BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1visit, does each action take away one standing, or is just that one visit struck fromhis allowed number of standings? After a long discussion, it sides with the decisionin the Three Gaṇṭhipadas: Each time a bhikkhu sits, receives alms, or teaches onesentence of Dhamma (see Pc 7) under these circumstances, even in one visit, hecuts down his allowed number of standings by one.If one obtains the requisite after making the allowable number of verbal and silentpromptings — or fewer — there is no offense. If one does not obtain the requisiteafter the maximum allowable number of promptings, one should inform the originaldonor and then leave the issue up to him/her. If the donor, being informed, thenmakes arrangements to get the requisite for the bhikkhu, there is no offense.The Commentary states that not to inform the donor here entails a dukkaṭa on thegrounds that one is neglecting a duty. This statement, however, should be qualifiedto apply only in cases where one knows which donor gave which fund to whichsteward. If a single fund administered by a steward contains donations from manydonors, one is unlikely to be in a position to inform all the donors if the stewarddoes not respond to one's request. In such cases one should be duty bound toinform only one of the donors.Range of application. As mentioned above, the Commentary maintains that this ruleapplies only in the first of the three cases listed there: The steward has beenindicated by the bhikkhu. As for the second case — the steward has been indicatedby the donor — it maintains that one may make any number of promptings withoutcommitting an offense. If the article is not forthcoming, one may get another layperson to handle the issue (although one should be careful to phrase one's requestto this lay person so as not to transgress the rules against accepting money ortrading). If the article is not forthcoming, one is not duty-bound to inform theoriginal donor. Although there is nothing in the Canon to contradict any of thesepoints, there is nothing to confirm them, either. Simple etiquette would suggest thatone not harass the steward excessively and that one should inform the donor if thearticle is not forthcoming, so as to let the donor decide what, if anything, should bedone. Thus it would make sense, using the Great Standards, to apply this rule evenin cases of this sort.As for the third case, in which the steward is not indicated either by the donor or bya bhikkhu, the Commentary says that, as far as that fund is concerned, the stewardshould be treated as a person who is not related and has not made an invitation toask. In other words, one may not make any requests of the steward at all unlesshe/she happens to invite one to make a request. The Commentary gives no reasonsfor these positions, and they are hard to infer. In the first of the two instances underthis sub-category — the volunteer temporary steward — the Commentary depictsthe steward as volunteering in the presence of both the bhikkhu and the donor, andthis would seem to place the steward under some obligation to both. Thus thebhikkhu would seem to have the right to make a reasonable number of promptings;and the donor, the right to know if the article is not forthcoming.As for the second of the two instances — the donor gives the gift to the bhikkhu'snormal steward but does not inform the bhikkhu or have him informed — the176