BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1only there is it required that the donor intend the gold or money for the bhikkhuhimself.1) Accepting. According to the K/Commentary, this includes receiving gold ormoney offered as a gift or picking up gold or money left lying around ownerless. (Asthe non-offense clauses show, this factor does not cover cases where one picksup money left lying around the monastery or a house where one is visiting if one'spurpose is to keep it in safekeeping for the owner. See Pc 84.) According to theCommentary, a bhikkhu who accepts money wrapped up in a bolt of cloth wouldalso commit an offense here, which shows that this act includes receiving or takingthe money not only with one's body, but also with items connected with the body.Thus accepting money in an envelope or having it placed in one's shoulder bag as ithangs from one's shoulder would fulfill this factor as well.The K/Commentary adds the stipulation that in the taking there must be somemovement of the gold or money from one place to another. It offers no explanationfor this point, but it may refer to cases where the gold or money is forced on abhikkhu. (Because the presence or absence of the bhikkhu's consent does not enterinto the definition of the act of accepting, this means that when gold or money isforced on him, the act has been accomplished.) A typical example where thisstipulation is useful is when a bhikkhu is on alms round and a lay donor, against thebhikkhu's protestations, places money in his bowl. The stipulation allows thebhikkhu simply to stand there until he gets the donor or someone else to remove themoney, and he would be absolved of an offense under this rule.The commentaries add intention as an extra factor — the full offense is entailedonly if the bhikkhu is taking the gold or money for his own sake — but there is nobasis for this in the Vibhaṅga. The bhikkhu's intention in accepting the money doesnot enter into the Vibhaṅga's discussions of any of the three actions covered by thisrule, the donor's intent does not enter into the Vibhaṅga's definition of this action,and the non-offense clauses do not allow for a bhikkhu to accept money for others,so the added factor seems unwarranted. Whether the bhikkhu accepts gold ormoney for himself or for others is thus not an issue here.2) Having gold or money accepted, according to the K/Commentary, includesgetting someone else to do any of the actions covered under accepting, asdescribed above. Examples from the commentaries, which draw on the protocolsunder NP 10, include such things as telling the donor to give the money to asteward, telling the donor that so-and-so will take the money for him; telling thesteward to take the money, to put it in a donation box, to "do what he thinksappropriate," or any similar command.Anything that falls short of a command, though, would not fulfill this factor, as wehave already seen under NP 10. Thus simply telling the donor that X is the bhikkhus'steward — or that the monastery's stewards have placed a donation box in suchand-sucha place — would not be a factor for an offense here. Also, if the donor —over the bhikkhu's protestations — leaves money, say, on a table as a gift for abhikkhu, then if the bhikkhu tells his steward what the donor did and said, withouttelling the steward to do anything with the money — letting the steward figure things192