Minayeff, 78) explains it by parivattetva. So Rh. D., 'Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon,' p. 6.
In the text read KqI a pan am (compare Ka^ayana, 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 amlatakassa should be omitted.
NISSAGGIYA PAtflTTIYA 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 1, let the Bhikkhu, to whom the robes
are to belong, point out, as his agent, the man who
keeps the arama in order 2, or some believer, saying,
' This man, my friend, is the Bhikkhus' agent.' If
then that messenger, when he has made an appoint-
ment 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, Bhikkhus1, 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 reminding3
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 ayasmanto, 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 arama 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.