home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir32
/
tbmc_4.zip
/
CHAPT_8I.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-07-05
|
43KB
|
848 lines
CHAPTER EIGHT
Part Nine: The Treasure Chapter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
83. Should any bhikkhu, without being previously announced,
cross the threshold of a consecrated noble king's (sleeping
chamber) from which the king has not left, from which the
treasure (the queen) has not withdrawn, it is to be
confessed.
"Having sat down to one side, King Pasenadi of Kosala said
to the Blessed One, 'It would be good,venerable sir, if the
Blessed One would appoint a bhikkhu to teach Dhamma in our
women's quarters'....So the Blessed One addressed Ven.
Ananda, 'In that case, Ananda, go teach Dhamma in the king's
women's quarters.'
"Replying, 'As you say, Lord,' Ven. Ananda entered the
king's women's quarters time and again to teach Dhamma.
Then one day early in the morning, Ven. Ananda, having put
on his lower robe, carrying his robe and bowl, went to King
Pasenadi's palace. At that time King Pasenadi had gone to
lie down on a couch with Queen Mallika. Queen Mallika saw
Ven. Ananda coming from afar and, on seeing him, got up
hurriedly. Her blouse of burnished gold cloth slipped off.
Ven. Ananda turned around and went back to the monastery."
The factors for the full offense here are two: object and effort.
Object. A king -- a consecrated member of the noble warrior
class, pure in his lineage through the past seven generations -- is
in his sleeping chamber with his queen. //Sleeping chamber// means
any place where his bed is prepared, even if it is outside,
surrounded only by a curtain or screen wall (as was the custom on
royal excursions in those days, a custom often depicted in murals on
the walls of Thai temples).
Effort. Unannounced, one steps -- with both feet -- over the
threshold of the sleeping chamber. Perception as to whether or not
one has been announced is not a mitigating factor here.
Non-offenses. There is no offense if --
one has been announced,
the king is not a member of the noble warrior class or has not
been consecrated,
the king and/or queen have left the sleeping chamber, or
the room is not a sleeping chamber.
Obviously, there is little chance that a bhikkhu will break this
rule at present. However, in the course of formulating the rule,
the Buddha mentioned ten dangers for a bhikkhu who enters the king's
inner palace even at the king's request, and some of these dangers
still apply to any situation in which a bhikkhu is on familiar terms
with a person of influence, royal or not:
1) "'There is the case where the king is on a couch together with
the queen. A bhikkhu enters there. Either the queen, seeing the
bhikkhu, smiles; or the bhikkhu, seeing the queen, smiles. The
thought occurs to the king, "Surely they've done it, or are going
to do it....
2) "And furthermore, the king is busy, with much to do. Having
gone to a certain woman, he forgets about it. On account of
that, she conceives a child. The thought occurs to him, "No one
enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of
the one gone forth?"....
3) "And furthermore, some jewel in the king's inner palace
disappears. The thought occurs to the king, "No one enters here
but the one gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone
forth?"....
4) "And furthermore, secret consultations in the confines of the
inner palace get spread abroad. The thought occurs to the king,
"No one enters here but the one gone forth. Could this be the
work of the one gone forth?"....
5) "And furthermore, in the king's inner palace the son is
estranged from the father, or the father from the son. The
thought occurs to them, "No one enters here but the one gone
forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?"....
6 & 7) "And furthermore, the king establishes one from a low
position in a high position...(or) one from a high position in a
low position. The thought occurs to those displeased by this,
"The king is on familiar terms with one gone forth. Could this
be the work of the one gone forth?"....
8) "And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the wrong
time. The thought occurs to those displeased by this, "The king
is on familiar terms with one gone forth. Could this be the work
of the one gone forth?"....
9) "And furthermore, the king sends the army out at the right
time, but has it turn around mid-way. The thought occurs to
those displeased by this, "The king is on familiar terms with one
gone forth. Could this be the work of the one gone forth?"....
10) "And furthermore, bhikkhus, the king's inner palace is crowded
with elephants...horses...chariots. There are enticing sights,
sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations unsuitable for one
gone forth. This, bhikkhus, is the tenth danger for one who
enters the king's inner palace.'"
Summary: Entering a king's sleeping chamber unannounced,
when both the king and queen are in the chamber, is a
pacittiya offense.
* * *
84. Should any bhikkhu pick up or have (someone) pick up a
valuable or what is considered a valuable, except within a
monastery or within a dwelling, it is to be confessed. But
when a bhikkhu has picked up or had (someone) pick up a
valuable or what is considered a valuable (left) in a
monastery or in a dwelling, he is to keep it, (thinking,)
"Whoever it belongs to will (come and) fetch it." This is
the proper course here.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent a bhikkhu from picking up
misplaced valuables belonging to other people, except when he finds
them in a monastery or a dwelling, for as the origin story shows,
there are dangers inherent in such an act even when done with the
best intentions.
"Now at that time a certain bhikkhu was bathing in the
Aciravati River. A certain Brahmin, having placed a bag of
500 gold pieces on the dry ground, had bathed in the river
and left, forgetting it. The bhikkhu, (saying to himself,)
'Don't let this bag of the Brahmin's be lost,' picked it up.
Then the Brahmin, remembering, rushed back and said to the
bhikkhu, 'My good man, have you seen my bag?'
"'Here, Brahmin,' he said, and gave it to him.
"Then the thought occurred to the Brahmin, 'Now how can I
get away with out giving the five percent reward to this
bhikkhu?' So (saying,) 'I didn't have 500, my good man, I
had 1,000!' he detained him for a while and then let him
go."
However, a bhikkhu who comes across a fallen valuable in a
monastery or in a dwelling he is visiting -- if he does not pick it
up -- may later be held responsible if it gets lost: Thus the two
situations mentioned as exemptions in the rule. In situations such
as these, a bhikkhu is allowed even to pick up money and other items
he is not normally allowed to take. In fact, the Vinaya Mukha
states that if he does not pick up the valuable and put it in safe
keeping, he incurs a dukkata. None of the other texts mention this
point, although it is probably justified on the grounds that the
bhikkhu is neglecting his duty in not following the "proper course"
here.
The Vibhanga advises that if a bhikkhu has picked up a fallen
valuable in this way and put it in safe keeping, he should take note
of its features. (The Commentary adds that if it is a bag of money,
he should open the bag and count how much it contains. The same
would hold for such things as wallets at present.) He should then
have an announcement made, "Let him come whose goods are lost." If
a person comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should ask him/her to
describe it. If the person describes it correctly, the bhikkhu
should hand it over. If not, he should tell the person to "keep
looking." If the bhikkhu is going to leave the monastery to live
elsewhere, he should entrust the item to another bhikkhu or -- if no
suitable bhikkhu is available -- to a suitable lay person (%).
The Commentary adds that if, after a suitable length of time, no
one comes to claim the item, the bhikkhu should have it exchanged
for something of lasting use to the monastery. If, after that, the
owner does come to claim the item, the bhikkhu should tell him/her
of the use to which it was put. If the owner is satisfied, there is
no problem. If not, the bhikkhu should arrange to have the owner
compensated.
The factors for the offense here are four.
1) //Object//: a valuable or anything considered a valuable that
one finds left behind, except in a monastery or a dwelling that one
is visiting.
2) //Perception//: One does not perceive it as discarded.
3) //Intention//: One wants to keep it in safe keeping for the
owner.
4) //Effort//: One picks it up or has someone else pick it up.
Object. The Vibhanga defines a //valuable// as jewels or silver.
//What is considered a valuable// means anything that is of use to
people. Items meeting these definitions at present would include
money, wallets, watches, keys, eyeglasses, cameras, etc.
According to the K/Commentary, if the owner has given one
permission to take the article, it does not fulfill this factor.
The Vibhanga defines //in a monastery// as follows: If the
monastery is walled, then within the walls. If not, then in the
immediate vicinity (according to the Commentary, a radius of one
//leddupata// -- the distance a man of average height can throw a
clod of dirt underarm -- around the monastery buildings). As for
//in a dwelling//: If the area around the dwelling is walled, then
within the walls. If not, then in the immediate vicinity (according
to the Commentary, the distance one can throw a basket or a pestle
(!) from the dwelling).
For some reason, the Commentary says that if the item has fallen
in an area of the monastery where many people come and go -- e.g.,
the doorway to the Bodhi tree or public shrine -- one should not
pick it up. What its reasoning is here, is hard to say, but it does
note that the Kurundi -- one of the ancient commentaries -- does not
agree with this position.
It also notes that if someone asks to put his/her belongings in
safe keeping with a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should not accept -- so as
to avoid being responsible for them -- but if he/she leaves the
things with the bhikkhu and goes off in spite of his objections or
before giving him a chance to object, he should take the belongings
and put them away in safe keeping.
Perception & intention. According to the Commentary, if one picks
up money for one's own use, for the Community, or for anyone aside
from the owner, the case would come under NP 18, rather than here.
The same holds true with dukkata objects, such as jewels and
semi-precious stones. This judgment, though, would seem to hold
only in the case where one perceives the money, etc., as thrown
away. If one does not perceive it as thrown away, and one is not
borrowing it or taking it on trust, the case would come under
Parajika 2, regardless of what the item is.
The Commentary also makes the peculiar point that if one sees an
item belonging to one's mother or other close relative left behind
on the roadside, one would incur the full penalty under this rule
for picking it up to put in safe keeping for the owner, but no
offense if one took the item, on trust, for one's own. Of course,
after taking it on trust like this, one could then without penalty
give it back to the owner as one liked.
Effort. For some reason, none of the texts go into detail on the
question of getting someone else to pick up the item. Does one
incur the pacittiya simply in the act of asking/commanding, or only
if the other person actually picks the item up as asked? None of
the texts say, but the usual pattern in other pacittiya rules is one
pacittiya for the asking, and another one when the other person does
as asked.
Non-offenses. There is no offense if, within a monastery or a
dwelling, one picks up an item or has it picked up with the thought,
"Whoever this belongs to will come for it." (%)
Also, according to the Vibhanga, there is no offense in taking an
item left behind anywhere if one takes it on trust, borrows it, or
perceives it as having been thrown away (%). The Commentary notes,
though, that these last three allowances apply only if the item is
something a bhikkhu may normally touch and take; and not, for
instance, a dukkata or nissaggiya object as defined under NP 18.
Summary: Picking up a valuable, or having it picked up,
with the intent of putting it in safe keeping for the owner
-- except when one finds it in a monastery or in a dwelling
one is visiting -- is a pacittiya offense.
* * *
85. Should any bhikkhu, without taking leave of an available
bhikkhu, enter a village at the wrong time -- unless there
is a suitable emergency -- it is to be confessed.
As the origin story here indicates, the purpose of this rule is to
prevent bhikkhus from passing their time among householders talking
of things inappropriate for a bhikkhu to discuss. The term used
here, "animal talk," means worldly talk about "kings, robbers and,
ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink;
clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles;
villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the
gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also,
philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the
Sub-commentary explains 'tales of diversity'), the creation of the
world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not." The
Sub-commentary notes here that to discuss any of these topics in
such a way as to foster an understanding of the Dhamma -- e.g.,
discussing politics to illustrate the impermanence of worldly power
-- is not improper.
The factors for the full offense here are two.
1) //Object//: a village (this would include larger inhabited
areas, such as towns and cities, as well).
2) //Effort//: One enters the village at the wrong time --
without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu -- except when
there is an emergency.
Object. The Vibhanga says that if the village as a whole is
enclosed, everywhere inside the enclosure is considered to be in the
village. If not, the area in the village includes all the buildings
and their immediate vicinity. According to the Sub-commentary, this
means everywhere within a 2 //leddupata// radius of the buildings.
(One leddupata is the distance a man of average height can throw a
clod of dirt underarm.)
If one is staying in a monastery located within a village or town,
the area covered by this factor begins at the boundary of the
monastery.
Effort. The Vibhanga defines the //wrong time// as from after
noon until the following dawn. This rule thus dovetails with
Pacittiya 46, which deals with the period from dawn until noon on
days when one has been invited to a meal.
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. Even if one perceives
the time to be morning when it is actually after noon, one's actions
would still fall under this rule.
As under Pacittiya 46, another bhikkhu is said to be available for
taking one's leave if, in the Vibhanga's words, "It is possible to
go having taken leave of him." That is, if there is another bhikkhu
in the monastery, and there are no obstacles to taking one's leave
from him (he is asleep, he is sick, he is receiving important
visitors), one is obliged to go out of one's way to inform him.
According to the K/Commentary, //taking leave// in the context of
this rule means the simple act of informing the other bhikkhu that,
"I am going into the village," or any similar statement. In other
words, one is not asking permission to go, although if the other
bhikkhu sees that one is doing something improper in going, he is
perfectly free to say so. If one treats his comments with
disrespect, one incurs at least a dukkata under Pacittiya 54. (See
the discussion under that rule for details.)
The Commentary states that if there is no bhikkhu in the monastery
to take leave from, there is no need to inform any bhikkhu one may
meet after leaving the monastery. If many bhikkhus are going
together, they need only take leave from one another before entering
the village.
For a new bhikkhu still living in dependence (//nissaya//) on his
mentor, though, taking leave //is// a matter of asking permission
from his mentor at all times, "wrong" or not. The Mahavagga
(I.25.24; II.21.1) states that one of the duties of such a bhikkhu
is that he must receive permission from his mentor before entering a
village, going to a cemetery, or leaving the district. Not to ask
permission before going, or to go after being denied permission, is
to incur a dukkata. As for the mentor, if he gives permission for
his student to go when it is not appropriate, //he// is the one who
incurs the dukkata.
As for the suitable emergencies under this rule -- which would
seem to exempt even new bhikkhus from having to take leave from
their mentors -- the Vibhanga gives the example of a bhikkhu rushing
to get fire to make medicine for another bhikkhu bitten by a snake.
Examples more likely at present would include rushing to get a
doctor for a sick bhikkhu or to get help when a fire has broken out
in the monastery.
Further action. Although there is no penalty for engaging in
"animal talk," a bhikkhu who enters a village frequently and engages
in it, even if he takes leave of other bhikkhus, can be subject to
an act of censure for "unbecoming association with householders"
(Cv.I.4).
Non-offenses. There is no offense in entering a village when one
has taken leave of another bhikkhu, or in going when one has not
taken leave if --
There is an emergency.
There is no bhikkhu available (e.g., one is living alone; all the
other bhikkhus have left; all the bhikkhus in the monastery are
going together).
One is on one's way to another monastery (%), to bhikkhunis'
quarters, to the residence of people ordained in another sect or
religion (located in a village, says the Commentary), or one is
returning from any of these places.
One is going along a road that happens to pass through a village.
(According to the Commentary, a bhikkhu who wants to leave the
road and enter the village proper should take leave of another
bhikkhu if one is available.)
There are dangers. (Examples in the Commentary include seeing
lions or tigers approaching, or clouds building up and
threatening a storm.)
Summary: Entering a village, town, or city during the
period after noon until the following dawn, without having
taken leave of an available bhikkhu -- unless there is an
emergency -- is a pacittiya offense.
* * *
86. Should any bhikkhu have a needle case made of bone,
ivory, or horn, it is to be broken and confessed.
The origin story here echoes the one for NP 22.
"Now at that time a certain ivory-worker offered an
invitation to the bhikkhus: 'If any of the masters need a
needle case, I will supply them with needle cases.' So the
bhikkhus asked for many needle cases. Those with small
needle cases asked for large ones; those with large ones
asked for small ones. The ivory-worker, making many needle
cases for the bhikkhus, was not able to make other goods for
sale. He could not support himself, and his wife and
children suffered."
There are three factors for the full offense here.
1) //Object//: a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn.
2) //Effort//: One acquires it after making it or having it made
3) //Intention//: for one's own use.
Object. Anything aside from a needle case -- such as a fastener
or ointment box -- is not grounds for an offense here, even if it is
made of bone, ivory, or horn.
Effort. The permutations under this factor are as follows: the
act of making the needle box or having it made -- a dukkata;
acquiring the finished box -- a pacittiya. This last penalty
applies regardless of whether the box was made entirely by oneself,
entirely by others, or whether one finished what others began or let
others finish what one began oneself. In any event, one must break
the case before confessing the offense.
Intention. There is a dukkata in using a bone, ivory, or horn
needle box made for the sake of another person; and in making such a
box -- or having it made -- for another's use.
The general principle. The Vinaya Mukha derives a general
principle from this rule: The Buddha, in formulating this rule, was
putting a halt to the sort of fad that can occur among bhikkhus when
certain requisites become fashionable to the point of
inconveniencing donors, and senior bhikkhus at present should try to
put a halt to any similar fads.
Summary: Acquiring a needle box made of bone, ivory, or
horn after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own
use is a pacittiya offense requiring that one break the box
before confessing the offense.
* * *
87. When a bhikkhu is making a new bed or bench, it is to
have legs (at most) eight fingerbreadths long -- using
Sugata fingerbreadths -- not counting the lower edge of the
frame. In excess of that it is to be cut down and
confessed.
Tall furnishings. The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus
from making and using furnishings that are high and imposing.
The Canon contains many rules dealing with furnishings, especially
in the Khandhakas, and since furnishings in the time of the Buddha
were somewhat different from what they are now, it is often a matter
of guesswork as to what, precisely, the rules are referring to. The
//bed// (//manca//) in this rule almost certainly refers to what we
mean by a bed. The //bench// (//pitha//), according to the
K/Commentary, is shorter than a bed, but not so short that it is
square. This comment comes from the passage in the Cullavagga
(Cv.VI.2.4) that allows bhikkhus to use an //asandika// --
apparently a square stool, large enough to sit on but not to lie on
-- even if the legs are long. Another piece of furniture with long
legs allowed in the same passage is the //sattanga//, a chair or
sofa with a back and arms. The Vinaya Mukha includes a //pancanga//
-- a chair or sofa with a back but no arms -- under this allowance
as well. The Canon and commentaries make no mention of this point,
but it seems valid: Armless chairs and sofas are less imposing than
those with arms.
The factors for the offense here are three.
1) //Object//: a bed or bench whose legs, measuring from the
lower side of the frame to the floor, are longer than eight Sugata
fingerbreadths (approximately 16.6 cm.)
2) //Effort//: One acquires it after making it or having it made
3) //Intention//: for one's own use.
Object. As mentioned above, Cv.VI.2.4 shows that stools, as well
as chairs and sofas with backs -- with or without arms -- would not
fulfill this factor.
The Sugata measures are a matter of controversy, discussed in
Appendix II. For the purposes of this book, we are taking the
Sugata span to be 25 cm., and since there are twelve Sugata
fingerbreadths in a Sugata span, that would put eight Sugata
fingerbreadths at 16.6 cm.
Effort. The permutations under this factor are as follows: the
act of making the bed/bench or having it made -- a dukkata;
acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya. This last penalty
applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by
oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others
began or let others finish what one began oneself. In any case, one
must cut down the legs to the proper size before confessing the
offense.
Intention. There is a dukkata in making a bed or bench with extra
long legs -- or having it made -- for the sake of another person,
and in using such a bed or bench made for another's use. This last
penalty would seem to apply only inside the monastery, for Cv.VI.8
allows bhikkhus to sit -- but not to lie down -- on furnishings in a
lay person's house even if the furnishings are the sort not
allowable in the monastery. There are three exceptions to this
allowance, the one piece objected to on account of its height being
the //asandi// -- apparently a square platform, large enough to lie
on, and very high. Bhikkhus are not allowed to sit on such a thing,
even in a lay person's house.
Non-offenses. There is no offense in making a bed or bench -- or
having one made -- if the legs are eight Sugata fingerbreadths or
less; or in receiving a bed or bench with overly long legs if one
cuts the legs down to regulation size before using it. The
Commentary notes that if one buries the legs in the ground so that
no more than eight fingerbreadths separate the ground from the lower
frame, that is also allowable.
Summary: Acquiring a bed or bench with legs longer than
eight Sugata fingerbreadths after making it -- or having it
made -- for one's own use is a pacittiya offense requiring
that one cut the legs down before confessing the offense.
* * *
88. Should any bhikkhu have a bed or bench upholstered, it
(the upholstery) is to be torn off and confessed.
Upholstery & cushions. Cotton down was apparently the most
luxurious material known in the Buddha's time for stuffing
furniture, cushions, and mattresses, inasmuch as bhikkhus are
forbidden from making beds and benches upholstered with cotton-down
(under this rule), and from sitting on cushions stuffed with cotton
down, even in the homes of lay people (Cv.VI.8). The only article
of furnishing stuffed with cotton down allowed to bhikkhus is a
pillow (%) (not a squatting mat, as translated in some places),
although the pillow should be made no larger than the size of the
head (Cv.VI.2.6).
The Commentary's explanations of this point show that the pillow
used in those days was an oblong cushion, looking like a rectangle
when viewed from above and like a triangle when viewed from either
the right or left side (like the old style of pillow still in use in
Thailand). Such pillows, the Commentary says, should be no more
than two cubits (1 meter) long, and one span plus four
fingerbreadths (32 cm.) from corner to corner on the sides. A
bhikkhu who is not ill may use such a pillow for his head and feet;
an ill bhikkhu may line up a series of pillows, cover them with a
cloth, and lie down on them with no offense.
Hair -- such as human hair and horse-hair -- was another forbidden
form of stuffing. Cv.VI.8, in addition to forbidding bhikkhus from
sitting down on an //asandi// and cushions stuffed with cotton down,
also forbids them from sitting down on a //pallanka// -- a couch
stuffed with horse-hair -- even in the house of a lay person.
According to Cv.VI.14, though, if the bhikkhus are presented with
asandis, pallankas, and cushions stuffed with cotton down, they may
use the asandis after cutting the legs down to size, the pallankas
after removing the hair stuffing, and the cotton-down cushions only
after tearing them up and making them into pillows.
Mattresses and cushions stuffed with other materials, though, are
allowed even for use in the monastery. Cv.VI.7 mentions five kinds
of allowable stuffing: wool, cloth, bark, grass, and leaves.
(According to the Commentary, //wool// here includes all kinds of
animal fur and bird feathers. Goose down would thus be allowable.
It also mentions that, according to the Kurundi, mattresses and
cushions stuffed with these materials are allowable whether covered
with leather or cloth.)
The purpose of all this is to keep bhikkhus from using furnishings
that are extravagant and ostentatious. As the Vinaya Mukha
mentions, though, standards of what is extravagant and ostentatious
vary from age to age and culture to culture. Some of the things
allowed in the Canon and commentaries now seem exotic and luxurious;
and other things forbidden by them, common and ordinary. Thus the
wise policy, in a monastery, would be to use only those furnishings
allowed by the rules and regarded as unostentatious at present; and,
when visiting a lay person's home, to avoid sitting on furnishings
that seem unusually grand.
The factors for the offense here are three.
1) //Object//: a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down.
2) //Effort//: One acquires it after making it or having it made
3) //Intention//: for one's own use.
Object. Cotton down, according to the Vibhanga, includes any
cotton down from trees, vines, and grass. The Commentary to Cv.VI
interprets this as meaning cotton down from //any// plant, since
"trees, vines, and grass" is the Canon's usual way of covering all
plant life. Kapok, flax fibers, jute, and cotton would thus all
come under this category.
Because cotton-down cushions are forbidden in all situations,
//bed and bench// here would seem to include all forms of furniture,
including the stools, chairs, and sofas exempted from the preceding
rule.
Effort. The permutations under this factor are as follows: the
act of making the bed/bench or having it made -- a dukkata;
acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya. This last penalty
applies regardless of whether the bed/bench was made entirely by
oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others
began or let others finish what one began oneself. In any case, one
must tear off the upholstery before confessing the offense.
Intention. There is a dukkata in making a bed or bench
upholstered with cotton down -- or having it made -- for the sake of
another person; and in using such a bed or bench made for another's
use.
Non-offenses. There is no offense in using cotton down to stuff a
pillow, a belt, a shoulder strap, a binding, or a bag for carrying
the alms bowl; or to form the filter in a water strainer. If one
obtains a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down made for another
person's use, there is no offense in using it if one removes the
upholstery first.
Summary: Acquiring a bed or bench stuffed with cotton down
after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is
a pacittiya offense requiring that one remove the stuffing
before confessing the offense.
* * *
89.When a bhikkhu is making a sitting cloth, it is to be
made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is
this: two spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 1
1/2 in width, the border a span. In excess of that, it is
to be cut down and confessed.
The origin story here follows on the passage in Mv.VIII.16.3, where
the Buddha allows bhikkhus to use a sitting cloth in order to
protect their robes from getting soiled by their furnishings, and
their furnishings from getting soiled by their robes and bodies.
"Now at that time the Lord had allowed a sitting cloth for
the bhikkhus. Some group-of-six bhikkhus...used sitting
cloths, without any limit in size, that hung down in front
and behind even on beds and benches." (As a result, the
Buddha set the limit at 2 spans by 1 1/2.) Now, Ven. Udayin
was very large. Setting out his sitting cloth in front of
the Blessed One, he stretched it out on all sides before
sitting down. The Blessed One said to him, 'Why is it,
Udayin, that when setting out your sitting cloth you stretch
it out on all sides like an old skin?'
"Because the sitting cloth the Blessed One has allowed for
the bhikkhus is awfully small.'" (Thus the Buddha added the
allowance for the border.)
There are three factors for the full offense here.
1) //Object//: a sitting cloth larger than the standard measure.
2) //Effort//: One acquires it after making it or having it made
3) //Intention//: for one's own use.
Object. A sitting cloth, by definition, has to have a border,
regardless of whether it is made of felted or woven material.
However -- as none of the texts give any clear indication as to how
many borders it should have or how they should be patterned -- there
is no definitive measurement as to how large the overall cloth
should be. A wise policy, then, is to take the origin story as a
guide: Make the cloth large enough so that one can sit cross-legged
on it without soiling one's robes or furnishings, but not so large
that it extends out on any one side.
Effort. The permutations under this factor are as follows: the
act of making the sitting cloth or having it made -- a dukkata;
acquiring the finished article -- a pacittiya. This last penalty
applies regardless of whether the cloth was made entirely by
oneself, entirely by others, or whether one finished what others
began or let others finish what one began oneself. In any case, one
must cut down the cloth to the proper size before confessing the
offense.
Intention. There is a dukkata in making an overly large sitting
cloth -- or having it made -- for the sake of another person; and in
using such a cloth made for another's use.
Non-offenses. There is no offense if one receives an overly large
sitting cloth made for another person's use and cuts it down to size
before using it oneself.
Summary: Acquiring an overly large sitting cloth after
making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is a
pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to
size before confessing the offense.
* * *
90. When a bhikkhu is making a skin-eruption covering cloth,
it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the
standard is this: four spans -- using the Sugata span -- in
length, two spans in width. In excess of that, it is to be
cut down and confessed.
Object. The Mahavagga (VIII.17) allows bhikkhus to use a
skin-eruption covering cloth to protect their robes when they are
suffering from boils, running sores, rashes, or "thick scab"
diseases (large boils? psoriasis?). The Vibhanga to this rule
states that the cloth is to cover the area from the navel down to
the knees, thus suggesting that the cloth is intended to be worn as
an inner robe beneath the lower robe. As we already mentioned under
NP 1, one should determine these cloths for use when one is
suffering from such a disease and place them under shared ownership
when not.
As mentioned under Pacittiya 87, above, the Sugata measures are
discussed in Appendix II. Here we take the Sugata span to equal 25
cm., which would put the standard measurement for the skin-eruption
covering cloth at 1 meter by 50 cm. If either of these measurements
is exceeded, the cloth would fulfill this factor for the full
offense.
Effort, intention, & non-offenses. The permutations of these
factors are the same as under the preceding rule.
Summary: Acquiring an overly large skin-eruption covering
cloth after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own
use is a pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth
down to size before confessing the offense.
* * *
91. When a bhikkhu is making a rains-bathing cloth, it is to
be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is
this: six spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 2
1/2 in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and
confessed.
Object. The rains bathing cloth has already been discussed in
detail under NP 24. Taking the Sugata span to equal 25 cm., the
standard measurement for the rains-bathing cloth would be 1.5 meter
by 62.5 cm. If either of these measurements is exceeded, the cloth
would fulfill this factor for the full offense.
Effort, intention, & non-offenses. The permutations of these
factors are the same as under Pacittiya 89.
Summary: Acquiring an overly large rains-bathing cloth
after making it -- or having it made -- for one's own use is
a pacittiya offense requiring that one cut the cloth down to
size before confessing the offense.
* * *
92. Should any bhikkhu have a robe made the size of the
Sugata robe or larger, it is to be cut down and confessed.
Here, the size of the Sugata robe is this: nine spans --
using the Sugata span -- in length, six spans in width.
This is the size of the Sugata's Sugata robe.
Object. The term //Sugata// -- meaning well-gone or accomplished --
is an epithet for the Buddha.
//Robe// is not defined in the Vibhanga but apparently means any
of the three basic robes: the lower robe, the upper robe, and the
outer robe. This raises an interesting point: Perhaps in the
Buddha's time all three of the basic robes were approximately the
same size. This would have made it much more convenient than it is
at present to hold to the practice of using only one set of three
robes. When washing one robe, one could wear the other two without
looking out of place.
At any rate, taking the Sugata span to be 25 cm. would put the
size of the Buddha's robes at 2.25 m. by 1.50 m. -- much larger that
the lower robes used at present, but much smaller than present-day
upper and outer robes.
As we will see under Appendix II, various theories have been
offered over the centuries as to the length of the Sugata span.
Beginning at least with the time of the Maha Atthakatha, one of the
ancient commentaries, the Buddha was assumed to be of super-human
height, and his handspan, cubit, etc., were assumed to be
three-times normal length. Only recently, within the last century
or so, have Vinaya experts taken evidence from the Canon to show
that the Buddha, though tall, was not abnormally so, and thus the
estimate of the Sugata span, etc., has shrunk accordingly. Still,
the traditional estimates of the Buddha's height continue to
influence the size of the robes that bhikkhus wear today throughout
the Theravadin countries; and although there was a movement in
Thailand during the mid-19th century to return to the original size
and style as shown in the earliest Indian Buddha images, the idea
never caught on.
Effort, intention, & non-offenses. The permutations of these
factors are the same as under Pacittiya 89.
Summary: Acquiring an overly large robe after making it --
or having it made -- for one's own use is a pacittiya
offense requiring that one cut the robe down to size before
confessing the offense.
* * * * * * * *
