BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

The Bowl Chapter Chapter 7.3The Commentary contains an extended discussion of these last three points.1) Determining the tonic for use means that within the seven days thebhikkhu determines that he will use it not as an internal medicine, but only toapply to the outside of his body or for other external purposes instead. Inthis case, he may keep the tonic as long as he likes without penalty.2) Unlike the other rules dealing with robe-cloth or bowls kept x number ofdays, the non-offense clauses here do not include exemptions for tonicsplaced under shared ownership, but the Commentary discusses abandons itas if it read "places it under shared ownership." Its verdict: Any tonic placedunder shared ownership may be kept for more than seven days withoutincurring a penalty as long as the owners do not divide up their shares, butafter the seventh day they may not use it for internal purposes. The Subcommentaryadds that any tonic placed under shared ownership may not beused at all until the arrangement is rescinded.3) The Commentary reports a controversy between two Vinaya experts onthe meaning of the last exemption in the list — i.e., "having given it away toan unordained person, abandoning possession of it in his mind, he receivesit in return and makes use of it." Ven. Mahā Sumanatthera states that thephrase, "if within seven days" applies here as well: If within seven days thebhikkhu gives the tonic to an unordained person, having abandonedpossession of it in his mind, he may then keep it and consume it for anotherseven days if the unordained person happens to return it to him.Ven. Mahā Padumatthera disagrees, saying that the exemption abandons it alreadycovers such a case, and that the exemption here refers to the situation where abhikkhu has kept a tonic past seven days, has forfeited it and received it in return,and then gives it up to an unordained person. If the unordained person then returnsthe tonic to him, he may use it to rub on his body.The K/Commentary agrees with the latter position, but this creates some problems,both textual and practical. To begin with, the phrase, "if within seven days,"modifies every one of the other non-offense clauses under this rule, and there isnothing to indicate that it does not modify this one, too. Second, every one of theother exemptions refers directly to ways of avoiding the full offense and not to waysof dealing with the forfeited article after it is returned, and again there is nothing toindicate that the last exemption breaks this pattern.On the practical side, if the exemption abandons it covers cases where a bhikkhumay give up the tonic to anyone at all and then receive it in return to use for anotherseven days, bhikkhus could spend their time trading hoards of tonics amongthemselves indefinitely, and the rule would become meaningless. But as the originstory shows, it was precisely to prevent them from amassing such hoards that therule was formulated in the first place."Then Ven. Pilindavaccha went to the residence of King Seniya Bimbisāra ofMagadha and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. Then King SeniyaBimbisāra... went to Ven. Pilindavaccha and, on arrival, having bowed down to him,213