The nissaggiya pācittiya is positioned fourth in the seven types of violations classified in the Pātimokkha and is a punitive provision concerning the act of illegal possession of goods. Bhikkhu and bhikkhuṇī who committed offenses of nissaggiya pācittiya abandoned the illegally possessed goods and were required to atone in front of the other bhikkhu (in the case of the bhikkhuṇī, in front of the other bhikkhuṇī).
In this study, I discuss the rule of rain robes and point out the great diversity of interpretations particularly found in the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas. The Sikkhāpada of this item is as follows.
By a bhikkhu [thinking], “A month of the hot weather is left,” material for a rains robe is to be sought. Having made it, it is to be worn [by him thinking], “Half a month of the hot weather is left.” Should he seek material for a rains robe [thinking], “More than a month of the hot weather is left,” and should he, having made it wear it [thinking], “More than half a month of the hot weather is left,”, there is an offence entailing expiation with forfeiture. (K. R. Norman. Pātimokkha. PTS p. 41)
On this rule, Hirakawa Akira states as follows in his Nihyaku gojikkai no kenkyū 二百五十戒の研究 II.
The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya present a peculiar interpretation on the rule of rain robes which is different from that of the Pali, Dharmaguptaka, Mahīśāsaka and Mahāsāṅghika Vinayas. The two vinayas are lacking the interpretation that a monk is prohibited to wear the rain robes more than half a month before the end of the hot weather and, instead, they give another interpretation that a monk may retain a rain robe till half a month after the end of rainy season.
It is true that such an interpretation is found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, but we can also see other interpretations in the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas. Hirakawa’s statement is not sufficient to understand the actual situation around this item, and the case is much more complicated.
Contrary to Hirakawa’s statement, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and its supplememtary literature does not have such an interpretation. Although the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya itself does not show any information about the interpretation of the item, its commentary, the Sarvāsitvāda-Vinaya-Vibhāṣā (T 1440), presents two kinds of interpretation. One differs in the duration of retaining rain robes from the Pāli Vinaya etc. And the other, which is said to be an interpretation of Vinayadharas, interprets the regulation of the “half a month” as a special rule in an intercalary month.
On the other hand, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya presents two kinds of interpretation, both of which are different from that of the Pali Vinaya as well as those of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya. One appears in the Chinese version of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅgha, and the other in its Tibetan version and other supplementary literature.
In all, we have five kinds of different interpretations of the rule of rain robes. In this article, I go into particulars about this situation.
