PĀCITTIYA – THREE: THE EXHORTATION CHAPTER

Three: The Exhortation Chapter

21

When Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, the Buddha’s aunt and stepmother, asked him to establish an order of bhikkhunīs, he did so on the condition that she and all future bhikkhunīs accept eight rules of respect (garu-dhamma). (This term is sometimes translated as “heavy rules” or “important rules,” but the Commentary explains it as meaning vows that the bhikkhunīs are to accept with respect.) In short:

This rule deals with the biweekly exhortation mentioned in the third vow. The pattern for the exhortation was that once a bhikkhu had been chosen by the bhikkhus to exhort the bhikkhunīs, he was to sweep the place for the exhortation within the monastery where he was dwelling, set out water for drinking and washing, arrange seats for the bhikkhunīs, find a male companion, and then sit waiting for the bhikkhunīs to arrive. When they had come, he was to ask if all the bhikkhunīs were present and if the eight rules of respect were being kept up (§). (According to the Commentary, this last question means, “Are they kept memorized so that they are fresh in the memory?”) If they weren’t, he was to recite the eight rules. If they were, he was to present an exhortation.

Because the eight rules form the heart of the exhortation, the two factors for the full offense under this rule are defined as follows:

Object

A bhikkhunī had to undergo a double ordination, first in the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and then in the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, before she was considered fully ordained. Thus only a bhikkhunī with the full double ordination is grounds for a pācittiya here. A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Effort

A bhikkhu, not properly authorized, who exhorts the bhikkhunīs on any topic other than the eight rules incurs a dukkaṭa.

The authorization

When this rule was still newly formulated, some group-of-six bhikkhus simply authorized one another to continue exhorting the bhikkhunīs. This forced the Buddha to establish stringent standards for the type of bhikkhu who could properly be authorized. They were, in short:

With regard to the first of these qualifications, Cv.II.1.2 notes that a bhikkhu undergoing penance or probation for a saṅghādisesa offense should not accept an authorization to exhort the bhikkhunīs; even if authorized, he should not exhort them. The same restriction applies to bhikkhus undergoing the duties imposed by a transaction of censure, further punishment, demotion, banishment, suspension, or reconciliation. (See BMC2, Chapter 20. For more details on the authorization procedures, see BMC2, Chapter 23.)

As the Commentary notes, the group-of-six bhikkhus never possessed the above eight qualities even in their dreams.

One’s perception as to whether one was properly authorized is not a factor here (see Pc 4).

Non-offenses

Although this rule grew from a time when bhikkhus were eager to exhort the bhikkhunīs, times changed. The Cullavagga (Cv.X.9.5) deals with a period when the bhikkhus tried to avoid exhorting the bhikkhunīs, and Cv.X.9.4 tells what should be done when there is no bhikkhu qualified to exhort them. (The bhikkhus were to tell them, “Strive for completion (in the practice) in an amicable way.”)

Even in these cases, though, the bhikkhunīs were not left adrift. They could approach any bhikkhu they admired and ask him for instruction. Thus the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses here say, “There is no offense when, having given the exposition, having given the interrogation, and then, after being requested by the bhikkhunīs to recite, he recites.” According to the Commentary, “exposition” here means a recitation of the eight rules in Pali, whereas “interrogation” means the ancient commentary on the eight rules. This last is hardly likely. What seems more likely is that “exposition” means establishing that the bhikkhunīs have all come; “interrogation,” questioning them as to whether they have memorized the eight rules. At any rate, the Commentary goes on to say that, when a bhikkhu has been invited like this, he is free to speak about the eight rules or any other Dhamma topic without offense. Again, this seems unlikely, for the Vibhaṅga is very precise in the terminology it uses for the various stages leading up to the exhortation, and recites (osāreti) is not the verb it uses for speaking about a topic. Instead, it usually means repeating a passage from memory.

However, there is a non-offense clause in the Vibhaṅga that allows for an unauthorized bhikkhu to exhort a bhikkhunī (or bhikkhunīs) on the eight rules or any other topic in the following situation: if, being asked a question by a bhikkhunī, one answers her question. There is also no offense if a bhikkhunī happens to overhear any instruction one is giving for the sake of another person.

Subsidiary rules

The Vibhaṅga to this rule includes a discussion of three subsidiary rules related to the exhortation of the bhikkhunīs:

*    *    *

22

The factors for the full offense here are two: object and effort.

Object

As with the preceding rule, a bhikkhunī or group of bhikkhunīs who have received the double ordination are grounds for a pācittiya here. A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Effort

One exhorts the bhikkhunī(s) about the eight rules or any other Dhamma after the sun has set. Perception as to whether the sun has actually set is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).

Non-offenses

Although the origin story suggests that it is unwise in any case to teach bhikkhunīs after sunset—because of the suspicions that such an action may provoke—the non-offense clauses give more respect to the bhikkhunīs’ desire for instruction than to the fear of gossiping lay people. As under the preceding rule, a bhikkhu may recite for the bhikkhunīs after sunset if, after he has given them the exposition and interrogation, they request that he recite. He also incurs no offense if he teaches any topic of Dhamma after sunset in response to a bhikkhunī’s question, or if a bhikkhunī after sunset happens to overhear any instruction he is giving for the sake of another person. And, as mentioned above, female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense under this rule.

*    *    *

23

Here again there are two factors for the full offense:

Object:

A bhikkhunī who is not ill. Ill means that she is unable to go to an exhortation or to an “affiliation” (saṁvāsa), which the New K/Sub-commentary defines as a Community meeting such as the uposatha.

As with the preceding rule, a bhikkhunī or group of bhikkhunīs who have received the double ordination are grounds for a pācittiya here. A bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Effort

One goes to her residence—any place where a bhikkhunī has spent at least one night—and exhorts her concerning the eight rules of respect. Exhorting her about any other topic is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Perception with regard to her status as ordained is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).

Non-offenses

As the rule states, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who goes to the bhikkhunīs’ quarters to exhort an ill bhikkhunī. Otherwise, the non-offense clauses are identical with those for the preceding rule. Here again, a bhikkhunī’s desire for instruction is considered more important than the suspicions of the laity.

*    *    *

24

Here the factors for the full offense are three.

Object:

A bhikkhu who has been properly authorized to teach the bhikkhunīs and who is not teaching for the sake of worldly gain: either material (robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicine) or immaterial (honor, respect, reverence, homage, or veneration).

A bhikkhu who has not been properly authorized is grounds for a dukkaṭa, as is a non-ordained person, properly authorized or not. (The PTS edition of the Canon contains a wheel in which a person not properly authorized and perceived as not properly authorized is not grounds for an offense, but this contradicts the passages earlier in the Vibhaṅga which make the above points. The same wheel in the Thai, Burmese, and Sri Lankan editions is thus more correct in saying that a person not properly authorized and perceived as such is grounds for a dukkaṭa.)

Perception as to the validity of the bhikkhu’s authorization is not a mitigating factor here. If it was valid, he is grounds for a pācittiya whether one perceives it as valid, invalid, or doubtful. If it was invalid, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa whether one perceives it as valid, invalid, or doubtful. This is another case where the pattern set out under Pc 4 does not hold.

Intention

One’s motive is make him lose face, lose status, or to feel abashed (the same intention as under Pc 13).

Effort

One accuses him of teaching for the sake of worldly gain, as defined above.

Non-offenses

If the bhikkhu does actually teach for the sake of worldly gain, there is no offense in stating the facts of the case. However, as we noted in the similar case under Pc 13, this exemption does not apply in cases where one’s perception that he teaches for the sake of worldly gain is mistaken, so one must be careful that one’s perception is accurate.

*    *    *

25

This rule is the counterpart to NP 5. The full offense 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 gives the cloth to an unrelated bhikkhunī and does not receive anything from her in exchange.

Unrelated bhikkhunī here is defined in the same terms as under NP 4: a bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. An unrelated bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunīs, is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Perception as to whether the bhikkhunī is actually one’s relative is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).

The Commentary states that the giving need not be hand-to-hand. If a bhikkhu simply places the cloth near a bhikkhunī as his way of giving it to her, and she accepts it as given, this factor is fulfilled.

As for the item given in exchange for the cloth, the Vibhaṅga states that it can be worth much more than the cloth or much less. Buddhaghosa quotes the Mahā Paccarī, one of the ancient commentaries, as saying that even if, in return for the cloth, the bhikkhunī gives the bhikkhu a piece of yellow myrobalan—a medicinal fruit, one of the cheapest things imaginable in India—he escapes the penalty under this rule.

Non-offenses

There is no offense if:

*    *    *

26

The full offense here has three factors.

Effort

The Vibhaṅga says that there is a pācittiya for every stitch one makes in the robe-cloth. If one gets someone else to sew it, there is a pācittiya in giving the command or making the request, and another pācittiya when the other person does as commanded/requested, no matter how many robe-cloths he/she sews.

Object

The Vibhaṅga defines robe here as meaning any of the six kinds of robe-cloth, even a piece measuring at least four by eight fingerbreadths. This would seem to suggest that cloth being sewn into any object would come under this rule, but the non-offense clauses give an exemption for sewing “any requisite aside from a robe,” so only cloth being sewn into a robe would fulfill the factor of effort here.

Intention

This factor is fulfilled only if the robe-cloth being sewn is intended for an unrelated bhikkhunī, as under the preceding rule: a bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination and is not related to the bhikkhu back through their great x 7 grandfathers. An unrelated bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination, from the bhikkhunīs, is grounds for a dukkaṭa. Related bhikkhunīs are not grounds for an offense, nor are female trainees or female novices.

Perception as to whether the bhikkhunī is actually one’s relative is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).

The Commentary states that if Bhikkhu X is sewing robe-cloth for a bhikkhunī related to him, and Bhikkhu Y—who is not related to her—helps him sew it, Bhikkhu Y incurs a pācittiya for every stitch he sews in the cloth. The Sub-commentary adds, though, that if Bhikkhu Y does not know that the cloth is for the bhikkhunī, he is exempt from the offense.

Non-offenses

There is no offense in sewing a cloth requisite other than a robe for an unrelated bhikkhunī, in sewing anything for a bhikkhunī who is a relation, or in sewing anything for a female trainee or female novice, related or not.

*    *    *

27

Here the full offense has two factors.

Object

A bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination is grounds for a pācittiya here. Any other woman would come under Pc 67.

Making an arrangement

According to the Vibhaṅga, both the bhikkhu and the bhikkhunī must give their verbal assent to the arrangement for this part of the factor to be fulfilled. If the bhikkhu proposes the arrangement but the bhikkhunī does not give her verbal assent, then even if they later travel together as he proposed, he incurs a dukkaṭa. If she proposes the arrangement but he does not give his verbal assent, then even if they later travel together as she proposed, he incurs no penalty. The K/Commentary notes that the offense under this rule can be committed either by body or by speech, which means that a gesture conveying verbal assent—such as a written message or text—would fulfill this factor as well. Silence, however, would not.

The Vibhaṅga and Commentary give examples of various ways in which verbal assent might be expressed, with the Commentary adding a few examples of statements that would not constitute verbal assent. The primary point of distinction is that a statement or set of statements that mentions both sides of the arrangement in connection with the journey—“We’ll go”; “Let’s go”; “You’ll go with me”—would count as verbal assent, whereas a statement or set of statements mentioning only one’s own plans with regard to the journey—“I’ll go”—would not. Thus, for example, if a bhikkhu states that he is going to a certain place to pay homage to a cetiya, and a bhikkhunī says, “Let’s go together,” then if the bhikkhu says nothing more on the topic, he has not expressed verbal assent.

The Commentary further stipulates that the defining feature of the arrangement is that it specifies the time at which the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī will leave together. However, the Vibhaṅga to this rule and to the other rules dealing with traveling by arrangement (Pc 28, 66, & 67) contains many examples of arrangements in which the time is not explicitly mentioned, so the Commentary’s stipulation here cannot stand. Any expressed agreement to go together would fulfill this factor, regardless of whether the time frame is explicitly stated.

For some reason, the Commentary also adds that there is no offense in making an arrangement while both the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī are standing in bhikkhunīs’ quarters, on the way between one monastery and another, in an assembly hall, or in the residence of people ordained in another religion. There is nothing in the Vibhaṅga, however, to support this exemption. (The Commentary does add, however, that even though it would impose no preliminary offense for the arrangement in this case, the bhikkhu would still incur the pācittiya for going as arranged.)

Perception as to whether the factors for making an arrangement are actually fulfilled is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).

The texts do not address the case in which another person makes the arrangements for a bhikkhu and bhikkhunī to travel together, say, as part of a larger group. However, the wording of the Vibhaṅga’s definition of arrangement—in which the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī are addressing each other—and the non-offense clause allowing the two to travel together if they have not made an arrangement, suggest that as long as the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī do not address each other—directly or through an intermediary—about making the trip, there would be no offense in joining the group.

Going as arranged

The two parties must travel together as specified in the arrangement for this sub-factor to be fulfilled. If the arrangement is minimal or spur-of-the-moment, with no time frame explicitly specified—“Let’s go.” “Yes, let’s go”—then simply leaving together at any time would fulfill this sub-factor.  If a time frame is explicitly specified, then this sub-factor is fulfilled only if they leave within the time frame. If they happen to start out earlier or later than arranged, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. The examples in the Commentary suggest that “earlier“ or “later” here involve fairly substantial amounts of time, i.e., going one day later than arranged, or going before the meal when the arrangement was to go after the meal. This is supported by the Vibhaṅga, in which the examples that specify a time frame express it in large units, such as “today” or “tomorrow.” The Commentary also adds that if a specific place to meet or route to travel is part of the arrangement, any change in those factors would be irrelevant to the offense. For example, if they agree to go by train but end up going by car, the factor of “going as arranged” would still be fulfilled.

From one village to another

There is some controversy as to whether this phrase—gāmantara—means “from one village to another” or “from one house to another.” According to Buddhaghosa, the ancient commentaries opted for “village,” while he opts for “house.” The ancient commentaries have the support of the Canon here, in that the term in question also occurs in the bhikkhunīs’ Sg 3 & Pc 37, where it definitely means the area outside a village and not the interval from one house to another within a village.

There is a pācittiya for every village-to-village interval one passes. In a wilderness area with no villages—i.e., says the Sub-commentary, where villages are further than a half-yojana (eight kilometers or five miles) apart—there is a pācittiya for every half-yojana one travels together as arranged.

The allowable occasions

A road to be traveled by caravan (§) is one too dubious or risky to travel alone. (BD translates this as a “road to be traveled with a weapon,” but because bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs are not allowed even to touch weapons, it’s a doubtful translation at best.)

Dubious means that the eating, sleeping, sitting, or standing places of thieves have been seen along the road; risky, that people are known to have been beaten, plundered, or robbed by thieves there.

The Vibhaṅga adds that if the road was believed to be dubious or risky but is later found to be safe, the exemption no longer holds, and the bhikkhus are to dismiss the bhikkhunīs from their company.

Non-offenses

There is no offense:

The Commentary illustrates this last contingency with a stock phrase whose meaning admits two interpretations. It starts, “Savage tribes are attacking the countryside,” and then comes the ambiguous part, either, “People mount their wheels (their carriages, says the Sub-commentary),” or, alternatively, “The tribes seize power (another meaning for ‘wheel’).”

*    *    *

28

The factors for the full offense here are similar to those for the preceding rule.

Object

A bhikkhunī who has received the double ordination is grounds for a pācittiya here. Unlike its treatment of many other rules in this section, the Vibhaṅga here does not state that a bhikkhunī who has received only her first ordination is grounds for a dukkaṭa, nor that a female trainee or a female novice would be grounds for no offense. This may have been an oversight. The Vibhaṅga here closely follows the Vibhaṅga to the preceding rule, which omits mentioning these three classes of women because they are covered by a parallel rule, Pc 67. This rule, however, has no such parallel rule to cover these three classes, and so the omission here leaves them neither allowed nor forbidden by any rule.

Effort

The conditions for making an arrangement here, as well as those concerning the issue of perception about the arrangement, are identical with those under the preceding rule.

The issues around the next sub-factor—going as arranged—are also the same as under the previous rule, with the one difference that “going” is here replaced with “getting in the boat.”

Once they get in the boat as arranged, the bhikkhu incurs a pācittiya for every village-to-village interval they pass along the riverbank while going upstream or downstream. In a wilderness area with no villages—i.e., says the Sub-commentary, where the villages are further than a half-yojana (8 km.) apart—he incurs a pācittiya for every half-yojana they travel together.

The commentaries add “intention” as an additional factor here—the bhikkhu’s purpose in traveling with the bhikkhunī(s) is for amusement—but there is no basis for this in the Vibhaṅga.

Non-offenses

As the rule says, there is no offense in making an arrangement and crossing over a river with a bhikkhunī. The Commentary adds that this applies not only to rivers but also to oceans: If one travels from one seaport to another by arrangement with a bhikkhunī, no penalty is entailed.

The K/Commentary goes even further and says that this rule applies only to rivers, and that a bhikkhu seeking some amusement with a bhikkhunī may make a date with her and travel around the ocean as much as he likes with no offense. The Sub-commentary disagrees with both the Commentary and K/Commentary here, saying that a bhikkhu traveling by arrangement with a bhikkhunī in a boat on the ocean incurs a dukkaṭa for every half-yojana they travel. The Sub-commentary’s position here is more in keeping with the Great Standards and so carries more weight.

Finally, there is no offense if:

*    *    *

29

The factors for the full offense here are three.

Object

Any of the five staple foods is grounds for a pācittiya. Any edible aside from them is not grounds for an offense.

Bhikkhunī here refers to one who has received the double ordination. The Vibhaṅga notes that one who has received only her first ordination—from the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha—is grounds for a dukkaṭa, while female trainees and female novices are not grounds for an offense.

Instigating means that the bhikkhunī speaking to a lay person who is not already planning to give food to Bhikkhu X, praises X or suggests that food should be presented to him. If the lay person was already planning to give food to X, this factor is not fulfilled. The Vibhaṅga defines already planning to give food in the following terms: Either X and the lay person are related, the lay person has previously invited X to ask for food, or the lay person has already prepared the food in question for X of his/her own accord prior to the bhikkhunī’s instigation.

Perception

If one is in doubt as to whether the food was offered at a bhikkhunī’s instigation, the penalty for eating it is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it was. If one thinks that it was offered at her instigation when it actually wasn’t, the penalty for eating it is again a dukkaṭa. If one does not perceive it as offered at her instigation, then whether it was or wasn’t, there is no offense.

Effort

There is a dukkaṭa for accepting food with the purpose of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful one eats.

Non-offenses

There is no offense if:

As we noted above, one’s relatives and people who have invited one to ask for food also fit under this allowance.

*    *    *

30

Except for one rare case—a bhikkhunī who does not know what is lewd and not lewd—this rule is completely subsumed under Pc 45. For explanations, see the discussion under that rule.