431

C HA P TE R TE N

Sekhiya
This term means “to be trained in.” There are 75 training rules in this category,
divided by subject into four groups: etiquette in dressing and behaving when in
inhabited areas; etiquette in accepting and eating almsfood; etiquette when
teaching the Dhamma; and etiquette in urinating, defecating, and spitting.
The rules themselves do not impose a direct penalty. Instead, they simply say, “(This
is) a training to be observed.” The Vibhaºga, though, says that to violate any of these
rules out of disrespect incurs a dukka˛a. The non-offense clauses state in each case that to
violate them unintentionally, unthinkingly, or unknowingly, or to disobey them when
there are dangers or (in most cases) when one is ill, incurs no penalty. (The exemption
for dangers is not in the Burmese edition of the Canon.)
The Commentary adds that unknowingly in this case does not mean not knowing
the rule. For a new bhikkhu not to make the effort to know the rules, it says, would
qualify as disrespect. So unknowingly here means not knowing that a situation
contrary to the rules has developed. For instance, if one does not know that one’s robes
have gotten out of kilter, that would not count as a breach of the relevant rule.
One: The 26 Dealing with Proper Behavior
The Canon contains several stories in which a bhikkhu’s behavior causes another
person to become interested in the Dhamma. The most famous example is the
story of Ven. S›riputta’s first encounter with Ven. Assaji.
“Now at that time the wanderer Sañjaya was staying in R›jagaha with a
large company of wanderers—250 in all. And at that time S›riputta and
Moggall›na were practicing the celibate life under Sañjaya. They had
made this agreement: Whoever attains the Deathless first will inform the
other.
“Then Ven. Assaji, dressing early in the morning, taking his bowl and
(outer) robe, entered R›jagaha for alms: gracious in the way he
approached and departed, looked forward and behind, drew in and
stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast, his every movement
consummate. S›riputta the wanderer saw Ven. Assaji going for alms in
R›jagaha: gracious… his eyes downcast, his every movement
consummate. On seeing him, the thought occurred to him: ‘Surely, of
those bhikkhus in this world who are arahants or have entered the path
to arahantship, this is one. What if I were to go to him and question him:
“Friend, on whose account have you gone forth? Or who is your teacher?
Or in whose Dhamma do you delight?”’

432
“But then the thought occurred to S›riputta the wanderer: ‘This is the
wrong time to question him. Having entered among houses, he is going
for alms. What if I were to follow behind this bhikkhu, (to know) the path
found out by those who seek it?’”—Mv.I.23.1-3
Even though the following rules deal with minor matters, a bhikkhu should
remind himself that the minor details of his behavior can often make the
difference between sparking and killing another person’s interest in the
Dhamma.
1. [2] I will wear the lower robe [upper robe] wrapped around (me): a training to be
observed.
To wear the lower robe wrapped around means to wear the upper edge circling
the waist, covering the navel, and the lower edge covering the kneecaps. This is
called covering the “three circles.” The Commentary states that when one is
standing, the lower edge should be not more than eight fingerbreadths below
the knees, although if one’s calves are disfigured, it is all right to cover them
more than that.
To wear the upper robe wrapped around means, according to the Vibhaºga,
keeping both ends of the top edge in line with each other, and the same with
both ends of the bottom edge. The bottom edge of the upper robe, though, does
not have to be level with the bottom edge of the lower robe. Given the size of
the upper robe in the Buddha’s time, it would not have extended down that far.
Intentionally to wear either robe hanging down in front or in back is a breach
of these rules. The Commentary states that the purpose of these rules is to
prevent bhikkhus from wearing their robes in any of the various ways that lay
people in those days wore theirs—e.g., pleated “with 100 pleats,” tied up, or
tucked up between the legs. It also comments that because these rules are not
qualified, as the following ones are, with the phrase, “in inhabited areas,” they
should be followed in the monastery and wilderness areas as well. However, the
wilderness protocols (Cv.VIII.6.2-3) clearly show that bhikkhus were not
expected to wear the upper robe wrapped around them in the wilderness; and
the sauna protocols (Cv.VIII.8.2) seem to indicate that bhikkhus on their way to
and from the sauna were not required to wear their lower robes covering the
three circles as long as they covered their private parts front and back.
As a practical matter, if one is working on a high ladder or in a tree—whether
in a village, a monastery, or the wilderness—a wise policy is to tuck one’s lower
robe up between the legs for decency’s sake.
3. [4] I will go [sit] well-covered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
The Vibhaºga does not define inhabited areas in this or any of the following
rules. The term thus probably has the same meaning as under Pd 1: in the homes
of lay people, or along the streets and alleys of villages, cities, or towns. This
does not include, however, monasteries located in inhabited areas, for the
incoming bhikkhu’s protocols (Cv.VIII.1.2) show that when the Canon was

433
composed, bhikkhus were not required to wear their upper robes in the
monastery. At present, though, many monasteries located in inhabited areas
require that bhikkhus living with them observe many of these rules when
outside of their personal quarters but still within monastery grounds.
Well-covered, according to the Commentary, means not exposing one’s chest
or knees. One should have the upper edge of the upper robe around the neck,
and the lower edge covering the wrists. The lower edge of the lower robe, as
stated above, should cover the knees. When seated, only one’s head, hands, and
legs from the calves on down should show.
Sk 4 here has an added non-offense clause: There is no offense if one sits not
“well-covered” within one’s residence (§). According to the Vinaya-mukha, this
means within one’s room when staying overnight in a lay person’s home; when
outside of one’s room, though, one should follow the rule.
5. [6] I will go [sit] well-restrained in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
Well-restrained, according to the Vibhaºga, means not playing with the hands
or feet. This would include such things as dancing, cracking one’s knuckles, or
wiggling one’s fingers or toes.
7. [8] I will go [sit] with eyes lowered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
The Vibhaºga says that a bhikkhu should keep his gaze lowered to the
ground the distance of a plow’s length ahead of him—this equals two meters,
according to the Commentary. The purpose of this rule, it adds, is to prevent one
from gazing aimlessly at the sights here and there as one walks along. There is
nothing wrong, though, in looking up when one has reason to do so. An
example given in the Commentary is stopping to look up and see if there are
dangers from approaching horses or elephants. A more modern example would
be checking the traffic before crossing a road.
9. [10] I will not go [sit] with robes hitched up in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
According to the Vibhaºga, to hitch up one’s robes means to lift them so as to
expose either side or both sides of the body. Sk 10 here, like Sk 4, does not apply
when one is sitting in one’s residence in an inhabited area (§).
11. [12] I will not go [sit] laughing loudly in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
According to the Vibhaºga, if there is any reason for amusement, one should
simply smile. It also states that there is no offense in laughing loudly when ill or
there are dangers. The editors of the Thai edition of the Pali Canon question
these exemptions on the grounds that they see no reason why anyone would
laugh loudly in either of these situations, but this objection shows a lack of
imagination.

434
13. [14] I will go [sit] (speaking) with a lowered voice in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
The Commentary defines a lowered voice as follows: Three bhikkhus are
sitting in a row at intervals of three meters. The first bhikkhu speaks. The second
can hear him and clearly catch what he is saying. The third can hear his voice but
not what he is saying. If the third can clearly catch what he is saying, it maintains,
the first bhikkhu is speaking too loudly. As the Vinaya-mukha notes, though,
when one is speaking to a crowd of people, there is nothing wrong in raising
one’s voice provided that one does not shout. And as the non-offense clauses
show, there is nothing wrong in shouting if there are dangers—e.g., someone is
about to fall off a cliff or be hit by a car. It would also seem that there is no
offense in shouting if one’s listener is partially deaf.
15. [16] I will not go [sit] swinging my body in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
This means that one should keep one’s body straight. Sk 16, like Sk 4, does
not apply when one is sitting in one’s residence in an inhabited area (§).
17. [18] I will not go [sit] swinging my arms in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
According to the Commentary, this means that one should keep one’s arms
still, although as the Vinaya-mukha points out, there is nothing wrong in
swinging one’s arms slightly to keep one’s balance as one walks. The nonoffense clauses indicate that Sk 18, like Sk 4, does not apply when one is sitting in
one’s residence in an inhabited area.
19. [20] I will not go [sit] swinging my head in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
This refers to swinging the head from side to side or letting it droop forward
or back. Of course, there is no offense if one is dozing off, and like Sk 4, Sk 20
does not apply when one is sitting in one’s residence in an inhabited area.
21. [22] I will not go [sit] with arms akimbo in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
Akimbo means with the hand on the hip. This rule, the Vibhaºga says, forbids
having one arm or both arms akimbo. Sk 22 does not apply when one is sitting
in one’s residence in an inhabited area.
23. [24] I will not go [sit] with my head covered in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
Covered here means covered with a robe, a scarf, or other similar piece of
cloth. Sk 24 does not apply when one is sitting in one’s residence in an inhabited
area. The allowance for “one who is ill” under both rules means that one may
cover one’s head when the weather is unbearably cold or the sun unbearably
hot.

435

25. I will not go tiptoeing or walking just on the heels in inhabited areas: a training to be
observed.
This translation of the rule follows the Commentary.
26. I will not sit clasping the knees (§) in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.
This, the Vibhaºga says, refers to sitting with one or both arms or hands
hugging one or both knees; or with a strap or a strip of cloth around one or both
knees and the torso (§). The bas-reliefs at Borobudur show royalty using this
latter position as a way of keeping the body erect when tired or weak.
This rule does not apply when one is sitting in one’s residence in an inhabited
area (§).
* * *
In addition to the rules listed here, there are others in the Khandhakas
concerning behavior in inhabited areas. These include:
A bhikkhu entering an inhabited area must wear all three of his basic set of
robes unless—
he is ill;
there is sign of rain;
his ka˛hina privileges are in effect;
he is going to cross a river; or
he has a secure dwelling (or other hiding place, the Commentary says, such
as a hollow in a tree or a rock) in which to place the robe he leaves behind
(Mv.VIII.23.2-3).
He should also wear his waistband. The bhikkhu who instigated this rule had
the unforgettable experience of having his lower robe slip off in front of a group
of people who thoroughly enjoyed the spectacle (Cv.V.29.1).
A bhikkhu entering an inhabited area, though, should not spread out his
outer robe to sit on (Cv.VIII.4.3) and, unless he is ill, should not wear footwear—
shoes, sandals, boots, etc.—(Mv.V.12) or use an umbrella or sunshade
(Cv.V.23.3). The Commentary to the umbrella rule includes physical or mental
discomfort under ill in this case, and says that one may also use the umbrella to
protect one’s robes from the rain.
Two: The 30 Dealing with Food
27. I will receive almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed.
This rule was formulated in response to an incident in which some group-ofsix bhikkhus accepted almsfood unappreciatively, as if—to quote the Vibhaºga—
“they wanted to throw it away.” The Commentary explains appreciatively as

436
“with mindfulness established.” One should also remind oneself of the trouble
and expense the donors incurred in providing the food.
28. I will receive almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent one from looking at the donor’s face
(see Cv.VIII.5.2) or gazing aimlessly in other directions while he/she is placing
food in the bowl. However, one of the “duties to be observed on alms round,”
(Cv.VIII.5) is that one should not stand too long or turn away too soon. This
means that one should glance at what the donor has prepared to give, so that
one will not stand waiting for more when the donor has finished giving, or turn
away when he/she has more to give.
29. I will receive almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be
observed.
This rule refers specifically to eating habits at the time of the Buddha. Bean
curry means dishes made with gram, pulses, vetch, etc., thick enough that they
can be placed in the bowl by the hand. In proper proportion, according to the
Commentary, means no more than one-quarter of the total food. The Vinayamukha tries to interpret this rule as covering curries and soups of all kinds, but
the Vibhaºga and commentaries state unequivocally that it covers only bean
curries. Other gravies, soups, stews, and sauces are exempt.
This rule probably refers to situations in which bhikkhus are offered food
from a serving dish from which they help themselves—as was the custom when
they were invited to homes in the Buddha’s time, and is still the custom in Sri
Lanka and Burma—for the Vibhaºga states that there is no offense in receiving
more than the proper proportion if one is invited to accept more than that. There
is also no offense in taking more than the proper proportion if one is ill, one is
accepting it from relatives, one is accepting it for the sake of another, or one has
obtained the food through one’s own resources. (This interpretation follows the
Commentary. The K/Commentary, for some reason, maintains that these latter
non-offense situations—accepting from one’s relatives, from people who have
offered an invitation, for the sake of another, or from food obtained through
one’s own resources—apply only to dishes that are not bean curries, but this
interpretation does not fit with the Vibhaºga.)
30. I will receive almsfood level with the edge (of the bowl): a training to be observed.
Iron bowls in the past had a hoop approximately 1 cm. wide around the
inside of the mouth. According to the Commentary, edge here means the bottom
edge of this hoop. A bhikkhu is prohibited from accepting so much food that it
would pile up above this level, although of course there is nothing against
accepting less.
The Commentary contains a long discussion of what does and does not come
under almsfood in this rule, and concludes that the term covers only staple and
non-staple foods. Thus if one receives a sweet, the “tail” of whose leaf-wrapper
extends above the edge of the bowl (such sweets are still common in Asia today),

437
it would not count as an infraction of this rule. The same holds true if one
receives foods that do not fill the bowl but extend above the edge—such as a
length of sugar cane—or if the donor places on top of one’s bowl another vessel
containing food, such as a box of sweets or a bag of fruit.
The Vinaya-mukha, in discussing this rule, makes the following point: “In
terms of present-day customs, receiving a lot of food in a way that demonstrates
greed is unacceptable. There is nothing wrong, however, in receiving a lot in a
way that demonstrates compassion. For instance, when a newly-ordained
bhikkhu goes to receive alms at his family home, if he accepts only one bowlful,
not everyone will have a chance to put food in his bowl. If they take his bowl
and pour out the contents (into a basin), and he then continues accepting food
until everyone has had a chance, this is no breach of manners, and no one would
criticize him as greedy.” Because this is an instance of breaking the rule not out
of disrespect, it would incur no offense; the same observation can be applied to
similar situations as well.
31. I will eat almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed.
According to the Vinaya-mukha, this rule forbids doing other things—such as
reading—while eating one’s food. The Recollection at the Moment of Using
One’s Requisites requires that one reflect that one is eating “not playfully, nor for
intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but simply for the
survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of
the celibate life, (thinking) ‘I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] without
creating new feelings [from overeating]: Thus will I maintain myself, be
blameless, and live in comfort.’” One should also remind oneself of the effort and
expense the donors went to in providing the meal.
32. I will eat almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent one from gazing aimlessly about while
eating. The Vinaya-mukha notes, though, “To look elsewhere in ways related to
one’s eating—e.g., looking with the thought of providing a nearby bhikkhu with
whatever he is lacking—is not prohibited.” (See Sk 38, below.)
33. I will eat almsfood methodically (§): a training to be observed.
The aim of this rule is that a bhikkhu work steadily across his food from one
side to another while eating and not pick at it here and there. Special treats,
though, may be passed over—either as a form of self-denial or to save them for
the end of the meal. Also, there is no offense in picking here and there when
taking food from one’s bowl to give to another person (§).
34. I will eat almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed.
This rule does not apply to foods that are not thick bean curries, or to
situations where one is ill or where one has received bean curry from relatives,

438
from people who offered an invitation to take more, or from one’s own
resources.
35. I will not eat almsfood taking mouthfuls from a heap: a training to be observed.
This refers to the food on one’s plate or in one’s bowl. The Commentary
explains from a heap as from the top or from the middle. As noted under Sk 33,
one should work across one’s food systematically; this rule indicates that one
should start from the side when taking mouthfuls and not from the middle of
the heap. The non-offense clauses state that if a little food remains scattered in
one’s bowl, there is no offense in gathering it together in a small heap and eating
from that (§). The Vinaya-mukha maintains that it is a custom among bhikkhus
before eating to level off the food in their bowls so that its surface is even, but I
have found no reference to this point in any of the other texts. However, the
Vinaya-mukha does make the helpful point that if one is served other foods—
such as sweets—stacked on a platter, it would be impolite to level them off (or to
take from the edge in a way that would collapse the heap), so in such cases one
may take from the top of the heap.
36. I will not hide bean curry and foods with rice out of a desire to get more: a training to
be observed.
Some donors, if they see that a bhikkhu has nothing but rice in his bowl, will
go out of their way to provide him with extra food. This rule is to prevent
bhikkhus from taking advantage of their kind intentions.
According to the Vibhaºga, there is no offense if donors cover the food in
one’s bowl with rice, or if one covers it with rice oneself for some reason other
than a desire for more.
The Commentary takes special note of the fact that the Vibhaºga gives no
exception here for a bhikkhu who is ill.
37. Not being ill, I will not eat rice or bean curry that I have requested for my own sake:
a training to be observed.
The Commentary to Pc 39 says that rice or bean curry here covers all foods
not covered in that rule.
There is no offense in requesting these foods from relatives, from people
who have offered an invitation to request, or if one is ill (weak from hunger
would be included here). There is also no offense in obtaining these foods by
means of one’s own resources. The Sub-commentary raises the question of how
the blanket Sekhiya exemptions for the bhikkhu acting “unintentionally” or
“without mindfulness” apply to this rule, and comes up with the following
example: A bhikkhu takes the food into his mouth and then, on feeling regret,
spits it out in displeasure. A better example might be that of a bhikkhu who asks
for these foods from a lay person and then eats them, having forgotten that the
lay person’s invitation to ask for such foods has expired.
The Me˚˜aka Allowance (Mv.VI.34.21) permits a bhikkhu to search for
provisions of husked rice, kidney beans, green gram (mung beans), salt, sugar,

439
oil, and ghee when going on a journey through a wilderness area where
almsfood will be hard to find. For details, see the discussion under Pc 39.
38. I will not look at another’s bowl intent on finding fault: a training to be observed.
The K/Commentary defines finding fault as taking note of the fact that the
other bhikkhu or novice has something. What this probably means is that he has
some especially nice food that he is not sharing. The Vinaya-mukha provides an
alternative suggestion, that this rule refers to finding fault with another’s sloppy
manner of eating. Sloppiness, though, is something about which bhikkhus may
admonish one another, so the K/Commentary’s interpretation seems more to
the point.
The Vibhaºga states that there is no offense in looking at another’s bowl if
one is not meaning to find fault or if one wants to provide him with whatever he
may be lacking.
Here again, the Commentary notes that there is no exception for a bhikkhu
who is ill.
39. I will not take an extra-large mouthful: a training to be observed.
According to the Commentary, a mouthful the size of a peacock egg is too
large, while one the size of a chicken egg is too small (!). One midway between
these two sizes is just right. This seems hard to fathom unless chicken eggs in
those days were much smaller than they are now.
According to the Vibhaºga, this rule does not cover fruits, solid foods such as
roots, or special confections (sandwiches at present would fit here). Apparently,
if these items are a little large, it is all right to stick them whole into the mouth,
although if they are very large it would be better to take bites out of them (see
Sk 45).
40. I will make a rounded mouthful: a training to be observed.
People at that time ate food with their hands, and formed mouthfuls of the
food with their fingers before taking them to the mouth.
This rule, like the preceding one, does not cover fruits, solid foods such as
roots, or special confections such as sandwiches. In other words, one does not
have to mash these things up and form them into rounded mouthfuls before
eating.
41. I will not open the mouth when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it: a training to
be observed.
42. I will not insert the whole hand into the mouth while eating: a training to be
observed.
The Commentary and K/Commentary are in agreement that this is the
proper translation for this rule. The Sub-commentary insists that it should be
“any part of the hand” rather than “the whole hand,” but according to the

440
Commentary the act of sticking a finger in one’s mouth while eating comes
under Sk 52. Although there are people with small hands and large mouths who
have actually succeeded in inserting their whole hands into their mouths, the
rarity of this ability has given rise to alternative interpretations for this rule. For
instance, although the verb in the rule clearly means “insert,” some have
suggested that this rule forbids taking a handful of food in the palm of the hand
and pushing the palm right up against the mouth. Other have suggested that it
forbids inserting all five of one hand’s fingers into the mouth. However, even
though these suggestions promote good manners, they do not fit the precise act
mentioned in the rule, and so at most can be taken on an individual basis as wise
policies to follow.
43. I will not speak with the mouth full of food: a training to be observed.
According to the Commentary, if the amount of food in one’s mouth is not
enough to affect the clarity of one’s pronunciation, it is all right to speak.
44. I will not eat from lifted balls of food: a training to be observed.
What this means is that one should not lift food from the bowl in one hand
and then use the other hand to take parts of that handful to put in the mouth.
According to the Vibhaºga, this rule does not cover fruits or solid foods. Thus,
for example, it is all right to pick up a bunch of grapes in one hand and then take
the grapes one by one with the other hand to put them in the mouth.
This rule is often translated as, “I will not eat tossing up balls of food,” but it
seems unlikely that there would be an allowance for tossing fruit, etc., into the
air and catching it in the mouth. Because the Pali term ukkhepa can mean “lifting,”
the above translation is probably more correct.
45. I will not eat nibbling at mouthfuls of food: a training to be observed.
After forming a mouthful of food (see Sk 39 & 40), one should place it all into
the mouth at one time, rather than biting it off bit by bit.
Again, this rule does not cover fruits, solid foods, or special confections (§—
these last two items are missing in the PTS edition of the Canon). In other words,
there is nothing wrong in taking bites from any of these foods that are too large
to fit into the mouth, although the etiquette in many Asian countries at present
frowns on taking bites even out of things such as these.
46. I will not eat stuffing out the cheeks: a training to be observed.
This is another rule that does not cover fruits, solid foods, or special confections.
Apparently this allowance covers cases where the fruits, etc., would make up a mouthful
a little on the large side, as defined under Sk 39.
47. I will not eat shaking (food off) the hand: a training to be observed.
According to the Vibhaºga, there is no offense in shaking the hand while
throwing away scraps.