BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1One of the two non-offense clauses requiring explanation is that there is no offensein asking "from those by whom one was invited with medicine." This theCommentary explains by saying that if one has received a personal invitation, onemay ask in line with its terms, but that otherwise the limits set by this rule apply onlyto invitations made to an entire Community and not to those made on a personalbasis to individual bhikkhus. Although the Vibhaṅga makes no specific mention ofthis point, the Commentary's explanation seems the best way to make sense of thisnon-offense clause and the relationship between this rule and Pc 39. Under thatrule, a bhikkhu who is not ill and has not been invited incurs a dukkaṭa in asking forany one of the five tonics, and there seems no reason to impose a heavier penaltyfor requesting one of the five tonics after a personal invitation to do so has expired.If, though, the invitation referred to in this rule is one made to an entire Community,the heavier penalty makes sense as an added protection to the donor againsthaving his/her invitation abused by the less conscientious members of theCommunity. This added protection would also be a means of encouraging furtherinvitations of this sort in the future.The second non-offense clause requiring explanation is the one for an ill bhikkhu.Reading the rule, one might imagine that the exemption for an ill bhikkhu would readsimply, "There is no offense if one is ill," but instead it reads, "There is no offense ifone says, 'The time period for which we were invited has passed, but we have needof medicine.'" This is an important point of etiquette. Normally, an ill bhikkhu mayask anyone for medicine at any time, but in dealing with a person who has made aninvitation for medicine to the Community, he has to show special consideration. Inmentioning the fact that the time period for the invitation has expired, he givesrecognition of the fact that the donor is no longer under any obligation to providethe medicine, thus giving the donor a convenient "out" in case he/she can no longerprovide it. This simple gesture is the least consideration that can be shown tosomeone who has had the generosity to invite the Community to ask for medicines.And again, simple gestures of this sort help to protect donors and encourage similarinvitations again in the future.Although this last non-offense clause applies explicitly only to an invitationspecifying the time period, the Great Standards could be used to apply it to aninvitation specifying requisites as well. In other words, an ill bhikkhu could say, "Youinvited the Community with honey, but I have need of ghee."An alternative interpretation. The Vinaya-mukha tries to extend this rule to coverinvitations of every sort, individual and communal, dealing with any sort of requisite.It also reads the training rule to mean that if a time limit is not specified on aninvitation, a four-month time limit is to be assumed. All of this has no support in theVibhaṅga and so is not binding, but the last point is something that individualbhikkhus may adopt as a personal policy to teach themselves moderation in theirrequests. A donor's faith and financial position can change quickly, and it isreasonable not to depend on an invitation for longer periods of time unless thedonor makes it clear that he/she is still willing to continue providing the item offeredon a long-term basis.352