                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                             CHAPTER SEVEN
                                           
                          Nissaggiya Pacittiya
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                           
                                           
   The term //nissaggiya//, used in connection with training rules, 
   means "entailing forfeiture."  Used in connection with articles, it 
   means "to be forfeited."  //Pacittiya// is a word of uncertain 
   etymology.  The Parivara gives a didactic derivation -- that it 
   means letting skillful qualities fall away (//patati//) with a 
   deluded mind (//citta//) -- but the term is more likely related to 
   the verb //pacinati// (pp. //pacita//), which means to discern, 
   distinguish or know.
     
     Each of the rules in this category involves an object that a 
   bhikkhu has acquired or used wrongly, and that he must forfeit 
   before he may "make the offense known" -- confess it -- to a fellow 
   bhikkhu or group of bhikkhus. Once he has made his confession, he is 
   absolved from the offense.  In most cases, the forfeiture is 
   symbolic -- after his confession, he receives the article in return 
   -- although three of the rules require that the offender give up the 
   article for good.
     
     There are thirty rules in this category, divided into three 
   chapters (//vagga//) of ten rules each.
     
     
     
     
                    Part One: The Robe-cloth Chapter
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
       1. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame 
       is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance), he is 
       to keep an extra robe-cloth ten days at most.  Beyond that, 
       it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   
   The origin story for this rule is retold with more detail in the 
   Mahavagga (VIII.13.4-8).  Since the added details are what make it 
   interesting, that is the version translated here.
   
       "(The Buddha addresses the bhikkhus:)  'As I was on the road 
       from Rajagaha to Vesali, I saw many bhikkhus coming along 
       buried in robe-cloth, with a mattress of robe-cloth on their 
       heads and a mattress of robe-cloth on their backs, and a 
       mattress of robe-cloth on their hips.  Seeing them, I 
       thought, "All too soon have these foolish men come under the 
       spell of luxury in terms of robe-cloth.  What if I were to 
       set a boundary, to lay down a restriction on robe-cloth for 
       the bhikkhus."
       
       "'Then traveling by stages, I came to Vesali.  There I 
       stayed at the Gotamaka Shrine.  Now at that time, during the 
       cold winter middle-eight nights (the four nights on either 
       side of the full moon in February, the coldest time of the 
       year in India) when snow was falling, I sat outside wearing 
       one robe and was not cold.  Towards the end of the first 
       watch I became cold.  I put on a second robe and was not 
       cold. Towards the end of the middle watch I became cold.  I 
       put on a third robe and was not cold.  Towards the end of 
       the final watch, as dawn arose and the night smiled, I 
       became cold.  I put on a fourth robe and was not cold.  The 
       thought occurred to me, "Those in this doctrine and 
       discipline who are sons of respectable families -- sensitive 
       to cold and afraid of the cold -- even they are able to get 
       by with three robes.  Suppose I were to set a boundary, to 
       lay down a restriction on robes for the bhikkhus and were to 
       allow three robes."  Bhikkhus, I allow you three robes:  a 
       double-layer outer robe, a single-layer upper robe and a 
       single-layer inner robe (thus, four layers of cloth).'
   
       "Now at that time, some group-of-six bhikkhus, thinking, 
       'The Blessed One allows three robes,' entered the village 
       wearing one set of robes, stayed in the monastery wearing 
       another set, and went down to bathe in still another.  
       Modest bhikkhus... were offended and annoyed and spread it 
       about, 'How can the group of six bhikkhus keep extra 
       robe-cloth?'  They told this matter to the Blessed One.  
       He...addressed the bhikkhus, saying, 'Bhikkhus, an extra 
       robe-cloth is not to be kept.'
       
       "Now at that time an extra robe-cloth accrued to Ven. 
       Ananda, and he wanted to give it to Ven. Sariputta, but Ven. 
       Sariputta was at Saketa.  He thought, '...Now what should I 
       do?'  He told this matter to the Blessed One, who said, 'But 
       how long is it, Ananda, before Sariputta will come here?'
       
       "'Nine or ten days.'
       
       "Then the Blessed One...addressed the bhikkhus, 'I allow an 
       extra robe-cloth to be kept at most ten days.'
       
       "Now at that time an extra robe accrued to the bhikkhus.  
       They thought, 'Now what should we do?'  They told this 
       matter to the Blessed One, who said, 'I allow you, bhikkhus, 
       to place an extra robe-cloth under dual ownership.'"
   
     
     The offense under this rule involves two factors:
   
     1) //Object//:  a piece of extra robe-cloth, i.e., a piece of 
   cloth suitable to be made into a robe or other cloth requisite, 
   measuring at least four by eight inches (fingerbreadths), that has 
   not been formally determined for use or placed under dual ownership.  
   This category includes finished requisites as well as simple pieces 
   of cloth, but does not include robe-cloth belonging to the 
   Community.
     
     2) //Effort//:  One keeps it for more than ten days (except during 
   the allowed period) without determining it for use, placing it under 
   dual ownership, abandoning it (giving or throwing it away); or 
   without the cloth's being lost, destroyed, burnt, stolen or taken by 
   someone else on trust within that time.
   
     Object.  According to the Mahavagga (VIII.3.1), six kinds of cloth 
   are suitable for making into cloth requisites:  linen, cotton, silk, 
   wool, hemp or canvas (any of the five preceding types mixed with 
   jute).  By extension, nylon, rayon and other synthetic fibers would 
   count as suitable as well.  Unsuitable materials -- such as cloth 
   made of hair, horse-hair, grass, bark, wood-shavings or antelope 
   hide (and by extension, leather) -- do not come under this rule.  
   (For a full list of unsuitable materials, see Mv.VIII.28.)  
   Mv.VIII.29 gives a list of colors -- such as black, blue and crimson 
   -- and patterns that are not suitable for robes but that, according 
   to the Commentary, are suitable for things like handkerchiefs and 
   bed sheets.  Pieces of cloth dyed these colors or printed with these 
   patterns //would// come under this rule.
     
     If a bhikkhu receives a piece of suitable cloth measuring four by 
   eight fingerbreadths or more but does not yet plan to use it, he may 
   place it under dual ownership (//vikappana//) until he has need for 
   it.  Once he decides to make use of the cloth, he must rescind the 
   dual ownership (see Pacittiya 59) before making it into a finished 
   requisite (if it isn't already).  Once it is finished, he may then 
   determine it for use (//adhitthana//) or place it under dual 
   ownership again, depending on the nature of the article:
   
     Each of the three basic robes, handkerchiefs, bed sheets and the 
       sitting cloth are to be determined, and may not be placed under 
       dual ownership.
     
     //A rains-bathing cloth// (see NP 24) may be determined for the 
       four months of the rainy season, and is to be placed under dual 
       ownership for the remainder of the year.
     
     //A skin-eruption cloth// (see Pacittiya 90) may be determined 
       when needed and is to be placed under dual ownership when not.
     
     //Other items of cloth// may be determined as "accessory cloths."
     
     (The procedures for determining and placing under dual ownership 
       are given in Appendices IV & V.)
     
     Any cloth made of any of the suitable materials and of the 
       requisite size counts as an extra cloth if --
     
       it has not been determined for use or put under dual ownership,
       it has been improperly determined or placed under dual ownership, 
         or
       its determination or dual ownership has lapsed.
   
     Many of the cases in which determination and dual ownership lapse 
   also exempt the cloth from this rule:  e.g., the owner disrobes or 
   dies, he gives the cloth away, it gets stolen, destroyed (bitten by 
   things such as termites, says the Commentary), burnt, lost, or 
   someone else takes it on trust.  There are a few cases, however, 
   where determination and dual ownership lapse and the cloth //does// 
   fall under this rule.  They are --
   
     //Under dual ownership//:  The first owner takes the cloth on 
   trust; or the second owner formally rescinds the dual ownership.
     
     //Under determination//:  The owner rescinds the determination; or 
   (if the cloth has been determined as one of the three basic robes) 
   the cloth develops a hole.  This latter case comes in the 
   Commentary, which gives precise standards for deciding what kind of 
   hole does and does not make the determination of the robe lapse:
   
       1) //Size//.  The hole has to be a full break (through both 
         layers of cloth, if in the outer robe) at least the size of the 
         nail on one's little finger.  If one or more threads remains 
         across the hole, then the hole makes the determination lapse 
         only if either of the two "halves" divided by the thread(s) is 
         the requisite size.
       
       2) //Location//.  On an upper robe or outer robe, the hole has to 
         be at least one span (25 cm.) from the longer side and eight 
         fingerbreadths from the shorter; on an under robe, at least one 
         span from the longer side and four fingerbreadths from the 
         shorter.  Any hole closer to the edge of the robe than these 
         measurements does not make the determination lapse.
   
     Because of these stipulations, the Commentary notes that if one is 
   patching a worn spot -- not a hole as defined above -- the requisite 
   distance away from the edge of one's robe, the determination lapses 
   if one cuts out the worn spot before applying the patch, but not if 
   one applies the patch before cutting out the worn spot.  If the 
   determination lapses, it is an easy matter to redetermine the robe, 
   but one must be mindful to do it within the time span allotted by 
   this rule.
     
     Effort.  According to the Vibhanga, if one keeps a piece of extra 
   robe-cloth past the eleventh dawn (except when the end-of-vassa and 
   kathina privileges are in effect), one commits the full offense 
   under this rule.  The Commentary explains this by saying that the 
   dawn of the day on which one receives the cloth, or lets its 
   determination/dual ownership lapse, counts as the first dawn.  Thus 
   the eleventh dawn would actually be the tenth dawn after one 
   receives, etc., the cloth.  (The precise definition of dawn is a 
   controversial point.  See Appendix I.)
     
     Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if one miscounts 
   the days, or perceives a robe to be determined when it actually is 
   not, one is not immune from the offense:  The robe is to be 
   forfeited and the offense confessed.
     
     To use such a robe or piece of robe-cloth before one has forfeited 
   it and confessed the offense, entails a dukkata.  This point holds 
   for each of the nissaggiya pacittiya rules.
     
     End-of-vassa & kathina privileges.  The fourth lunar month of the 
   rainy season -- beginning the day after the first full moon in 
   October and lasting to dawn of the day following the next full moon 
   -- is termed the robe season, a period traditionally given over to 
   robe-making.  In the early days, when most bhikkhus spent the cold 
   and hot seasons wandering, and stayed put in one place only during 
   the Rains, this would have been the ideal period to prepare robes 
   for their wandering, and would have been the ideal time for lay 
   people who had come to know the bhikkhus during the Rains to show 
   their gratitude and respect for them by presenting them with gifts 
   of cloth for this purpose.
     
     During this robe season, six of the training rules -- NP 1, 2, & 
   3; Pacittiyas 32, 33, & 46 -- are relaxed as a privilege for 
   bhikkhus who have observed the three-month rains residence 
   (//vassa//), to make it more convenient for them to make robes.  
   Also, any cloth accruing to a particular monastery during this 
   period may be shared only among the bhikkhus who spent the Rains 
   there, and not with any incoming visitors.
     
     If the bhikkhus who have spent the Rains in a particular monastery 
   number five or more, they are also entitled to participate in a 
   //kathina// ceremony in which they receive a gift of cloth from lay 
   people, bestow it on one of their members, and then as a group make 
   it into a robe before dawn of the following day.  (//Kathina// means 
   frame, and refers to the frame over which the robe-cloth is 
   stretched, much like the frame used in America to make a quilt.)  
   After participating in this ceremony, the bhikkhus may take 
   advantage of the above-mentioned privileges for an additional four 
   lunar months, up to the dawn after the full-moon day that ends the 
   cold season in late February or early-to-mid March (called Phagguna 
   in Pali).  However, a bhikkhu's kathina privileges may be rescinded 
   earlier than that for either of two reasons:
   
     1)  He participates in a meeting in which all the bhikkhus in the 
       monastery, as a formal act of the Community, voluntarily 
       relinquish their kathina privileges.  (This act is discussed 
       under Bhikkhunis' Pacittiya 30 -- see BD, vol. III, p. 302.)
     
     2)  He comes to the end both of his commitment to the monastery 
       (//avasa-palibodha//) and of his commitment to making a robe 
       (//civara-palibodha//).   (See Mv.VII.1.7; Mv.VII.2 & Pv.XIV.6.)
   
     a) Commitment to the monastery ends when either of the following 
       things happen:
   
       -- One leaves the monastery without intending to return before 
         the four lunar months are up.
       -- One has left the monastery, planning to return, but learns 
         that the bhikkhus in the monastery have formally decided to 
         relinquish their kathina privileges.
   
     b) Commitment to making a robe ends when any of the following 
       occur:
   
       -- One finishes making a robe.
       -- One decides not to make a robe,
       -- One's robe-cloth gets lost.
       -- One expects to obtain robe-cloth, but doesn't obtain it as 
         expected.
   
     Only if Point 1 happens, or //both// Points 2a and 2b happen, do 
   one's kathina privileges lapse before the dawn after the full moon 
   day marking the end of the cold season.
     
     During the period in which one's end-of-vassa privileges or 
   kathina privileges are in effect, one may keep an extra piece of 
   robe-cloth for more than ten days without committing an offense 
   under this rule.  Once  these privileges lapse, though, one must 
   determine the cloth, place it under dual ownership, or abandon it 
   within ten days.  If one fails to do so by the 'eleventh dawn' after 
   the privileges lapse, the cloth is to be forfeited and the offense 
   confessed.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  To be absolved of the offense under this 
   rule, one must first forfeit the robe-cloth kept over ten days, and 
   then confess the offense.  This may be done in the presence of one 
   other bhikkhu, a group of two or three, or a Community of four or 
   more.  After confessing the offense, one receives the robe-cloth in 
   return.  This is the pattern followed under all the nissaggiya 
   pacittiya rules, except for the few in which forfeiture and 
   confession must be done in the presence of a full Community, and in 
   which the article may not be returned to the offender.  (We will 
   note these rules as we come to them.)
     
     The Pali formulae to use in forfeiture, confession and return of 
   the article for this and all the following rules are given in 
   Appendix VI.  We should note, though, that according to the 
   Commentary one may conduct these procedures in any language at all.
     
     In this and every other rule under which the article may be 
   returned to the offender, it //must// be returned to him.  According 
   to the Vibhanga, a bhikkhu who receives the article being forfeited 
   without returning it incurs a dukkata.  The Commentary qualifies 
   this by saying that this penalty applies only to the bhikkhu who 
   assumes that, in receiving an article being forfeited in this way, 
   it is his to take as he likes.  For the bhikkhu who knows that it is 
   not his to take -- and this includes every bhikkhu who has read this 
   passage and remembered it -- the offense is to be treated under 
   Parajika 2, and the penalty determined by the value of the article.  
   Viewed in this light, the act of accepting the forfeited article is 
   like accepting an object placed in trust.
     
     A bhikkhu who has received the robe-cloth in return after 
   forfeiting it and confessing the offense may use it again without 
   penalty, unless he keeps it as a piece of extra robe-cloth for more 
   than an additional ten days.
     
     Non-offenses.  Aside from extra robe-cloth kept more than ten days 
   while one's end-of-vassa or kathina privileges are in effect, the 
   Vibhanga says that there is no offense if within ten days the cloth 
   is determined, placed under dual ownership, lost, stolen, destroyed, 
   burnt, taken by someone else on trust, thrown away, or given away.
     
     In connection with this last point, the Commentary discusses 
   proper and improper ways of giving things away.  The article counts 
   as having been properly given if one says, "I give this to you," or 
   "I give this to so-and-so" or "Take this, it's yours," but not if 
   one says things like, "Make this yours," or "May this be yours."  
   Apparently, if one simply hands the article over without saying 
   anything to show that one is transferring ownership, it again does 
   not count.  As we noted above, perception is not a mitigating factor 
   under this rule.  If one gives extra robe-cloth away in an improper 
   manner, then even though one may assume that the cloth has been 
   given away, it still counts as one's own extra robe-cloth under this 
   rule.
     
     Current practice.  As the origin story shows, the purpose of this 
   rule was to prevent bhikkhus from having more than one set of the 
   three robes at any one time.  With the passage of time, though, 
   gifts of cloth to the Community became more numerous, and the need 
   for stringency in this matter became less and less felt.  Exactly 
   when spare robes became accepted is not recorded, although the 
   passage on a student's duties to his preceptor (Mv.I.25.9) shows 
   that the practice of having a spare lower robe was already current 
   when that part of the Canon was compiled (see Appendix VIII).  
   Mv.VII.1 also makes mention of a group of forest dwelling monks who 
   were "wearers of the three robes," as if this were a special 
   distinguishing characteristic.  The Parivara (V.5) mentions the 
   practice of using only one set of three robes as special, and the 
   Visuddhi Magga (5th century A.D.) classes this practice as one of 
   the thirteen optional //dhutanga// (ascetic) practices.
     
     As we will see below, Pacittiya 92 suggests that in the early days 
   the under, upper, and outer robes were all nearly the same size, so 
   there would have been no difficulties in washing one robe and using 
   the other two while the first one dried.  Later, when the compilers 
   of the ancient commentaries greatly enlarged the size of the upper 
   and outer robes after deciding that the Buddha was much larger than 
   an ordinary human being, getting  by with just one set of three 
   robes became less convenient.  Thus many teachers at present suggest 
   that even a frugal bhikkhu, when staying in monasteries, should use 
   one spare under robe or a spare under and upper robe -- so that he 
   will have no trouble keeping his robes clean and presenting an 
   acceptable appearance at all times -- and save the three-robe 
   dhutanga practice for periods when alone in the wilderness.
     
     At any rate, since only one set of three robes may be determined 
   as such, spare robes -- once they became generally accepted -- were 
   determined as "accessory cloths."  This point may be inferred from 
   the Commentary's explanation of this rule, and the Sub-commentary's 
   explanation of NP 7.  The Commen-tary even contains a discussion of 
   the views of various elders as to whether or not a bhikkhu who 
   wishes to avoid the special rules surrounding the use of the three 
   robes (such as the following rule) may determine his basic set as 
   accessory cloths as well.  The majority opinion -- with only one 
   dissenting voice -- was yes, although at present many Communities do 
   not agree with this opinion.
     
     The Sub-commentary suggests an alternative way of dealing with 
   spare robes:  placing them under dual ownership and -- since none of 
   the three robes may be placed under dual ownership -- calling them 
   simply "cloth" (//civara//).  This, however, plays havoc with 
   Pacittiya 59, and the general use of the idea of dual ownership in 
   the Canon, as a way of keeping cloth that one is not yet using.
     
     Still, both methods of dealing with spare robes -- determining 
   them as "accessory cloths" and placing them under dual ownership as 
   "cloths" -- are in practice at present.  And since spare robes have 
   been accepted, the current effect of this rule is mainly to deter a 
   bhikkhu from hoarding up robe-cloth in secret and from letting a 
   hole in any of his basic set of three robes go unmended for more 
   than ten days.   Nevertheless, the spirit of the rule makes it 
   incumbent on each bhikkhu to keep his cloth requisites to a minimum.
   
       Summary:  Keeping a piece of robe-cloth for more than ten 
       days without determining it for use or placing it under dual 
       ownership -- except when the end-of-vassa or kathina 
       privileges are in effect -- is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       2.When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame 
       is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance):  If 
       he dwells apart from (any of) his three robes even for one 
       night -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be 
       forfeited and confessed.
   
   
   In the origin story here, a number of bhikkhus went off on tour, 
   leaving their outer robes with their friends at the monastery.  
   Eventually the robes became moldy, and the bhikkhus at the monastery 
   were burdened with having to sun them to get rid of the mold.  The 
   Buddha thus formulated this rule so that bhikkhus would be 
   responsible for looking after their own robes.
   
     The offense here consists of two factors:  object and effort.
     
     Object: any one of the robes that a bhikkhu has determined as his 
   basic set of three -- the //antaravasaka// (under robe), 
   //uttarasanga// (upper robe) and //sanghati// (outer robe).  This 
   rule thus does not apply to spare robes or other cloth requisites.
     
     Effort: greeting dawn at a place outside of the zone in which any 
   of ones robes are located, except when the exemptions mentioned in 
   the rule are in effect.
     
     //Dawn// is a concept that would seem intuitive enough, but the 
   lack of a definition for the term in the Vibhanga has given rise to 
   a variety of later interpretations.  The Khuddasikkha -- a Vinaya 
   manual written by Ven. Dhammasiri, a Sri Lankan, in the 11th or 12th 
   century -- states that the sky lightens in four stages before 
   sunrise:  a slight reddening 2 hours before sunrise; a slight 
   whitening 1/2 hour later; a second reddening 48 minutes before 
   sunrise; and a second whitening 24 minutes after that.  Burmese, Sri 
   Lankan, and some Thai bhikkhus tend to follow this analysis, and 
   differ among themselves only as to which of the four stages 
   constitutes dawn, most of them favoring the first reddening.  Other 
   Thai bhikkhus ignore the Khuddasikkha entirely, and say that dawn 
   occurs in the half hour before the point when, by natural light, one 
   can see the lines in one's hand while holding it out at arm's 
   length.
     
     Appendix I discusses a passage from the Canon -- M. 66 -- that 
   suggests that the first reddening and whitening is probably not the 
   dawn meant by the Vibhanga, but as with many other controversial 
   points of this sort, the wise policy is usually to adhere to the 
   traditions of one's Community.
     
     //Zones//.  This is the most complex facet of this rule.  The zone 
   where a bhikkhu must be at dawn depends on the type of location 
   where his robes are placed, whether or not the property around the 
   location is enclosed (with a wall, a fence, or a body of water such 
   as a moat, river, or lake, says the Sub-commentary) and -- if it is 
   enclosed -- whether it belongs to one or more than one //kula//.
     
     The term //kula// has different meanings for the different types 
   of locations.  According to the Commentary, a village, town or city 
   is one-kula if ruled by a single ruler, and multi-kula if ruled by a 
   council -- as in the case of Vesali and Kusinara during the time of 
   the Buddha.  At present, cities or towns governed under a social 
   contract -- such as a town charter -- would count as multi-kula 
   regardless of whether the highest authority in the government is 
   invested in a single individual or not.
     
     A building, a vehicle or a piece of land is one-kula if it belongs 
   to one family, and multi-kula if it belongs to more than one (as in 
   an apartment house).
     
     According to the Sub-commentary, a monastery is one-kula if the 
   people who initiated it belong to one kula -- of either type, 
   apparently -- and multi-kula if they belong to several.
     
     What follows is a synopsis of the specific places listed in the 
   Vibhanga, together with explanations from the commentaries:
   
     1.  //A village, town, or city//:
   
       a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are in the enclosure, one 
         may greet dawn anywhere in the enclosure.
       
       b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  If the robes are in a house, greet 
         dawn anywhere in the house, in the public meeting hall, at the 
         town gate, or one //hatthapasa// (1.25 meters) around any of 
         these places (%).  If the robes are in the public meeting hall 
         or in the area one hatthapasa around it, greet dawn in the 
         public meeting hall, at the town gate, or in the area one 
         hatthapasa around either of the two.
       
       c. Unenclosed:  If the robes are in a one-kula dwelling, greet 
         dawn in the house, or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).  
         (See 2 & 3 below for further details.)
   
     2.  //A dwelling with a yard//:
   
       a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are within the enclosure, 
         greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.
       
       b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  Greet dawn in the room where the 
         robes are located, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the 
         area one hatthapasa around either of the two (%).
       
       c. Unenclosed:  Greet dawn in the room where the robes are 
         located, or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).
       
     3.  //A monastic dwelling// (vihara -- //according to the 
       Sub-commentary, this includes entire monasteries//):
   
       a. Enclosed and one-kula:  If the robes are within the enclosure, 
         greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.
       
       b. Enclosed and multi-kula:  Greet dawn in the dwelling where the 
         robes are located, at the entrance to the enclosure, or in the 
         area one hatthapasa around either of the two (%).
       
       c. Unenclosed:  Greet dawn in the dwelling where the robes are 
         located or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).
       
     4.  //A field, orchard garden (park) or threshing floor//:
   
       a. Enclosed and one-kula:   If the robes are within the 
         enclosure, greet dawn anywhere within the enclosure.
       
       b.  Enclosed and multi-kula:  If the robes are within the 
         enclosure, greet dawn in the area one hatthapasa around the 
         entrance to the enclosure or in the area one hatthapasa around 
         the robes.
       
       c.  Unenclosed:  Greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.
       
     5.  //Buildings with no yard (such as a fortress or city apartment 
       block)//:
   
       a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the building, greet dawn 
         anywhere within the building.
       
       b.  Multi-kula:  Greet dawn within the room where the robes are 
         located or in the area one hatthapasa around it (%).
       
     6.  //A boat (and by extension, other vehicles)//:
   
       a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the vehicle, greet dawn 
         anywhere within the vehicle.
       
       b.  Multi-kula (as in a commercial airplane or bus):  If the robe 
         is within a room, greet dawn in the room or in the area one 
         hatthapasa around it (%).  (For this reason, a bhikkhu 
         traveling in an airplane overnight should wear his complete set 
         of robes or have it with him in his cabin baggage, rather than 
         in his checked baggage.)
   
     7.  //A caravan (according to the Sub-commentary, this includes 
       groups traveling by foot as well as by cart; group hiking trips 
       would thus be included here)//:
   
       a.  One-kula:  If the robes are anywhere in the caravan, greet 
         dawn anywhere up to seven //abbhantaras// (98 meters) in front 
         of or behind the robes, or up to one abbhantara (14 meters) to 
         either side.
       
       b.  Multi-kula:  If the robes are anywhere in the caravan, greet 
         dawn within one hatthapasa of the caravan.
       
     8.  //At the foot of a tree//:
   
       a.  One-kula:  If the robes are in the area shaded by the tree at 
         noon, greet dawn within that area.  According to the 
         Commentary, this doesn't include spots where sun leaks through 
         gaps in the foliage, so be careful.
       
       b.  Multi-kula (as a tree on the boundary between two pieces of 
         land):  Greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.
       
     9.  //In a wilderness area (where there are no villages)//:
   
       Greet dawn anywhere within a seven-abbhantara (98 meter) radius 
         of the robes.
   
     10.  //In other areas//:
   
       If the robes are located in a place other than those mentioned 
         above (e.g., in the unshaded yard of an unenclosed monastery), 
         greet dawn within one hatthapasa of the robes.
   
     Exemptions. 1)  As in the preceding rule, this rule does not apply 
   when the end-of-vassa and kathina privileges are in effect.
     
     2)  In the origin story to this rule, the Buddha gives permission 
   for a Community of bhikkhus to authorize an ill bhikkhu to be 
   separated from his robes at dawn throughout the course of his 
   illness without penalty.  This authorization is to be given as a 
   formal act with one motion and one announcement 
   (//natti-dutiya-kamma//).
     
     The Commentary discusses how long this authorization is to last, 
   and concludes that once the bhikkhu has recovered, he should make 
   every reasonable effort to get back to his robes as soon as possible 
   without jeopardizing his health.  The authorization then 
   automatically subsides, with no further formal act being required.  
   If his illness returns, the authorization is automatically 
   reinstated.
     
     3) In Mv.II.12.1-3, the Buddha directs the bhikkhus to declare a 
   //sima// -- or territory in which formal acts of the Community are 
   enacted -- as a //ticivara-avippavasa//, which means that if a 
   bhikkhu's robes are anywhere within the territory, he may greet dawn 
   at any other part of that territory without committing an offense 
   under this rule.  In the early days, when such a territory might 
   cover many monasteries (the maximum allowable size is 3x3 
   //yojanas//, approximately 48x48 kilometers), this was a definite 
   convenience for bhikkhus who had to leave one monastery to join in 
   Community meetings at another one in the same territory.  Since it 
   was possible for such territories to include villages and homes as 
   well, the Buddha added the extra stipulation that robes left in the 
   houses of lay people lying in such a territory were not covered by 
   this exemption.
     
     At present the custom is to designate much smaller areas as simas 
   -- usually only a fraction of the land in one monastery -- and 
   although these can also be designated as ticivara-avippavasa, this 
   arrangement in such cases is not the great convenience it is in the 
   larger simas.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  If a bhikkhu greets dawn outside of the 
   zone where any one of his three determined robes is placed -- except 
   when the exemptions are in effect -- the robe is to be forfeited and 
   the offense confessed.  Perception and intention are not mitigating 
   factors here.  If he thinks that he is in the same zone when he 
   actually isn't, if he thinks the robe is not determined when it 
   actually is, or if he means to be in the same zone when 
   circumstances prevent him, he incurs the penalty all the same.  If 
   he then uses the robe before forfeiting it and confessing the 
   offense, he incurs a dukkata.
     
     The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe 
   are the same as in the preceding rule.  For the Pali formula to use 
   in forfeiture, see Appendix VI.  Once the robe has been forfeited, 
   its determination lapses, so when the bhikkhu receives it in return 
   he must re-determine it for use or give it away within ten days so 
   as not to commit an offense under the preceding rule.
     
     Non-offenses.  In addition to the above-mentioned exemptions, 
   there is no offense if, before dawn, the robe is lost, destroyed, 
   burnt or stolen; if someone else takes it on trust; or if the 
   bhikkhu gives it away or rescinds its determination.  Because of 
   this last allowance, the Commentary recommends that if a bhikkhu 
   realizes that he will not be able to get back to his robe before 
   dawn, he should verbally rescind the robe's determination before 
   dawn arrives so as to avoid an offense, and then redetermine the 
   robe after dawn has passed.
     
     A note on Thai practice.  The author of the Vinaya Mukha missed 
   the Sub-commentary's discussion of monastic residences under this 
   rule, and so came to the conclusion that none of the texts discuss 
   the question of zones in a monastery.  As a result, he formulated 
   his own system, treating each separate monastic dwelling as a lay 
   dwelling with a yard.  Furthermore, he neglected to discuss the 
   question of what counts as single-kula and multi-kula in such a 
   dwelling.  In the absence of any other standard, Thai bhikkhus have 
   come to view a dwelling of two or more bhikkhus, in which the 
   bhikkhus come from different families, as a multi-kula dwelling.  If 
   the bhikkhus live in separate rooms, then the room where the robes 
   are placed, plus a radius of one hatthapasa around it, is the 
   bhikkhu's zone.  If two or more bhikkhus are spending the night in a 
   single room, each bhikkhu must greet dawn within one hatthapasa of 
   his robes.
     
     Although there is no basis in the Canon or commentaries for this 
   practice, it is so widely accepted in Thailand that the wise policy 
   for anyone spending the night in the same dwelling or the same room 
   with a Thai bhikkhu is to be aware of it and abide by it, to avoid 
   the useless controversies that can arise over minor matters like 
   this.
   
       Summary:  Being in a separate zone from any of one's three 
       robes at dawn -- except when the end-of-vassa or kathina 
       privileges are in effect, or one has received formal 
       authorization from the Community -- is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       3. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the 
       kathina privileges are in abeyance:  If out-of-season 
       robe-cloth accrues to him, he may accept it if he so 
       desires.  Once he accepts it, he is to make it up 
       immediately (into a cloth requisite).  If it should not be 
       enough, he may lay it aside for a month at most if he has an 
       expectation for filling the lack.  Should he keep it beyond 
       that, even when there is an expectation (for further cloth), 
       it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   There are two factors for an offense here:
   
     1)  //Object//:  (a) out-of-season robe-cloth, made of any of the 
   proper six kinds of material, in pieces measuring at least four by 
   eight fingerbreadths;
   
     (b) the cloth is not enough to make the cloth requisite one has in 
   mind, but one expects to receive more.
   
     2)  //Effort//:  One keeps the cloth for more than 30 days, except 
   when the privileges are in effect.
     
     Object.  Any gift of robe-cloth presented to the Community when 
   the end-of-vassa or kathina privileges are in effect is an in-season 
   robe-cloth.  Thus, out-of-season robe-cloth includes any gift of 
   robe-cloth:
   
     1)  presented to the Community at any other time,
     
     2) presented at any time to a bhikkhu or group of bhikkhus (except 
       for in-season cloth allotted to him/them by the Community); or
     
     3) presented to the Community when the privileges are in effect, 
       with the stipulation that it be treated as out-of-season cloth.
   
     The reason why a donor would present cloth under category (3) is 
   because, according to Mv.VIII.24-25, in-season cloth may be shared 
   among only the bhikkhus who spent the vassa in that particular 
   Community, and not among any visiting bhikkhus.  The Bhikkhunis' NP 
   2 tells of a case where well-behaved but shabbily dressed bhikkhunis 
   visited a Community of bhikkhunis when the end-of-vassa privileges 
   were in effect; lay donors, wishing to help them out, gave cloth to 
   the Community with the stipulation that it be treated as 
   out-of-season robe-cloth so that the visiting bhikkhunis would also 
   have a share.
     
     Out-of-season cloth, if it is enough to make the cloth requisite 
   one has in mind, is treated as extra robe-cloth under NP 1.  If, 
   however, it is not enough, and one expects to get further cloth from 
   any source -- lay donors, the Community, cast-off cloth, or one's 
   own resources -- it may be kept for up to 30 days with no need to be 
   determined or placed under dual ownership.
     
     The further cloth, when one receives it, has a life span of ten 
   days, as under NP 1, and one must finish making one's requisite 
   within the time period determined by whichever cloth has the shorter 
   life span.  Thus, if one obtains the expected cloth during the first 
   20 days, the requisite must be made within ten days, this being the 
   life span of the second cloth.  If one obtains it after the 21st 
   day, the requisite must be made before the original 30 days are up.
     
     If the second cloth turns out to be of different quality from the 
   first, one is under no compulsion to put the two cloths together to 
   make up the requisite if one does not want to, and may continue 
   waiting for further cloth as long as the life span of the first 
   cloth allows.  The Commentary recommends that if the second cloth is 
   of poorer quality than the first, one may determine it as accessory 
   cloth; if the second cloth is of better quality, one may determine 
   the first cloth as accessory cloth, and start a new 30-day countdown 
   from the day of receiving the second cloth.
     
     Effort.  Days are counted by dawns.  If, by the 30th dawn after 
   one receives the original cloth, one has not determined it, placed 
   it under dual ownership or abandoned it, it is to be forfeited and 
   the offense confessed.  The Sub-commentary adds that if at any time 
   after the first ten days have elapsed one abandons any expectation 
   for further cloth, one must determine the original cloth, place it 
   under dual ownership, or abandon it before the following dawn.  
   Otherwise, one commits an offense under NP 1.
     
     As in the preceding rules, perception is not a mitigating factor 
   here.  If one miscounts the dawns, or thinks the cloth is properly 
   determined, etc., when in fact it isn't, there is an offense all the 
   same.
     
     As for the question of out-of-season cloth that crosses the 
   boundary between times when the privileges are and are not in effect 
   -- i.e., cloth received less than a month before the privileges 
   start, or less than a month before they end:  The K/Commentary to NP 
   24 indicates that if cloth received when the privileges are still in 
   effect is not enough to make a robe, the one-month grace period 
   allowed in this rule begins the day after the privileges are 
   rescinded.  And the Commentary to NP 28 indicates that if the cloth 
   covered in this rule comes toward the end of the Rains Retreat, and 
   the day when the robe has to be finished falls in the robe season, 
   one  is allowed the entire robe season to finish it.
     
     Still, these questions rarely come up in practice, as it is a 
   simple enough matter to determine the original cloth as accessory 
   cloth or place it under dual ownership until one has enough cloth to 
   make one's requisite, remove it from those arrangements to make the 
   requisite, and so avoid having to worry about this rule at all.
     
     Forfeiture & confession.  The procedures for forfeiture, 
   confession, and return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding 
   rules.  For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth, see 
   Appendix VI.  Once the cloth is received in return, and it is now 
   enough for the requisite one has in mind, it is classed as extra 
   robe-cloth under NP 1.  If not, the 30-day countdown starts all over 
   again.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if, before the 30 days are up, 
   the original cloth is stolen, lost, destroyed, burnt; if someone 
   else takes it on trust; or if the owner determines it for use, 
   places it under dual ownership or abandons it.  And, as stated 
   above, this rule does not apply when the end-of-vassa and kathina 
   privileges are in effect.
     
       Summary: Keeping out-of-season cloth for more than 30 days 
       when it is not enough to make a requisite and one has 
       expectation for more -- except when the end-of-vassa and 
       kathina privileges are in effect -- is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       4. Should any bhikkhu have a used robe washed, dyed, or 
       beaten by a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be 
       forfeited and confessed.
   
   The origin story here is one of the classics of Vinaya literature, 
   although it is hard to say which is more memorable -- the dry, 
   matter-of-fact style with which the narrative relates the improbable 
   events, or the reaction of the bhikkhunis when they hear what has 
   happened.
   
       "Now at that time Ven. Udayin's wife had gone forth among 
       the bhikkhunis.  She often went to his dwelling, and he 
       often went to hers.  One day he went to her dwelling for a 
       meal.  Arising early in the morning, carrying his robe and 
       bowl, he went to where she was staying and on arrival sat 
       down in front of her, exposing his male organ.  She sat down 
       in front of him, exposing her female organ.  He, full of 
       lust, stared at her organ.  His organ emitted semen.  He 
       said to her, 'Go and fetch some water, sister.  I'll wash my 
       under robe.'
       
       "'Give it to me.  //I'll// wash it.'
       
       "Then she took some of the semen in her mouth and inserted 
       some of it in her female organ.  With that, she conceived a 
       child.
       
       "The bhikkhunis said, 'This bhikkhuni has been practicing 
       unchastity.  She's pregnant.'
       
       "'It's not that I've been practicing unchastity.'  And she 
       told them what had happened.  The bhikkhunis were offended 
       and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can this Master Udayin 
       get a bhikkhuni to wash his used robe?'"
   
     There are three factors for an offense here:  object, effort and 
   result.
     
     Object:  a used robe.  //Robe//, here, according to the 
   Commentary, means any robe that has been dyed and properly marked 
   (see Pacittiya 58).  This is its way of saying that the robe must be 
   a finished cloth requisite of the type suitable for wearing, but 
   need not be determined as one of one's basic three robes.  In other 
   words, it could also be as yet undetermined, or a spare robe 
   determined as an accessory cloth.
     
     //Used//, according to the Vibhanga, means worn around the body at 
   least once.  According to the Commentary, it can mean used in other 
   ways -- e.g., rolled up as a pillow or worn draped over the shoulder 
   or head -- as well.
     
     Other cloth requisites, such as sitting cloths and bed sheets, are 
   grounds for a dukkata.  Non-cloth requisites are not grounds for an 
   offense.
     
     Effort.  One tells an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, dye, or beat 
   the robe.
   
     A //bhikkhuni//, here, means one who has received the double 
   ordination, first in the Bhikkhuni Sangha and secondly in the 
   Bhikkhu Sangha.  A bhikkhuni who has received only her first 
   ordination is grounds for a dukkata.  Female probationers and 
   novices and not grounds for an offense.
     
     //Unrelated// is explained by the Vibhanga as meaning unrelated 
   back through seven grandfathers, either on the father's or the 
   mother's side.  The Commentary explains further that this means 
   seven generations counted back starting from one's grandfather.  
   Thus all descendants of one's 
   great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers are counted 
   as one's relatives.  In-laws, though, are not counted.  This 
   definition of unrelated applies wherever the Vibhanga mentions the 
   word.  At the time of the Buddha, perceived ties of kinship extended 
   more widely than they do today, and a bhikkhu at present would be 
   well-advised to regard as his relatives only those blood-relations 
   with whom ties of kinship are actually felt.
     
     Perception is not an issue here.  If a bhikkhu perceives a 
   bhikkhuni as related when in fact she isn't, he is subject to the 
   penalty all the same.
     
     //Telling//, according to the Commentary, includes gesturing as 
   well.  Thus if a bhikkhuni is washing her robes, and a bhikkhu 
   throws his robe down next to her, that would fulfill the factor 
   here.
     
     Result.  The bhikkhuni washes, dyes or beats the robe as 
   requested.
     
     Offenses.  A bhikkhu who tells an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, 
   etc., his used robe incurs a dukkata in the telling.  For every 
   effort she then makes towards washing it, he incurs an extra 
   dukkata.  When she actually starts washing it, the robe is to be 
   forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya offense confessed.  He incurs 
   a nissaggiya pacittiya and a dukkata if he gets her to do two of the 
   three actions mentioned in the rule -- e.g., washing and dyeing the 
   robe; and a nissaggiya pacittiya and two dukkatas if he gets her to 
   do all three.
     
     The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of the robe 
   are the same as in the preceding rules.  Once the robe is returned, 
   it counts as an extra robe-cloth under NP 1.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense if the bhikkhuni is related to 
   the bhikkhu, if an unrelated bhikkhuni washes the robe unasked, if 
   an unrelated bhikkhuni helps a related bhikkhuni wash it, if the 
   robe has not yet been used, if one gets an unrelated bhikkhuni to 
   wash a non-cloth requisite, or if one gets an unrelated female 
   probationer or female novice to wash a used robe.
     
     The Commentary discusses the case of a bhikkhu who gives a used 
   robe to a female probationer to wash:  She takes it, becomes 
   ordained as a bhikkhuni in the meantime, and then washes it.  The 
   verdict:  He incurs the full penalty under this rule.  For the fun 
   of it, the Commentary then goes on to discuss the case of a bhikkhu 
   who gives his used robe to a lay man to wash.  The lay man undergoes 
   a spontaneous sex change and becomes a bhikkhuni before washing the 
   robe, and again, the bhikkhu incurs the full penalty.  What lesson 
   is intended here is hard to say.
   
       Summary:  Getting an unrelated bhikkhuni to wash, dye, or 
       beat a robe that has been used at least once is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       5. Should any bhikkhu accept robe-cloth from a bhikkhuni 
       unrelated to him -- unless it is in exchange -- it is to be 
       forfeited and confessed.
   
   The reason behind this rule is expressed by a single sentence in the 
   origin story:  'It's hard for a woman to come by things.'  In the 
   original version of the rule, the Buddha made no allowance for 
   accepting robe-cloth in exchange, but this point was later changed 
   at the request of the bhikkhunis.  They had tried to exchange 
   robe-cloth with the bhikkhus, who refused because of the rule as it 
   stood at that time, and this upset the bhikkhunis.  As the 
   Commentary explains, their poverty was what made them complain, "If 
   the Masters are not on familiar terms with us even to this extent, 
   how are we supposed to keep going?"
   
     The offense under this rule is composed of two factors:  object 
   and effort.
     
     Object:  any piece of robe-cloth of the six suitable kinds, 
   measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.  Other requisites 
   are not grounds for an offense.
     
     Effort.  The bhikkhu receives such cloth from an unrelated 
   bhikkhuni and does not give her anything in exchange.
     
     //Unrelated bhikkhuni// here is defined in the same terms as under 
   the preceding rule:  a bhikkhuni who has received the double 
   ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their 
   great x 7 grandfathers.  A bhikkhuni who has received only her first 
   ordination, from the bhikkhunis, is grounds for a dukkata.  Female 
   probationers and female novices are not grounds for an offense.
     
     Perception here is not a mitigating factor:  According to the 
   Vibhanga, even if a bhikkhu perceives an unrelated bhikkhuni as 
   related, he is still subject to the penalty.  The Commentary adds 
   that even if one does not know that the robe comes from a bhikkhuni 
   -- as when many donors place robes in a pile for a bhikkhu, and one 
   of the donors, unbeknownst to the bhikkhu, is a bhikkhuni -- this 
   factor is fulfilled all the same.  If a bhikkhuni gives robe-cloth 
   to someone else to present to a bhikkhu, though, the bhikkhu commits 
   no offense in accepting it.
     
     The Commentary also states that receiving need not be 
   hand-to-hand.  If a bhikkhuni simply places robe-cloth near a 
   bhikkhu as her way of giving it to him, and he accepts it as given, 
   this factor is fulfilled.
     
     As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhanga 
   states that it can be worth much more then the cloth or much less.  
   Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahapaccari, one of the ancient commentaries, 
   as saying that even if, in return for the cloth, the bhikkhu gives 
   the bhikkhuni a piece of yellow myrobalan -- a medicinal fruit, one 
   of the cheapest things imaginable in India -- he escapes the penalty 
   under this rule.
     
     Offenses.  If all three factors of the offense here are fulfilled, 
   the bhikkhu incurs a dukkata in accepting the cloth.  He then must 
   forfeit the cloth and confess the additional nissaggiya pacittiya 
   offense.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and return of 
   the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules.
     
     Non-offenses.  There is no offense:
   
     if the bhikkhuni is a relation;
     if the bhikkhuni is not related, but the bhikkhu gives her 
       something in exchange;
     if the bhikkhu takes the cloth on trust;
     if he borrows the cloth;
     if he accepts a non-cloth requisite;
     if he accepts robe-cloth from a female probationer or female 
       novice.
   
     Exchange.  The origin story to this rule is where the Buddha 
   explicitly gives permission for bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, female 
   probationers, male novices and female novices to trade items with 
   one another.  NP 20 forbids bhikkhus from trading items with lay 
   people and people ordained in other religions.
   
       Summary:   Accepting robe-cloth from an unrelated bhikkhuni 
       without giving her anything in exchange is a nissaggiya 
       pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       6. Should any bhikkhu ask for robe-cloth from a man or woman 
       householder unrelated to him, except at the proper occasion, 
       it is to be forfeited and confessed.  Here the proper 
       occasion is this:  The bhikkhu's robe has been stolen or 
       destroyed.  This is the proper occasion in this case.
   
       "Now at that time Ven. Upananda the Sakyan had become 
       skilled in giving Dhamma talks.  A certain millionaire's son 
       went to where he was, and on arrival bowed down and sat to 
       one side.  As he was sitting there, Ven. Upananda the Sakyan 
       instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a Dhamma 
       talk.  Then the millionaire's son...said to him, 'Tell me, 
       Ven. sir, what would be in my power to give you for your 
       welfare:  Robe-cloth?  Alms-food?  Lodgings?  Medicines for 
       the sick?'
       
       "'If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one 
       of those cloths (you are wearing).'
       
       "'I'm the son of a good family, Ven. sir.  How can I go 
       about wearing one cloth?  Wait until I've returned home.  
       After going home, I will send you one of these cloths, or a 
       finer one.'
       
       "A second time...A third time, Ven. Upananda said to him, 
       'If you want to give me something, friend, then give me one 
       of those cloths.'
       
       "'I'm the son of a good family, Ven. sir.  How can I go 
       about wearing one cloth?  Wait until I've returned home.  
       After going home, I will send you one of these cloths, or a 
       finer one.'
       
       "'Are you making an offer when you don't want to give me 
       anything, in that having made the offer you don't give?'
       
       "So the millionaire's son, being pressured by Ven. Upananda, 
       left having given him one cloth.  People seeing him said to 
       him, 'Why is it, master, that you go around wearing only one 
       cloth?'
       
       "He told them what had happened.  So the people were 
       offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'They're 
       insatiable, these Sakyan contemplatives, and not easily 
       contented.  It's no simple matter to make a reasonable 
       request of them.  How can they, after being made a 
       reasonable request by the millionaire's son, take his 
       cloth?'"
       
   
   The factors for an offense here are three:  object, effort, and 
   result.
     
     Object:  a piece of any of the six suitable kinds of robe-cloth, 
   measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.
     
     Effort.  One asks, except at the proper time, for such cloth from 
   a lay person who is not related back through one's great x 7 
   grandfathers.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here.  Even if 
   one perceives the lay person to be related when in fact he/she 
   isn't, that fulfills the factor here.
     
     Result.  One receives the cloth.
     
     The proper occasions.  //Stolen//, according to the Vibhanga, 
   refers to a robe stolen by anyone at all. //Destroyed// means burnt, 
   carried away by water, eaten by such things as rats or termites, or 
   worn out by use -- although the Sub-commentary adds here that worn 
   out by use means worn to the point where the robe can no longer 
   cover the body.
     
     If all of a bhikkhu's robes are stolen or destroyed, he is not to 
   go about naked.  To do so incurs a dukkata (as opposed to the 
   thullaccaya Mv.VIII.28.1 imposes on a bhikkhu who chooses to go 
   about naked when he has robes to wear).  A bhikkhu with no cloth to 
   cover his body should make a covering of grass and leaves.  If he 
   happens on an unoccupied Sangha residence, he is permitted to take 
   any cloth he finds there -- robes, sheets, mats, pillow cases, or 
   whatever -- to wear as a makeshift robe as long as he has the 
   intention of returning it when he obtains a proper robe.
     
     The Commentary adds several points here:
   
     If one picks leaves or cuts grass to make a covering for oneself 
       under these circumstances, one is exempt from the penalty for 
       damaging plant life under Pacittiya 11.
     
     If, after getting one's makeshift robe, one has to go a great 
       distance before getting a proper robe, one may leave the 
       makeshift robe with any convenient monastery as property of the 
       Sangha.
     
     If, under these circumstances, one asks lay people for cloth and 
       receives cloth of a type or color that normally is not allowed, 
       there is no offense in wearing it until one can obtain suitable 
       cloth.
   
     The following rule adds extra stipulations on how much cloth one 
   may ask for in circumstances like this.
   
     Offenses.  The act of asking for robe-cloth from an unrelated lay 
   person not at the proper time entails a dukkata.  The cloth, when 
   one receives it, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya 
   offense confessed.  The procedures for forfeiture, confession, and 
   return of the cloth are the same as in the preceding rules.  The 
   Pali formula to use in forfeiting the cloth is given in Appendix VI.
     
     Non-offenses.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if 
   --
   
     one asks at the right time,
     one asks from one's relations,
     one asks from people who have invited one to ask for cloth,
     one obtains cloth through one's own resources, or
     one asks for the sake of another bhikkhu.
     
     The Commentary explains that this last point means two things:  
   One may ask for cloth for the sake of another bhikkhu (1) from one's 
   own relations or from people who have invited one to ask for cloth 
   //or// (2) from the relatives of that bhikkhu or from people who 
   have invited //him// to ask.  This point applies for all rules where 
   one is allowed to ask for the sake of another.
     
     As for obtaining cloth through one's own resources, the 
   Sub-commentary notes that one should be careful to do it in such a 
   way as not to commit an offense under NP 20.  Again, this applies to 
   all rules that contain this exemption.
   
       Summary:  Asking for and receiving robe-cloth from an 
       unrelated lay person, except when one's robes have been 
       stolen or destroyed, is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       7. If that unrelated man or woman householder presents the 
       bhikkhu with many robes (pieces of robe-cloth), he is to 
       accept at most (enough for) an upper and an under robe.  If 
       he accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and 
       confessed.
   
   This rule is a continuation of the preceding one, dealing with the 
   protocol in asking for robe-cloth when one's robes have been stolen 
   or destroyed.  The origin story is as follows:
   
       "At that time some group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached 
       bhikkhus whose robes had been stolen, said, 'Friends, the 
       Blessed One has allowed those whose robes are stolen or 
       destroyed to ask an unrelated man or woman householder for 
       robe-cloth.  Ask for robe-cloth, friends.'
       
       "'Never mind, friends.  We have already received (enough) 
       robe-cloth.'
       
       "'We are asking in your name, friends.'
       
       "'Then go ahead and ask.'
       
       "So the group-of-six bhikkhus, having approached unrelated 
       householders, said, 'Bhikkhus have come whose robes were 
       stolen.  Give us robe-cloth for them.' And they asked for a 
       lot of robe-cloth.  Then a certain man, sitting in a meeting 
       hall, said to another man, 'Master, bhikkhus have come whose 
       robes were stolen.  I gave robe-cloth for them.'
       
       "And he said, 'I gave, too.'
       
       "And another said, 'I gave, too.'
       
       "They were offended and annoyed and spread it about:  'How 
       can these Sakyan contemplatives, not knowing moderation, ask 
       for a lot of robe-cloth?  Will the Sakyan contemplatives 
       deal in the cloth business?  Or will they set up a shop?'"
   
     Protocol.  The Vibhanga states that when a bhikkhu's robes are 
   stolen or destroyed, the amount of cloth he may ask for and accept 
   from an unrelated householder who has not previously invited him to 
   ask for cloth depends on the number of robes stolen or destroyed.  
   If three, he may ask for and accept only enough for two.  If two, he 
   may ask for and accept only enough for one.  If one, he should not 
   ask for any cloth at all.
     
     The K/Commentary mentions that these stipulations apply only when 
   robes from one's determined set of three are stolen or destroyed.  
   The way it phrases this suggests that if one's spare robes are 
   stolen or destroyed, one has no right to ask for robe-cloth at all.  
   The Sub-commentary, though, interprets this as opening a loophole so 
   that if one loses any of one's spare robes, one may ask for as much 
   cloth as one likes.  It then accuses the K/Commentary of 
   contradicting the Canon and Commentary, and of ignoring the purpose 
   of the rule, which is to teach moderation and fewness of wants.  Its 
   conclusion:  The protocol applies when any of one's robes are stolen 
   or destroyed -- whether determined as the basic set of three, 
   undetermined or determined as accessory cloths.
     
     If, however, we recall that originally each bhikkhu had only one 
   set of three robes, and that the allowance in the preceding rule was 
   to relieve the hardship of having little or nothing to wear, we can 
   agree with the K/Commentary's interpretation:  that the allowance in 
   the preceding rule applies //only// when robes from one's basic set 
   of three are stolen and destroyed, and that this is the case we are 
   concerned with here.  If one's spare robes get stolen or destroyed, 
   one may not make use of the allowance to ask for robe-cloth at all.
     
     The Vibhanga states further that if the householder presents one 
   with a great deal of cloth, with the invitation to take as much as 
   one likes, one should take only enough cloth to make the allowable 
   number of robes.  The no-offense clauses add that one may take 
   excess cloth if one promises to return the excess when one has 
   finished making one's robe(s).  And if the donor tells one to keep 
   the excess, one may do so without penalty.
     
     The factors of the offense for overstepping the bounds of this 
   protocol are three:
     
     1) //Object//:  any piece of the six kinds of suitable robe-cloth, 
   measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths.
     
     2) //Effort//:  One asks for more than the allowable amount of 
   robe-cloth from an unrelated householder who has not previously made 
   an invitation to ask.  Perception is not a mitigating factor here:  
   Even if one perceives the householder to be related when in fact 
   he/she isn't -- or feels that he/she would be happy to offer the 
   excess cloth even though he/she has given no previous invitation to 
   ask -- this factor is fulfilled all the same.
     
     3) //Result//:  One gets the excess robe-cloth.
     
     The offenses here are as follows:  a dukkata for asking in the way 
   that fulfills the factor of effort, and a nissaggiya pacittiya when 
   all three factors are fulfilled.  The procedures to follow in 
   forfeiture, confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the 
   same as in the preceding rules.  For the Pali formula to use in 
   forfeiting the cloth, see Appendix VI.
     
     Non-offenses.  In addition to the two cases mentioned above -- one 
   takes excess cloth with the promise to return the excess when one 
   has finished one's robe(s), and the donors tell one to keep the 
   excess -- there is no offense in taking excess cloth if:
     
     the donors are offering cloth for reasons other than that one's 
       robes were stolen or destroyed (e.g., they are impressed with 
       one's learning, says the Commentary);
     one is asking from one's relatives or people who have previously 
       made one an invitation to ask for cloth (//before// one's robes 
       were stolen or destroyed, says the Sub-commentary);
     or one gets the cloth by means of one's own property.
     
     The Commentary calls attention to the fact that the Vibhanga's 
   no-offense clauses make no mention of asking for the sake of 
   another.  It then draws the conclusion, based on the fact that the 
   rule was formulated in response to bhikkhus' requesting excess cloth 
   for the sake of others, that in the circumstances mentioned in this 
   rule, one may not ask for excess cloth for the sake of others.  The 
   Sub-commentary takes issue with this, and presents three arguments 
   for its case:
   
     1)  There is no requirement that the working out of a training 
       rule has to follow from the origin story.  (It gives no examples, 
       but Parajikas 3 & 4, Sanghadisesas 8 & 9, NP 4 and Pacittiyas 8 & 
       58 are all cases in point.)
     2)  The Ganthipadas state that since this training rule deals with 
       what to do when presented with offerings for one's own sake, 
       there is no need for the Vibhanga to mention the case of asking 
       for another's sake.
     3)  If asking for another's sake is not allowable here, it should 
       also not be allowable in the preceding rule.
     
     Thus it concludes that here, as under the preceding rule, there is 
   no offense in asking for excess cloth for Bhikkhu X from one's own 
   relatives or people who have invited one to ask, or from Bhikkhu X's 
   relatives or people who have invited X to ask.
   
       Summary:  Asking for and receiving excess robe-cloth from 
       unrelated lay people when one's robes have been stolen or 
       destroyed is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       8. In case a man or woman householder prepares a robe fund 
       for the sake of an unrelated bhikkhu, thinking. "Having 
       purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will supply the 
       bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe:" If the bhikkhu, not 
       previously invited, approaching (the householder) should 
       make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, "It 
       would be good indeed, sir, if you supplied me (with a robe), 
       having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with this 
       robe fund" -- out of a desire for something fine -- it is to 
       be forfeited and confessed.
   
       "Now at that time a certain householder said to his wife, 'I 
       will supply Master Upananda with a robe.'  A certain bhikkhu 
       on his almsround overhead the man saying this, went to where 
       Ven. Upananda the Sakyan was staying and on arrival said to 
       him, 'You have a lot of merit, friend Upananda.  A certain 
       man over there said to his wife, 'I will supply Master 
       Upananda with a robe.'
       
       "'He's my supporter, my friend.'
       
       "So Ven. Upananda the Sakyan went to where the man was 
       staying and on arrival said to him, 'My friend, is it true 
       that you want to supply me with a robe?'
       
       "'Now, wasn't I just thinking, 'I will supply Master 
       Upananda with a robe'?
       
       "'Well, if you want to supply me with a robe, supply me with 
       a robe like this.  What use is it to me to be supplied with 
       a robe I won't use?'
       
       "So the man was offended, annoyed and spread it about, 
       'They're insatiable, these Sakyan contemplatives, and not 
       easily contented.  It's no simple matter to supply them with 
       a robe.  How can this Master Upananda, without having first 
       been invited by me, make stipulations concerning a robe?'"
   
   
   
     The situation covered by this rule is this:  An unrelated lay 
   person has put aside resources to purchase a robe to present to a 
   bhikkhu, but without yet asking the bhikkhu what kind of robe he 
   wants.  The factors for the offense here are four:
     
     Object.  The texts mention only that this rule concerns funds for 
   a robe (civara), but without specifying whether this means funds 
   only for finished robes or pieces of robe-cloth suitable for making 
   into robes as well.  They also do not mention whether funds for 
   other requisites would be grounds for a lesser offense or no 
   offense, although given the spirit of the rule, it would be a wise 
   policy for a bhikkhu not to make stipulations, when uninvited, to a 
   lay person who has prepared funds for purchasing any kind of 
   requisite for his use.
     
     Intention.  One wants to get a better robe than the lay person is 
   planning to buy.
     
     Effort.  One makes a request to the unrelated lay person that 
   would involve raising the cost of the robe.  As in the previous 
   rules, perception is not a factor here.  Even if one perceives the 
   lay person to be related when he/she actually isn't, that would 
   fulfill the factor here all the same.
     
     Result.  One gets the robe.  The way the texts define this factor 
   suggests that whether or not the lay person actually spends more on 
   the robe than he/she actually planned is not an issue here.
     
     Offenses.  In the act of making a request that would fulfill the 
   factors of intention and effort, the penalty is a dukkata.  When one 
   receives the robe it is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya pacittiya 
   offense confessed.  The procedures to follow in forfeiture, 
   confession, and receiving the cloth in return are the same as in the 
   preceding rules.  For the Pali formula to use in forfeiting the 
   cloth, see Appendix VI.
     
     Non-offenses.  According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if:
   
     the lay person is a relative or has invited one to ask for cloth;
     one asks for another's sake;
     one is getting the robe with one's own resources; or
     one asks the lay person to get a robe less expensive than the one 
       he/she is planning to get.  The Commentary adds here that there 
       is also no offense if one's request would result in a robe equal 
       in price to the one the lay person has in mind.
   
       Summary:  When a lay person who is not a relative is 
       planning to get a robe for one, but has yet to ask one what 
       kind of robe one wants:  Receiving the robe after making a 
       request that would raise its cost is a nissaggiya pacittiya 
       offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
       9. In case two householders -- men or women -- prepare 
       separate robe funds for the sake of a bhikkhu unrelated to 
       them, thinking, "Having purchased separate robes with these 
       separate robe funds of ours, we will supply the bhikkhu 
       named so-and-so with robes": If the bhikkhu, not previously 
       invited, approaching (them) should make a stipulation with 
       regard to the robe, saying, "It would be good indeed, sirs, 
       if you supplied me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of 
       such-and-such a sort with these separate robe funds, the two 
       (funds) together for one (robe)" -- out of a desire for 
       something fine -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.
   
   Explanations for this training rule are the same as those for the 
   preceding one, the only difference being in the factor of effort:  
   One asks the two donors to put their funds together to purchase one 
   robe.  Whether or not the request would raise the amount of money 
   they would have to spend is not an issue here, although the Vibhanga 
   says that if one makes a request that would //reduce// the amount of 
   money they would spend, there is no offense.
   
     The Commentary adds that, under the conditions mentioned here, 
   making requests of three or more people to combine their robe funds 
   into one is also covered by this rule.
   
       Summary: When two or more lay people who are not one's 
       relatives are planning to get separate robes for one, but 
       have yet to ask one what kind of robe one wants:  Receiving 
       a robe from them after asking them to pool their funds to 
       get one robe -- out of a desire for something fine -- is a 
       nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
       10.In case a king, a royal official, a brahmin or a 
       householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via 
       a messenger (saying), "Having purchased a robe with this 
       robe fund, supply the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe": 
       If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, "This 
       is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable 
       one.  May the venerable one accept this robe fund," then the 
       bhikkhu is to tell the messenger:  "We do not accept robe 
       funds, my friend.  We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are 
       proper according to season."
   
       If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, "Does the 
       venerable one have a steward?" then, bhikkhus, if the 
       bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward -- either 
       a monastery attendant or a lay follower -- (saying), "That, 
       my friend, is the bhikkhus' steward."
       
       If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to 
       the bhikkhu, should say, "I have instructed the steward the 
       venerable one indicated.  May the venerable one go (to him) 
       and he will supply you with a robe in season," then the 
       bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may 
       prompt and remind him two or three times, "I have need of a 
       robe."  Should (the steward) produce the robe after being 
       prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.
       
       If he does not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand 
       in silence four times, five times, six times at most for 
       that purpose.  Should (the steward) produce the robe after 
       (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for the purpose four, 
       five, six times at most, that is good.
       
       If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he 
       then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored 
       further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.
       
       If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu 
       himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was 
       brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), "The robe 
       fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the 
       bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all.  May the 
       you be united with what is yours.  May what is yours not be 
       lost."  This is the proper course here.
   
   The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are 
   quite complex -- much more complex than even this long training rule 
   would indicate -- and require a detailed explanation.  What follows 
   is an attempt to make them clear.  If it seems long and involved, 
   remember that the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from 
   the even more bothersome worries and complexities that come with 
   participating in buying, selling, and monetary matters in general.
   
     This rule is one of four nissaggiya pacittiya rules covering a 
   bhikkhu's proper relationship to money.  The others are # 18, 19 & 
   20.  Although they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus 
   precisely on the two acts involving money that are most burdensome 
   to a sensitive mind:  In the act of accepting money, or having it 
   accepted in one's name, one is accepting all the cares, 
   responsibilities, and dangers that come with its ownership; in the 
   act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility for the 
   fairness of the trade:  that it undervalues neither the generosity 
   of the person who donated the money, nor the goods or services of 
   the person receiving the money in exchange.
     
     Thus to protect a bhikkhu from these mental burdens, this rule 
   sets up protocols so that lay donors may have the convenience of 
   dedicating amounts of money and other valuables to provide for a 
   bhikkhu's needs, and so that the bhikkhu may benefit from such gifts 
   without having to bear the responsibilities of ownership or of 
   having to arrange fair trades.
     
     If a bhikkhu follows the protocols recommended here, the money 
   placed with the steward still belongs to the donor, and the 
   responsibility for making a fair trade lies with the steward.  The 
   bhikkhu's only responsibility is to inform the original donor if, 
   after a reasonable number of promptings, the steward entrusted with 
   the money does not provide him with the requisite the donor had in 
   mind, and then let the donor look after the matter if he/she cares 
   to.
   
     Although the rule itself mentions only funds for robe-cloth 
   intended for individual bhikkhus, we should note from the outset 
   that the Commentary extends it to cover all funds -- composed of 
   money, jewels, commodities, land, livestock or other valuables that 
   bhikkhus are not allowed to accept -- not only for individual 
   bhikkhus, but also for Communities, groups of bhikkhus and buildings 
   in a monastery.
     
     The money rules & allowances:  an overview.  NP 18 forbids a 
   bhikkhu from accepting gifts of money, from getting others to accept 
   them, and from consenting to gifts of money meant for him being 
   placed down next to him.  NP 19 & 20 forbid him from engaging in 
   buying, selling, or bartering, regardless of whether or not it 
   involves money.  In the Mahavagga, however, the Buddha makes the 
   following allowance, called the Mendaka Allowance, after the donor 
   who inspired it:
   
       "There are people of conviction and confidence, bhikkhus, 
       who place gold and silver in the hand of stewards, saying 
       'Give the master whatever is allowable.'  I allow you, 
       bhikkhus, to accept whatever is allowable coming from that.  
       But in no way at all do I say that money is to be accepted 
       or sought for."
                                          (Mv.VI.34.21)
   
     Even given this allowance, though, it is important that the 
   bhikkhu, in his dealings with the steward, does not say or do 
   anything that would transgress NP 18-20.  At the same time, it is 
   important that he does not abuse the steward's services.  Otherwise 
   the steward will never want to perform this service for bhikkhus 
   again.  This is the main point of the origin story to this rule:
   
       "Then Ven. Upananda the Sakyan approached the lay follower 
       (his steward) and on arrival said, 'My friend, I have need 
       of a robe.'
       
       "'Wait just today, sir.  Today there is a town meeting, and 
       the town has made a rule that whoever comes late is fined 50 
       (kahapana).'
       
       "'Friend, give me the robe this very day!'  (Saying this,) 
       he grabbed hold of him by the belt.  So the lay follower, 
       being pressured by Ven. Upananda the Sakyan, purchased a 
       robe for him and arrived late.  The people said to the lay 
       follower, 'Why, master, have you come late?  You have lost 
       50.'  So he told them what had happened.  They were offended 
       and annoyed and spread it about, 'They're insatiable, these 
       Sakyan contemplatives, and not easily contented.  It's no 
       simple matter even to render them a service.  How can 
       Upananda the Sakyan, being told by a layman, "Wait just 
       today, sir," not wait?'"
   
     Stewards.  According to the Commentary, there are three ways money 
   may be placed with a steward:  the steward is either indicated by 
   the bhikkhu, indicated by the donor or his/her messenger, or else 
   indicated by neither.
   
     1) //Indicated by the bhikkhu// covers two sorts of cases:
   
     a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu 
       points him/her out, as mentioned in the training rule.
     
     b) The donor, knowing that a particular lay person has volunteered 
       to act as a steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, 
       gives the money to the lay person and informs the bhikkhu -- or 
       has someone else inform him -- either before or after the fact.
     
     2) //Indicated by the donor// covers cases where the donor chooses 
   one of his/her own friends or employees to act as the steward for 
   that particular gift, and informs the bhikkhu -- or has someone else 
   inform him -- either before or after the fact.
   
     3) //Indicated by neither// covers two separate cases:
   
     a) The donor asks the bhikkhu who his steward is, and the bhikkhu 
       says that he has none.  Another person happens to overhear the 
       conversation and volunteers to act as the steward for that 
       particular gift.
     
     b) The donor gives the gift to the lay person who is normally the 
       bhikkhu's steward or is on familiar terms with the bhikkhu, but 
       does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed of the fact.
   
     According to the Commentary, this training rule covers only cases 
   of the first sort:  the steward is indicated by the bhikkhu.  I will 
   discuss this case in detail first before going on to discuss the 
   protocol in the other two.
     
     The protocol in accepting.  The Vibhanga gives the following 
   guidelines:
   
     If donors offer money, they are to be told that bhikkhus do not 
       accept money.
     
     If they ask who the bhikkhus' steward is, one may point out any 
       lay person at all, saying, "That's the steward."  One is //not// 
       to say, "Give it to him/her" or "He/she will keep (the money)," 
       for that would be to accept ownership and responsibility for the 
       money, and thus be an infraction of the rule against accepting 
       money.  Also, one is not to say, "He/she will buy (the 
       requisite)" or "He/she will get it in exchange," for even this 
       much would be an infraction of the rules against trading.
   
     The K/Commentary adds that if the donor asks, "To whom should I 
   give this?" or "Who will keep this?" one is not to point anyone out.  
   It doesn't say what one //may// do in such a situation, although a 
   wise policy would be to broach the topic of stewards so that the 
   donor will ask a question to which one may give a allowable answer.
     
     The protocol in obtaining requisites from the fund.  The rule 
   states that a bhikkhu may give his steward up to three verbal and 
   six silent promptings in order to get a requisite from the fund.  
   The Vibhanga works out an arrangement whereby he may exchange two 
   silent promptings for one verbal prompting, which leads the 
   Commentary to lay out the following scheme:  A bhikkhu may make up 
   to --
   
     6 verbal &  0 silent promptings
     5 verbal &  2 silent promptings
     4 verbal &  4 silent promptings
     3 verbal &  6 silent promptings
     2 verbal &  8 silent promptings
     1 verbal & 10 silent promptings, or
     0 verbal & 12 silent promptings.
   
     When giving a verbal prompting, one may say only, "I need a robe 
   (or whatever the requisite may be)" or statements to that effect.  
   One may not say, "Give me a robe," "Get me a robe," "Buy me a robe," 
   or "Get a robe in exchange or me," for these statements would be 
   violations of the rules against trading.
     
     According to the Commentary, promptings are counted not by the 
   number of visits to the steward, but by the number of times the 
   bhikkhu states his need/desire for the requisite.  Thus if, in one 
   visit, he states his need for a robe three times, that counts as 
   three verbal promptings.
     
     As for silent promptings -- or "standings" -- the bhikkhu merely 
   stands in the steward's presence.  If he/she asks, "What have you 
   come for?' the bhikkhu should say, "You know," or "You should know."
     
     The Vibhanga also notes that during the period when a bhikkhu has 
   yet to receive the requisite, he should not accept an invitation to 
   sit down at the steward's place, to accept alms, or to teach Dhamma 
   there.  If he does any of these things, that cuts back his number of 
   allowed standings.  The Sub-commentary contains a long discussion of 
   what precisely this means, and finally sides with the decision in 
   the Three Ganthipadas:  that each time a bhikkhu sits, receives alms 
   or teaches one sentence of Dhamma (see Pacittiya 7) under these 
   circumstances, he cuts down his allowed number of standings by one.
     
     If one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of 
   verbal and silent promptings -- or less -- there is no offense.  If 
   one does not obtain the requisite after the maximum allowable number 
   of promptings, one should inform the original donor, and then leave 
   the issue up to him/her.  Not to inform the donor here, the 
   Commentary says, entails a dukkata.  If the donor, being informed, 
   then makes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there 
   is no offense.
   
     The factors of an offense here are three:
   
     1) //Object//:  a fund left with a steward pointed out by a 
       bhikkhu.
     2) //Effort//:  One makes an excessive number of promptings.
     3) //Result//:  One obtains the requested requisite.
   
     There is a dukkata for the excessive promptings, and the 
   requisite, when obtained, is to be forfeited and the nissaggiya 
   pacittiya offense confessed.  The procedures for forfeiture, 
   confession, and receiving the requisite in return are the same as in 
   the preceding rules. For the Pali formula to use in forfeiture, see 
   Appendix VI.
     
     Cases where this rule does not apply.  According to the 
   Commentary, if the steward has been indicated by the donor, one may 
   make any number of promptings at all without committing an offense.  
   If the article is not forthcoming, one may get another lay person to 
   handle the issue (although one should be careful to phrase one's 
   request to this lay person so as not to transgress the rules against 
   accepting money, trading, and buying).  If the article is not 
   forthcoming, one is not duty-bound to inform the original donor.
     
     There is nothing in the Canon to contradict any of these points, 
   but simple etiquette would suggest that one not harass the steward 
   excessively, and that one should inform the donor if the article is 
   not forthcoming, so as to let the donor handle the matter from there 
   on in if he/she sees fit.
     
     As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated 
   either by the donor or by a bhikkhu, the Commentary says that, as 
   far as that fund is concerned, the steward should be treated as a 
   person who is not related and has not made an invitation to ask.  In 
   other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all, 
   unless he/she happens to invite one to make a request.  We can 
   qualify this by saying that if the article is not forthcoming after 
   a reasonable amount of time, one may inform the original donor.
     
     Other funds.  The Commentary includes a long discussion of how 
   this rule applies to funds other than those intended for an 
   individual bhikkhu's requisites. A few of the more relevant cases:
     
     //Monetary funds for Sangha or group requisites//.  If a donor 
   comes with a gift of money and says that it is being offered to the 
   Sangha or to a group for whatever purpose, one should follow the 
   protocol for accepting as under this rule. For instance, if the 
   donor says, "I'm giving this to the Sangha for you to make use of 
   the four requisites," one may not accept it in any of the three ways 
   covered by NP 18. As we will see under NP 18, there is a dukkata for 
   the bhikkhu who consents to money's being placed next to him under 
   these circumstances.  There is also a dukkata, says the 
   Sub-commentary, for every bhikkhu who uses any article bought with 
   the money.
     
     If, however, the donor says, "The money will be with your steward" 
   or "with my people" or "with me:  All you need to do is make use of 
   the four requisites," then there is no offense in accepting and 
   making use of this arrangement.  The etiquette to follow in 
   obtaining requisites depends on who the money is left with:  if the 
   bhikkhus' steward, follow the protocol under this rule; if the 
   donor's workers, one may make any number of promptings; if the 
   donor, follow the guidelines under Pacittiya 47.
     
     //Non-monetary funds for Sangha or group requisites//.  There are 
   a number of other articles that may not be owned by bhikkhus, and 
   that carry a dukkata penalty if they are.  They include land, 
   fields, and orchards; jewels; slaves; commodities (e.g., unhusked 
   grain); and animals.  If a donor wants to make a gift of such things 
   to the Sangha, the Commentary says, the question of whether or not 
   they may be accepted depends on how the donation is phrased.  If the 
   donor says, "I'm giving this to the Sangha" for whatever the 
   purpose, the gift may not be accepted.  As in the previous case, 
   there is a dukkata for whoever receives it, and also for whoever 
   uses an article obtained from proceeds coming from the gift.
     
     If the donor says, "This is for the purpose of the four 
   requisites," or "Accept whatever is allowable coming from this," 
   without mentioning the Sangha or any bhikkhu as custodians or 
   recipients of the unallowable object, the arrangement may be 
   accepted without penalty.  For instance, if a donor wants to present 
   a herd of cows, saying, "These are for the purpose of milk products 
   for the Sangha" (perhaps this sounds less stilted in Pali than it 
   does in English), this is an acceptable arrangement.  But if he/she 
   says, "I am giving these cows to the Sangha to provide milk products 
   for the Sangha," then it is not.
     
     If a donor proposes to give pigs, chickens or other animals used 
   only for their meat to the Sangha, the bhikkhus are to say, "We 
   can't accept gifts like this, but we will be glad to set them free 
   for you."
     
     If, after setting up an allowable arrangement, the donor asks the 
   bhikkhus to appoint a steward to look after it, they may.  If not, 
   they are to do nothing about the arrangement at all.
     
     How the proceeds from such arrangements are to be used depends on 
   what they are:  If money, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this 
   money to buy such-and-such," no bhikkhu may make use of what is 
   bought with the money.  If the proceeds are commodities, such as 
   unhusked rice, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this rice to 
   trade for such-and-such," the bhikkhu who makes the order may not 
   use whatever is obtained from the trade, but other bhikkhus may 
   without incurring a penalty.  If the proceeds are allowable goods, 
   such as fruit, and a bhikkhu tells the steward, "Use this fruit to 
   trade for such-and-such," the Commentary says that any bhikkhu may 
   use what is obtained from the trade, but this would seem to 
   contradict NP 20.
     
     //Building funds//.  If a donor comes with money or other 
   unallowable gift, and says, "I am giving this to the Sangha for the 
   meditation hall (or any other building)," the gift may not be 
   accepted.  But if the donor says, "I am giving this to (or for) the 
   meditation hall," without mentioning any individual bhikkhu, group 
   of bhikkhus or the Sangha as custodians or recipients of the gift at 
   all, then this arrangement is not to be refused, and the monastery 
   steward is to be informed of what the donor said.
     
     In the context of NP 18, this means that the bhikkhus are not to 
   take the money directly, or to get anyone else to take it, but may 
   consent to its being placed next to them, since it is not meant as a 
   gift for them.
     
     Many monasteries have donation boxes, and there is a question as 
   to whether or not the bhikkhus may tell a donor in this case to put 
   the money in the box.  The Commentary to NP 18 states that when a 
   donation has been placed down for a bhikkhu -- over his protests -- 
   and someone besides the donor offers to put it in a safe place, the 
   bhikkhu may point out a safe place to put money, but may not tell 
   him/her to put it there, as that would imply that he is accepting 
   responsibility for the money.  If this also applies to funds given 
   "to a building," then the bhikkhus should be able to say to the 
   donor of such funds, "The donation box is over there," but they are 
   not to say, "Put it there."
     
     At any rate, after the money has been placed by the donor, the 
   bhikkhus may then tell the monastery steward what the donor said, 
   but are not to tell him/her to take the money, as this would violate 
   NP 18.  Since the steward in this case would be classed as 
   "indicated by the bhikkhus," they are to follow the protocol in this 
   rule when they tell the steward of their need for building 
   materials, wages for the workers, and other necessities that come up 
   in the course of the of the building's construction or maintenance.
     
     The Commentary mentions two other acceptable arrangements:
   
     (1) The donor places the money with the workmen, and tells the 
       bhikkhus that their only responsibility is to check on whether 
       the work is being done poorly or well.
     
     (2) The donor says that the money will be kept with him/her or 
       with his/her employees, and that the bhikkhus' only 
       responsibility is to inform them of whom the money is to be given 
       to.  At present such a donor would be able to set up a checking 
       account for the construction and upkeep of monastery buildings.  
       In this case, the bank would be the steward "indicated by the 
       donor," and the authorized bhikkhu signing a check drawing on the 
       fund would be informing the steward of where the money should go.  
       He should not, however, be the one who hands the check over to 
       the payee or payee's representative.  This point will be 
       discussed in more detail under NP 20.
   
     Since the steward in both of these cases is indicated by the 
   donor, the bhikkhus may make as many requests as they like -- i.e., 
   in the first case, telling the workers what to do; in the second 
   case, telling the steward or donor who is to be paid -- but here 
   again in this second case they should be careful to phrase their 
   requests so as not to violate the rules against trading and buying.
     
     In addition to building funds, it would seem that any charitable 
   fund for schools, hospitals, etc. -- such as some wealthy 
   monasteries have -- would come under this category, as long as the 
   fund is not for requisites for the Sangha, either as a group or 
   individually.
     
     Fund management.  The Commentary states that if a Sangha fund has 
   been set up for a particular requisite, it should as a general rule 
   be used to buy only that requisite.  If, however, the Sangha has 
   enough of one kind of //lahubhanda// -- goods that may be shared 
   among the bhikkhus -- but not enough for another, the fund for the 
   first kind may be diverted to the second kind by an 
   //apalokana-kamma//:  a formal meeting of the Community in which the 
   motion is phrased in one's own words and unanimously accepted.
     
     Funds for lodgings and furniture, though, since they are 
   //garubhanda// (goods that may not be shared among the bhikkhus), 
   may not be diverted to lahubhanda at all.  But if there is Sangha 
   furniture that is going unused and is in danger of deteriorating 
   before it gets used, the Community may arrange to have it exchanged 
   -- using the procedure allowed under NP 20, and making sure not to 
   let it go for less than its full value -- and then use the proceeds 
   for lahubhanda.  The Commentary adds that proceeds of this sort 
   should be used 'frugally, just enough to keep life going.'  In other 
   words, don't use them to splurge on anything excessive.
   
       Summary:  When a fund has been set up with a steward 
       indicated by a bhikkhu:  Obtaining an article from the fund 
       as a result of having prompted the steward more than the 
       allowable number of times is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.
   
                            * * * * * * * *
