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_9.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-07-05
|
20KB
|
408 lines
CHAPTER NINE
Patidesaniya
~~~~~~~~~~~~
This term means "to be acknowledged." As a name for training rules,
it means "entailing acknowledgement." The four training rules here
are unique in that they mention, as part of the rule, the words to
be used in acknowledging the violation; the second rule is
especially unique in that it depicts the violators as acknowledging
their offense as a group.
1. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple
food, having received it himself from the hand of an
unrelated bhikkhuni in an inhabited area, he is to
acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy,
unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge
it."
A long series of events led up to the formulation of this rule.
"Now at that time a certain woman whose husband was away
from home was made pregnant by her lover. She, having
caused an abortion, said to a bhikkhuni who was dependent on
her family for alms, 'Come, lady, take this fetus away in
your bowl.' So the bhikkhuni, having placed the fetus in
her bowl and covering it up with her outer robe, went away.
Now it so happened that a certain alms-going bhikkhu had
made this vow: 'I won't eat from the first almsfood I
receive without having given some of it to a bhikkhu or
bhikkhuni.' Seeing the bhikkhuni, he said to her, 'Come,
sister, accept alms.'
"'No, master.' -- "A second time...A third time... -- "'No,
master.'
"'Look, sister, I have made this vow: "I won't eat from the
first almsfood I receive without having given some of it to
a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni." So come on, accept alms.'
"Then the bhikkhuni, being pressured by the bhikkhu, took
out her bowl and showed it to him. 'You see, master: a
fetus in the bowl. But don't tell anyone'....
(Of course the bhikkhu couldn't help but tell his fellow
bhikkhus, and word reached the Buddha, who formulated a
double rule:) 'A bhikkhuni should not take a fetus in a
bowl. I allow a bhikkhuni, when seeing a bhikkhu, to take
out her bowl and show it to him.'
"Now at that time some group-of-six bhikkhunis, on seeing a
bhikkhu, would turn their bowls upside down and show him the
bottom side....'I allow a bhikkhuni, when seeing a bhikkhu,
to show him her bowl right side up. And she is to offer him
whatever food there is in the bowl.'" (Cv.X.13)
"Now at that time a certain bhikkhuni, on the way back from
going for alms in Savatthi, seeing a certain bhikkhu, said
to him, 'Come, master, accept alms.'
"'Very well, sister.' And he took everything. As the time
(for alms-going) was almost up, she was unable to go for
alms and so was deprived of her meal.
"On the second day...the third day...he took everything....
she was deprived of her meal.
"On the fourth day, she went staggering along the road. A
rich merchant, coming the opposite direction in a chariot,
said to her, 'Get out of the way, lady.'
"She went and fell down right there.
"The rich merchant apologized to her, 'I'm sorry, lady, for
making you fall.'
"'It wasn't that you made me fall, householder. It's just
that I'm weak.'
"'But why are you weak?'
"And she told him what had happened. The rich merchant,
having taken her to his house and having fed her (%), was
offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can the
revered ones take food from the hand of a bhikkhuni? It's
difficult for women to come by things.'"
There are two factors for the full offense here.
1) //Object//: staple or non-staple food that a bhikkhu has
accepted from the hand of a bhikkhuni -- unrelated to him -- while
she is in a village area.
2) //Effort//: He eats the food.
Object. Actually, there are two elements to this factor: the
food sub-factor and the bhikkhuni sub-factor. Under the food
sub-factor: //Staple food// follows the standard definition given
in the Food Chapter under the pacittiya rules. //Non-staple food//
includes all edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines.
Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice
drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.
As for the bhikkhuni sub-factor: //Bhikkhuni// refers to one who
has received the double ordination. A bhikkhuni who has received
only her first ordination -- in the Bhikkhuni Sangha -- is grounds
for a dukkata. //Unrelated// means sharing no common ancestor back
through seven generations. Perception as to whether or not the
bhikkhuni is related is not a mitigating factor here.
A //village area// is defined as a house or roadway in a village,
town, or city.
Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food
with the purpose of eating it, and in accepting juice drinks,
tonics. or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; while
there is a patidesaniya for every mouthful of the staple or
non-staple food one eats, and a dukkata for every mouthful one takes
of the juice drinks, tonics, or medicine for the sake of food.
Non-offenses. There is no offense if a bhikkhu accepts and eats
food from a related bhikkhuni, and no offense in the following
situations even if the bhikkhuni is unrelated:
She gets someone else to give him the food.
She gives it by placing it near him (as in NP 18 and Pacittiya
41).
She gives it to him in a monastery, nuns' quarters, a dwelling of
members of other sects, or on the way back from such places.
She gives it to him after she has left the village.
She gives him juice drinks, tonics, or medicine, and he uses them
as such, rather than as food.
She is a female novice or probationer.
Even in these cases, though, it would be a wise policy not to take
so much of her food that she is deprived of a full meal.
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food, after having
accepted it from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni in a
village area, is a patidesaniya offense.
* * *
2. In case bhikkhus, being invited, are eating in family
homes, and if a bhikkhuni is standing there as though giving
directions, (saying,) "Give curry here, give rice here,"
then the bhikkhus are to dismiss her: "Go away, sister,
while the bhikkhus are eating." If not one of the bhikkhus
should speak to dismiss her, "Go away, sister, while the
bhikkhus are eating," the bhikkhus are to acknowledge it:
"Friends, we have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act
that ought to be acknowledged. We acknowledge it."
This rule refers to situations where lay donors invite bhikkhus to a
meal, and a bhikkhuni stands giving orders, based on favoritism, as
to which bhikkhus should get which food. The duty of the bhikkhus
in such cases is to tell her to go away. If even just one of them
does, they are all exempted from the offense here. If none of them
does, and the following factors are fulfilled, they all incur the
penalty and must acknowledge their offense as a group.
Object. As with the preceding rule, there are two objects here:
the food and the bhikkhuni. Any one of the five staple foods
received in the above situation would fulfill the food sub-factor.
A bhikkhuni who has received double ordination would fulfill the
bhikkhuni sub-factor. A bhikkhuni ordained only in the Bhikkhuni
Sangha would be grounds for a dukkata.
Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting the staple food received
under such circumstances, and a patidesaniya for every mouthful one
eats.
Non-offenses. There is no offense --
if the bhikkhuni gets others to give her food to the bhikkhus;
if she herself gives the food of other people to the bhikkhus;
if she gets the donors to give food they have forgotten;
if she gets them to give to a bhikkhu they have passed over;
if she gets them to give the food equally to all;
if she is a female probationer or novice; or
if she gets them to give anything but the five staple foods.
Summary: Eating staple food accepted at a meal to which one
has been invited and where a bhikkhuni has given directions,
based on favoritism, as to which bhikkhu should get which
food, and none of the bhikkhus have dismissed her, is a
patidesaniya offense.
* * *
3.There are families designated as in training. Should any
bhikkhu, not being ill, uninvited beforehand, chew or
consume staple or non-staple food, having received it
himself at the homes of families designated as in training,
he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a
blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged.
I acknowledge it."
The term //in training (sekha)// is usually used to refer to anyone
who has attained at least the first noble path but has yet to become
an arahant. Here, though, the Vibhanga uses it to refer to any
family whose faith is increasing but whose wealth is decreasing --
i.e., a family whose faith is so strong that they become generous to
the point of suffering financially. In cases such as these, the
Community may, as a formal act, declare them as families in training
so as to protect them with this rule from bhikkhus who might abuse
their generosity.
The factors for the offense here are two.
1) //Object//: staple or non-staple food accepted at the home of
a family designated as in training when one is not ill and has not
been invited by them beforehand.
2) //Effort//: One eats the food.
Object. //Staple food// follows the standard definition given in
the Food Chapter under the pacittiya rules. //Non-staple food//
includes all edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines.
Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice
drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.
//Ill// is defined as being unable to go for alms.
//Invited// means that one has been invited on that day or a
previous day by a member of the family -- or a messenger --
//standing outside of the house or its yard/compound//. If they
invite one while they are inside the home or its yard/compound, one
is not exempted from the offense in accepting and eating their food.
Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food
with the purpose of eating it, or in accepting juice drinks, tonics,
or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; a patidesaniya
for every mouthful of the staple or non-staple food one eats; and a
dukkata for every mouthful one takes of the juice drinks, tonics, or
medicine for the sake of food.
Non-offenses. There is no offense in eating food that one has
accepted from the house of a family in training if --
one is ill;
one was invited;
the food was set out in the house or its yard by people other than
the members of the family in training (%);
the family has made an arrangement to provide food by drawing lots
or on a regular or rotating basis, and one accepts the food as
part of that arrangement;
one eats the leftovers of one who received the food at their house
when he was invited or ill; or
the members of the family give the food outside of their home or
yard/compound. The Commentary quotes the Mahapaccari, one of the
ancient commentaries, as saying that this last exemption holds
regardless of whether they take the food out of the home before
or after seeing one approach.
Summary: Eating staple or non-staple food, after accepting
it -- when one is neither ill nor invited -- at the home of
a family formally designated as "in training," is a
patidesaniya offense.
* * *
4.There are wilderness abodes that are dubious and risky.
Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, living in such abodes,
chew or consume unannounced (gifts of) staple or non-staple
food, having received them himself in the abode, he is to
acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy,
unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge
it."
"Now at that time the Sakyan slaves were rebelling. The
Sakyan ladies wanted to make a meal (for the bhikkhus) in
wilderness abodes. The Sakyan slaves heard, 'The Sakyan
ladies, they say, want to make a meal in the wilderness
abodes,' so they infested the way. The Sakyan ladies,
taking exquisite staple and non-staple foods, went to the
wilderness abodes. The Sakyan slaves, coming out, plundered
and raped them. The Sakyans, having come out and captured
the thieves with the goods, were offended and annoyed and
spread it about, 'How can the revered ones not inform us
that there are thieves living in the monastery?'"
Here again there are two factors for the full offense.
1) //Object//: an unannounced gift of staple or non-staple food
that one has received, when not ill, in a dubious and risky
wilderness abode.
2) //Effort//: One eats the food.
Object. The Vibhanga defines a //wilderness abode// as one at
least 500 bow-lengths, or one kilometer, from the nearest village,
measuring by the shortest walkable path between the two, and not as
the crow flies. Such an abode is considered dubious if thieves are
known to be about, and risky if people are known to have been hurt
or plundered by them.
//Staple food// follows the standard definition given in the Food
Chapter under the pacittiya rules. //Non-staple food// includes all
edibles except juice drinks, tonics, and medicines.
Staple and non-staple food are grounds for a patidesaniya; juice
drinks, tonics, and medicines taken as food, grounds for a dukkata.
The Vibhanga gives specific instructions for how the gift of food
should be announced. The donor(s) or a messenger must come to the
abode and tell one of the inhabitants that a gift of food will be
brought. The inhabitant must then tell the informant that the area
is dubious and risky. If the informant says, "Never mind, the
donor(s) will come anyway," then someone in the abode must tell the
thieves, "Go away. People are coming to serve food." This is
unlikely to make the thieves go away but, as the Commentary
explains, it absolves the bhikkhus from any responsibility if the
thieves attack the donors.
Even if the informant specifies that only certain types of food
will be brought, anything that comes along with those foods counts
as announced (%). Here the Commentary adds that if other people
learn of the intended donation and bring food to add to it, their
food counts as announced as well. The Vibhanga also states that if
the informant says a particular group is coming to bring food, the
announcement covers anything brought by any member of the group.
The Vibhanga makes clear that the announcement is valid only if
the donor makes it in the abode or its yard/compound. Thus, for
example, if the donors announce their intended donation to the
bhikkhu while he is in the village for alms, the donation is still
considered unannounced. And, for the same reason, such things as
telephone calls, letters, and faxes would also not count.
The Commentary adds that if the donors send a bhikkhu or novice to
the monastery to announce the donation, it does not count as
announced. In other words, the messenger must be a lay person.
Perception is not a mitigating factor here. If the food is not
properly announced, then regardless of whether one perceives it as
properly announced or not, it still fulfills this factor.
A bhikkhu counts as //ill// if he is unable to go for alms.
Effort. There is a dukkata in accepting staple or non-staple food
with the purpose of eating it, or in accepting juice drinks, tonics
or medicine with the purpose of taking them as food; a patidesaniya
for every mouthful of the staple or non-staple food one eats; and a
dukkata for every mouthful one takes of the juice drinks, tonics, or
medicine for the sake of food.
Non-offenses. There is no offense in eating food accepted in the
monastery if one is ill or if the gift was announced. There is also
no offense --
in using roots, bark, leaves, or flowers growing in the abode;
in eating left-over announced food or food given to one who is
ill;
in accepting food outside the abode and eating it inside; or
in accepting and eating juice drinks, tonics, and medicines as
such and not as food.
The Commentary, in discussing these allowances, makes the
following points: 1) If lay people take any of the fruits, roots,
etc., growing in the abode and cook them at home, they must announce
the gift before bringing them back to the abode. 2) If the donors,
after announcing the gift, bring large amounts of food, some of it
may be set aside -- without presenting it to the bhikkhus -- to be
presented on a later day.
All of this causes no hardships in communities where everyone
knows that they have to announce a gift of food before bringing it
to the dangerous abode, but there are bound to be cases where donors
do not know that the abode is dangerous or that they should announce
their gifts before bringing them, and they are likely to show up at
the abode with unannounced gifts of food. In such cases, the
Commentary recommends: 1) Either have the donor take the food
outside the area of the abode, come back in to announce it, and then
go out to bring the food back in to present it; or 2) have the donor
take the food outside and have a bhikkhu follow him/her out to
accept it there.
If order to minimize the need for doing this, though, it would be
a wise policy for a bhikkhu who finds himself living in such an
abode to announce to all his supporters beforehand -- and ask them
to spread the word -- that if they want to bring him gifts of food,
they have to come and announce them in advance.
Summary: Eating an unannounced gift of staple or non-staple
food after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode when
one is not ill is a patidesaniya offense.
* * * * * * * *