Vinaya


[Site Map]  [Home]  [Sutta Indexes]  [Glossology]  [Site Sub-Sections]

The Pali is transliterated as IAST Unicode (āīūṃṅñṭḍṇḷ). Alternatives:
[ ASCII (aiumnntdnl) | Mobile (āīūŋńñţđņļ) | Velthuis (aaiiuu.m'n~n.t.d.n.l) ]

Vinaya Texts

Translated from the Pāli by
T. W. Rhys Davids
and
Hermann Oldenberg

Oxford, the Clarendon Press
[1881]
Vol. XIII of The Sacred Books of the East

This work is in the Public Domain.
Reformatted from the Internet Sacred Text Archive version scanned and formatted by Christopher M. Weimer

The Pātimokkha

Nissaggiyā Pākittiyā Dhammā[1]
[Index][Pali][ati]

kittiya Rules Involving Forfeiture

 


 

Here, venerable Sirs, the thirty Pākittiya Rules involving forfeiture come into recitation.

1. When the robes have been settled, when the Kathina 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[2].

p. 19 2. When the robes have been settled, after the taking up of the Kathina 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[2].

p. 20 3. When the robes have been settled, when the Kathina 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 Pākittiya offence requiring forfeiture.

4. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have his soiled robe[3] washed, or dyed, or beaten by a Bhikkhuni (sister)[4] who is not related to him — that is a Pākittiya offence involvirig forfeiture[5].

5. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall receive a robe from the hands of a Bhikkhuni not related to him, except in exchange — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

6. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall ask a householder or a householder's wife[6], not being related to him, p. 21 for a robe, except at the right season — that is a Pākittiya 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[7] 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 Pākittiya 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, 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 robe-fund to clothe me with;' desiring something fine — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[8].

9. 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeitute.

10 In case a Rāga, or a Khattiya, or a Brāhman, 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 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 then answer that Bhikkhu thus: 'Has then your reverence a person who attends (to such matters for you)?' then, Bhikkhus[9], let the Bhikkhu, to whom the robes are to belong, point out, as his agent, the man who keeps the ārāma in order[10], 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[9], 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[11] two or three times, he should succeed in obtaining 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[12]. 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 Pākittiya 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[13].

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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[14].

p. 25 12. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall have a rug or mat made of pure black wool of goats' hair[15] — that is a Pākittiya 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). If a 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[16].

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[17] — that is a Pākittiya 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[18] must be taken from all round the old one in 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

16. In case a Bhikkhu should get some goats' wool whilst he is on a journey[19], 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[20]. Should he carry it further than that, even if there are no porters — that is a Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture[21].

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[22] — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

19. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall engage in any one of the various transactions in which silver is used — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

20. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall engage in any one of the various kinds of buying and selling — that is a Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

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 Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

27. In case a householder, who is not related to him, or a householder's lady, shall have the cloth for a set of robes woven for a particular Bhikkhu by weavers; in that case, if that Bhikkhu, before the offer has been made to him, shall go to the weavers, and give directions as to the make of the robe, saying, 'This robe-cloth, my friends, is being woven for me. Make it long and broad, and make it thick, and well woven, and evenly woven[23], and with even lines, and well carded. If you do so, ourselves will p. 29 make it up to you, friends, in some way or other!' If that Bhikkhu[24], having thus spoken, should make it up[25] to them in any way, even by the contents of a begging bowl — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

28 In case a robe should fall to the lot of a Bhikkhu, as a special gift[26], ten days before the Kattika-temāsa[26] full moon, that Bhikkhu may take it, considering it as a special gift: and when he has it, he may keep it up till the robe time [26]. p. 30 Should he keep it beyond that — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

29. When vassa is completed up to the full moon in Kattika[27] in case a Bhikkhu, who is dwelling in a place belonging to the class of those forest dwellings which are held to be insecure and dangerous, should, desire to do so, he may leave one or other of his three robes in a hut inside a village, and if there is any ground for that Bhikkhu being separated from that robe, he may be separated from it up to the sixth night. Should he separate himself from it more than that, except by permission from the Bhikkhus — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

30. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall cause to be diverted to himself any benefit already dedicated to the Samgha — that is a Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture.

 


 

Here ends the third section, the 'Bowl-section.'

 


 

Venerable Sirs, the thirty Pākittiya Rules involving forfeiture have been recited.

In respect of them I ask the venerable ones, 'Are you pure in this matter?'

p. 31 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 Nissaggiyas.

 


 

Next: kittiyā Dhammā

 


[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, Mahāvagga, 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 (Kathina-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 Mahāvagga (VII, 1, 7) gives eight reasons by which the Kathina license would be extinguished for any one particular Bhikkhu alone — as it would be for the community at that place by the formal taking up of the store of robes' (Kathinuddhāra or Kathinassa ubbhāra); — 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 (kîvaram nitthitam); 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 (nitthitakîvarasmin ti kîvaram katam vā hoti nattham vā vinattham vā daddhamkîvarāsā vā upakkhinnā, 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 tbat process.

After the Kathinuddhāra, either particular or general, no Bhikkhu can retain for his own use an atireka-kîvara, a spare robe. He must give it up to any brother who has need of it.

As to the 'ten days,' the Sutta Vibbanga has the following story. ānanda, after the Kathinuddhāra, has a spare robe. He wants to give it to Sāriputta; but the latter is in Sāketa, 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 Pākittiya offence involving forfeiture,' repeated at the end of each of the Nissaggiyas, are intended to mean that that offence involves, firstly, all that a Pākkittiya involves; and secondly, forfeiture.

[2] To this Rule there is the following story in the Sutta Vibbanga. Certain Bhikkhus left their robes in charge of the other Bhikkhus, 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-kîvara).

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.

[3] Literally, 'an old robe,' which the Vibhanga (Nissaggiya IV, 2, 1) explains as one that has been once worn.

[4] And so, frequently, below.

[5] Compare the 17th Nissaggiya.

[6] Householder is here gahapati; that is, pater familias. See Rh. D.'s note on Mahā-sudassna Sutta I, 41.

[7] One MS. of the Vibhanga reads abhihatum; but another reads abhihatthum, as does Minayeff; while the Samanta-Pāsādikā makes it equal to abhiharitum. The right reading is probably abhihatthum. In any case, the unusual form and grammatical construction throw some doubt on the exact meaning of the phrase. The Samanta-Pāsādikā, which explains it philologically as just mentioned, goes on in the next words to explain it syntactically as abhiharitvā, which it refers to the subject of pavāreyya, and states could be done either actually, or by words. Dickson's rendering, 'arrange to supply him,' does not accurately convey the force of pavāreyya; 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 Pākittiya.

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.

[8] Both Dickson and Childers have gone too far in rendering ketāpetvā by 'purchase.' The Samanta-Pāsādikā (Minayeff, 78) explains it by parivattetvā. So Rh. D., 'Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon,' p. 6.

In the text read Ketāpanam (compare Kakkāyana, 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 vā after aññātakassa should be omitted.

[9] This word of address is most noteworthy as standing quite isolated in the Pātimokkha. ' 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 Pātimokkha, the expression used would necessarily be āyasmanto, 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 Pātimokkha has been preserved. Is it a survival of some form of words older even than the Pātimokkha? or is it merely an ancient blunder?

[10] The ārāma 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 vihāra, itself.

[11] In the text read kodayamāno, sārayamāno; the medial participle with active sense, as often.

[12] In the text read khakkhattuparamam. This silent standing is the only mode of asking for food permitted to a Bhikkhu.

[13] Both here, and in the Conclusion of the Samghādisesa, and further below in the 22nd Nissaggiya, where the same phrase occurs, Mr. Dickson takes it to mean, 'This is the way to Nirvāna.' We are unable to see any foundation for such a rendering.

[14] 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 corresponding word in English, as 'coverlet' or 'counterpane' would imply a different state of things.

[15] The Sutta Vibhanga says that kālaka is of two kinds, either gātiyā kālaka or ragana-kālaka; that is, that the wool is either naturally black, or dyed of that colour. Elaka is a goat, not a sheep.

[16] This is deliberately chosen as an ugly mixture, which would lessen the commercial value of the rug, by making it unfashionable.

[17] 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.

[18] See the note on the 6th Samghādisesa.

[19] Addhāna-magga-patipanno; which the Kankhā Vitaranî (Minayeff, p. 80) explains as being on a long road, called addhāna (high-road). But one may be on a high-road without going a long journey.

[20] Yoganas; a yogana being a trifle under eight miles. See Rh. D., 'Ancient Coins and Measures' &c., pp. 16, 17.

[21] Compare the 4th Nissaggiya.

[22] Upanikkhittam vā sādiyeyya; 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 gana or to a puggala'). Then when an ārāmika or an upāsaka 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 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' (Rûpiya-kkhaddaka), and he is to go and throw it away somewhere, 'animittam katvā,' (without making any mark at the place!)

[23] Suppavāyitam, literally, 'well woven forth.' We follow the Samanta-Pāsādikā in its explanation of this word, but with considerable hesitation. Compare the relation between Sanskrit ota and prota; and between English 'web' and 'woof.'

[24] In the text read Evañ ka so bhikkhu.

[25] Anupadaggeyya is a double potential. Daggāma would be equal to Sanskrit dadyāma; and to that a second potential termination has been added.

[26] The expression in the Pāli is literally 'should a special robe come to a Bhikkhu,' &c.; where 'special robe' is akkeka-kîvaram, explained in the Samanta-Pāsādikā (Minayeff, 83) as equal to akkāyika-kîvaram. The Vibhanga says, 'If a man wants to join the army or to emigrate, or if a man has fallen sick, or a woman is with child, or an unbeliever has come to believe, or a believer is edified (pasādo uppanno hoti); then, if such a one send a messenger to the Bhikkhus, saying, "Let their reverences come hither, I will give a gift for the rainy season" (vassāvāsikam; perhaps, "such a gift as the laity are wont to give to the Bhikkhus who have spent the vassa among them") — that is an akkeka-kîvaram' (Minayeff, 82, 83). Akkaya is an immediate, threatening, danger: compare the expression 'donatio mortis causā.' 'Special robe' is, no doubt, an inadequate rendering; but we have chosen it in reference to the special circumstances under which the donation is made, and in default of a better translation. Compare the 85th Pākittiya.

The Kattika-temāsi-punnamā is, according to the Vibhanga (Minayeff, p. 82), the close of the Pavāranā, the ceremony at the end of Vassa (see below, Book IV).

The robe time is the time when the robes were settled. The Vibhanga says, ' Robe time is, if the robes have not been laid out to dry (see the note to the first rule in this division of the Pātimokkha), the last month of the rains; if they have, it is five months.'

[27] This is a different date from that mentioned in the last rule, and one month later. The Vibhanga explains the date here as Kattika-kātumāsinî, whereas the date in Rule 28 is temāsinî, and is called by the Samanta-Pāsādikā (Minayeff, p. 82) pathama-kattika-punnamā.

The same distinction is evident, from Mahāvagga IV, 14, 7-11, between Pavāranā and the Kātumāsini. But how both these full moons came to be called Kattika is not clear.


Contact:
E-mail
Copyright Statement   Webmaster's Page