BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1"'Many are the Community's donors, my friends. Many are the Community'ssupporters. It's in dependence on you, looking to you, that we live here. If you won'tgive to us, then who is there who will? Give us these robe-cloths, friends.'"So the guild, pressured by the group-of-six bhikkhus, gave them what robe-cloththey had prepared and then served the meal to the Community. The bhikkhus whoknew that a meal with robe-cloth had been prepared for the Community, but notthat the cloth had been given to the group-of-six bhikkhus, said to the guild:'Present the robe-cloth to the Community, friends.'"'There isn't any, venerable sirs. What robe-cloth we had prepared, the masters —the group-of-six bhikkhus — have diverted to themselves.'"Those bhikkhus who were modest ... criticized and complained and spread itabout: 'How can these group-of-six bhikkhus knowingly divert to themselves gainsallocated for the Community?'"Here there are four factors for an offense.Object: any requisite — "robe-cloth, almsfood, lodgings, medicine, even a lump ofpowder, tooth wood, or unwoven thread" — that donors have indicated by word orgesture that they intend to give to a Community. As the Commentary notes, donorshere include not only lay people in general, but also one's fellow bhikkhus andrelatives — even one's own mother. The fact that a gift is allocated for a Communityoverrides all other considerations, even when one is ill.Perception. One perceives that the donors have allocated the requisite for aCommunity. (§ — The various editions of the Canon differ with regard to the role ofperception under this rule. The PTS edition essentially holds that perception is not afactor here, saying that if one diverts to oneself an item that has actually beenallocated to a Community, then whether one perceives the item as allocated or notallocated or is doubtful about the matter, one incurs the full offense in every case.This reading is clearly mistaken, as it does not account for the word knowingly inthe rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions list the penalties for the same casesas follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about the matter, adukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, a dukkaṭa. The Thai edition lists thepenalties as follows: perceiving it as allocated, the full offense; in doubt about thematter, a dukkaṭa; perceiving it as not allocated, no offense. This last reading ismost consistent with the word knowingly in the rule and the Vibhaṅga's generaltreatment of rules that include this word. In particular, it corresponds to the parallelpassage under Pc 82 as given in all four major editions, and is also supported bythe K/Commentary to this rule even in its PTS edition. Thus we will adopt it here.)All the editions of the Canon agree that if the item is not allocated for a particularrecipient, there is a dukkaṭa for diverting it to oneself or anyone else if oneperceives it as allocated or is doubtful about the matter, and no offense if oneperceives it as not allocated.This is the only NP rule where perception is a factor in the full offense.228