The Thirteen Ascetic Practices

Now, since it is by such qualities as wanting little and contentment that the cleansing of virtue, already described, comes about, therefore, in order to accomplish those very qualities, the meditator who has undertaken virtue should also undertake the ascetic practices. For thus, his virtue — its stain washed away by the water of such qualities as wanting little, contentment, austerity, seclusion, non-accumulation, the arousing of energy, and being easy to support — will become thoroughly purified, and his observances will succeed. Thus, one whose entire conduct is purified by blameless virtue and by the good qualities of these observances, having become established in the ancient threefold noble lineage, will become worthy of attaining the fourth noble lineage as well — the one reckoned as delight in meditative development. Therefore we shall begin the discourse on the ascetic practices.

For the Blessed One has permitted thirteen ascetic practices to clansmen who have given up worldly gain, who have no concern for body or life, and who wish only to accomplish the practice that conforms to the goal. Namely: the rag-robe practice, the triple-robe practice, the alms-food practice, the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice, the one-sessioner's practice, the bowl-food-eater's practice, the after-meal-refuser's practice, the forest-dweller's practice, the tree-root-dweller's practice, the open-air-dweller's practice, the charnel-ground-dweller's practice, the any-bed-user's practice, and the sitter's practice. Herein —

By way of meaning, by characteristics and the rest, by way of the manner of undertaking, by way of classification and distinction, and by way of the benefit of each,

and by way of the wholesome triad, by way of the division into the ascetic-practice-observer and the practice itself, and also by way of summary and elaboration — the determination of these practices should be known.

Herein, first, by way of meaning: because it lies upon the dust in various places such as a street, a charnel ground, or a rubbish heap, it is called "dust-heap cloth" — as if springing up there like a heap of dust; or else it is so called because, like dust, it reaches a repulsive condition — that is, it comes to a despicable state. The wearing of such dust-heap cloth, its etymology thus obtained, is itself called "dust-heap-wearing"; one whose habit this is, is a "dust-heap-robe wearer." The factor of a dust-heap-robe wearer is "the dust-heap-robe practice." Here, "factor" means "cause"; therefore this term should be understood as a designation for the undertaking by which one becomes a dust-heap-robe wearer.

By this same method: one whose habit is restricting himself to the triple robe — reckoned as the outer double-robe, the upper robe, and the inner robe — is a "triple-robe-user." The factor of a triple-robe-user is "the triple-robe practice."

"Almsfood" is the "falling of lumps" of material food given as alms — that is, the falling into the bowl of the lumps given by others. One who gleans that almsfood, seeking it by approaching one family after another, is an "alms-food-eater." Or else: one whose observance is "to go for the falling of alms" is an "alms-food-goer" — "to fall" here meaning "to walk on almsround"; an "alms-food-goer" is the same as an "alms-food-eater." The factor of an alms-food-eater is "the alms-food practice."

"Dāna" here means "a break, a cutting-off"; "apadāna" is that which is free from such a break — the meaning being, "unbroken." "Sapadāna" is "together with apadāna" — that is, going house after house without a break. One whose habit is to walk for alms without a break, house after house, is an "uninterrupted-alms-goer." His factor is "the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice."

Eating in a single sitting is "one-sessioning"; one whose habit this is, is a "one-sessioner." His factor is "the one-sessioner's practice."

Since a second vessel is refused, food taken only in a single bowl is called "bowl-food." One who, in taking bowl-food, forms the perception "bowl-food" as such and whose habit is only bowl-food, is a "bowl-food-eater." His factor is "the bowl-food-eater's practice."

"Khalu" is a particle used in the sense of denial. Food received afterward, once one has already indicated he is satisfied, is called "after-meal food"; eating such food is "after-meal eating." One who, recognizing such eating as "after-meal," makes it his habit to refuse it, is an "after-meal-refuser." "Not an after-meal-eater" gives "the khalu-after-meal-refuser" — a name for one who, by his undertaking, has refused any extra food taken after he has already indicated satisfaction. But it is said in the commentary that "khalu" is the name of a certain bird, which, having taken a fruit in its beak, does not eat another if that one falls — "this one is like that bird," hence the name "khalu-after-meal-refuser." His factor is "the after-meal-refuser's practice."

One whose habit is dwelling in the forest is a "forest-dweller." His factor is "the forest-dweller's practice."

Dwelling at the root of a tree is "tree-root-dwelling"; one whose habit this is, is a "tree-root-dweller." The factor of a tree-root-dweller is "the tree-root-dweller's practice." The same method applies to the open-air-dweller's and the charnel-ground-dweller's practices.

Whatever lodging is thus prepared is called "as-allotted" — a designation for whatever lodging is first assigned to a monk with the words, "This falls to you." One whose habit is to dwell in whatever lodging is so allotted, without seeking a better one, is an "any-bed-user." His factor is "the any-bed-user's practice."

One who, refusing to lie down, has as his habit dwelling only in the sitting posture, is a "sitter." His factor is "the sitter's practice."

All of these, by way of their respective undertakings, are the factors of a monk who has "shaken off" defilement, since they shake off defilement; or else, since it is the knowledge that has acquired the name "ascetic" (dhuta) — precisely from its shaking off of defilement — which serves as the factor of these practices, they are called "ascetic-factors" (dhutaṅga). Or else: they are themselves "ascetic," since they shake off the opposing defilements, and they are also "factors" by way of practice — hence, in this sense too, they are called "ascetic-factors." Thus, first of all, the determination here by way of meaning should be understood.

All of these have as their characteristic the volition of undertaking. For this was also said: "Whoever undertakes it — that is the person. That by which one undertakes it — these are the mental states and mental factors. Whatever volition of undertaking there is — that is the ascetic-factor. Whatever one thereby refuses — that is its object." And all of these have as their function the destruction of greed for requisites; their manifestation is the state of being free from such greed; their proximate cause is such noble qualities as wanting little and the rest. Thus the determination here by way of characteristic and the rest should be understood.

But, as to "the manner of undertaking" and the remaining topics: while the Blessed One is alive, all the ascetic practices should be undertaken in his own presence. When he has attained final nibbāna, in the presence of a great disciple. When he is not available, in the presence of one whose taints are destroyed; when he is not available, a non-returner; a once-returner; a stream-enterer; one who has mastered the three piṭakas; one who has mastered two piṭakas; one who has mastered a single piṭaka; one who has preserved a single portion of the recitation; a teacher of the commentaries. When he is not available, in the presence of one who upholds the ascetic practices; and when even he is not available, having swept the courtyard of a shrine and sat down in a crouching position, one should undertake them as though speaking in the very presence of the Fully Enlightened One — though it is indeed also proper simply to undertake them by oneself. And here, the story of the elder brother of the two brother-elders at Cetiya Mountain, concerning his modest disinclination toward the ascetic practices, should be told. This, then, is the discussion common to all thirteen practices.

Now we shall describe, for each practice individually, the manner of its undertaking, the regulation governing it, its classification, what breaks it, and its benefit. The rag-robe practice, first: it is undertaken by either one of these two forms of words: "I refuse a robe given by a householder; I undertake the rag-robe practice." This, for the present, is its undertaking.

Now, one who has undertaken the ascetic practice in this way should take one of the following kinds of cloth — charnel-ground cloth, shop-door cloth, street cloth, rubbish-heap cloth, birth-cloth, bath cloth, ford cloth, gone-and-returned cloth, fire-burnt cloth, cattle-chewed cloth, termite-eaten cloth, rat-gnawed cloth, hem-cut cloth, border-cut cloth, flag-carried cloth, mound cloth, ascetic's cloth, coronation cloth, supernormally-produced cloth, road cloth, wind-carried cloth, deity-given cloth, or ocean cloth — tear it, give up its weak places, wash the sound places, make it into a robe, and use it, having put away his former householder-given robe.

Herein: "charnel-ground cloth" is what has fallen in a charnel ground. "Shop-door cloth" is what has fallen at the door of a shop. "Street cloth" is a rag thrown away in the street, through a window, by those seeking merit. "Rubbish-heap cloth" is a rag thrown away at a rubbish heap. "Birth-cloth" is a garment thrown away after wiping up the impurity of the womb. It is said that the mother of the minister Tissa, having had the impurity of the womb wiped up with a cloth worth a hundred pieces, had it thrown away on the fan-palm road, thinking, "the rag-robe wearers will take it." Monks take such a thing only for use as a worn rag. "Bath cloth" is what those bathed head to foot by exorcists throw away as they go, calling it "unlucky-star cloth."

"Ford cloth" is a worn wrapper thrown away at a bathing ford. "Gone-and-returned cloth" is what people, having gone to a charnel ground and come back, bathe and then throw away. "Fire-burnt cloth" is a patch of cloth burnt by fire; for people throw such a thing away. "Cattle-chewed" and the rest are self-evident; people throw such things away too. "Flag-carried cloth": those boarding a ship tie a flag and board with it; it is proper to take that once it has passed out of their sight. And whatever flag has been tied and set up on a battlefield, it is proper to take once both armies have departed.

"Mound cloth" is what has been used in performing an offering-rite by wrapping it round an anthill. "Ascetic's cloth" is what belongs to a monk. "Coronation cloth" is a robe thrown away at the site of a king's consecration. "Supernormally-produced cloth" is the robe of one ordained by the words "Come, monk." "Road cloth" is what has fallen along the middle of a journey; but what has fallen through the owners' lapse of mindfulness should be watched over a little before being taken. "Wind-carried cloth" is what has been struck by the wind and dropped far away; it is proper to take that when the owners are not in sight. "Deity-given cloth" is what has been given by deities, as in the case of the Elder Anuruddha. "Ocean cloth" is what has been cast up on dry land by the waves of the ocean.

But what is given saying "we give this to the Sangha," or what is obtained by those going about begging for cloth as alms — that is not rag-robe cloth. Even among what is given to monks, what is obtained by allotment according to seniority, or what belongs to a dwelling — that too is not rag-robe cloth. Only what is given without being solicited is rag-robe cloth. And even among that: what is left by donors at the foot of a monk, and that monk then places it in the rag-robe wearer's hand and gives it — that is called "pure on one side." What is placed in a monk's hand and given, and that monk then places it at the rag-robe wearer's feet — that too is "pure on one side." What is placed at a monk's feet, and given by him again in that same way, placed at the feet — that is "pure on both sides." What is received placed directly in the hand, and given on directly into the hand — that is called "cloth not set down." Having known this classification of rag-robe cloth in this way, the rag-robe wearer should make use of a robe accordingly. This, herein, is the regulation.

This, now, is the classification: there are three kinds of rag-robe wearer — strict, middling, and mild. Herein, one who takes only charnel-ground cloth is strict. One who takes what has been set aside with the thought "renunciants will take this" is middling. One who takes what is given, placed at his feet, is mild.

For any of these, the practice breaks the very moment he consents to accept, by his own preference, a robe given by a householder. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: because of the saying "going-forth is founded upon rag-robe cloth" (Mahāvagga 128), there is a manner of practice suited to one's reliance; establishment in the first of the noble lineages; freedom from the trouble of guarding one's robe; a livelihood not dependent on others; freedom from fear of thieves; the absence of craving in what one uses; requisites befitting a renunciant; being grounds praised by the Blessed One as "both few and easy to obtain, and blameless" (A.N. 4.27; Itivuttaka 101); being pleasing; the accomplishment of the fruit of wanting little and the rest; the fostering of right practice; and setting an example for people of later times to follow.

For the destruction of Māra's army, the ascetic who wears the rag-robe shines like a warrior-noble armored for battle.

Having given up fine garments fit to wear, such as those of Kāsi — that rag-robe worn by the Teacher of the World — who would not wear it?

Therefore, indeed, let a monk, recollecting his own undertaking, take delight in the rag-robe, fitting for one devoted to the practice of meditation.

This, then, is the account of the rag-robe practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

Next in order, the triple-robe practice is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse a fourth robe; I undertake the triple-robe practice."

Now, having obtained robe-cloth, the triple-robe user may keep it aside for only as long as he is unable to work it in comfort, or cannot obtain someone to help him arrange it, or lacks some requisite such as a needle. There is no fault on account of keeping it aside for such a reason. But from the time the dyeing has begun, it is not proper to set it aside; one who does so becomes what is called "a thief of the ascetic practice." This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein: for the strict practitioner, at the time of dyeing, he should first dye either the inner robe or the upper robe, wear it, and then dye the other; having put that one on, he should dye the outer double-robe. But it is not proper to wear the double-robe as the inner garment. This is the observance for one dwelling at the edge of a village. For a forest-dweller, however, it is proper to wash and dye two robes together at once; and provided that, on seeing anyone approach, he is able to pull up an ochre cloth and cover himself, he may sit in a place nearby to do so. For the middling practitioner, there is what is called a dyeing-cloth kept in the dyeing-hall; it is proper to do the work of dyeing having put that on, either worn or wrapped. For the mild practitioner, it is proper to do the work of dyeing wearing or wrapping the robes of like-minded fellow monks; a communal seat-cloth kept there is also proper for him, though it is not proper to carry it away. It is also proper, from time to time, to make use of the robes of like-minded fellow monks among themselves. But for one holding the triple-robe ascetic practice, the only fourth item that may occur is a shoulder-cloth — and that only a span in width and no more than three cubits in length.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment he consents to a fourth robe. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the triple-robe-holding monk is content with a robe sufficient only for the maintenance of his body. Hence such virtues as these come to be accomplished for him: a going about as though with wings, taking only what he carries; little undertaking of activity; the avoidance of storing up cloth; a light way of living; the abandonment of greed for extra robes; austerity of living through moderation even in what is allowable; and the accomplishment of the fruit of wanting little and the rest.

Having given up craving for extra cloth, the wise one, avoiding all storing-up, knowing the taste of the happiness of contentment, becomes a meditator who wears the triple robe.

Therefore, wishing to fare about happily together with his robe, as a bird with its wings, let the excellent meditator take delight in this restriction to his robes.

This is the account of the triple-robe practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The alms-food practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse extra gain; I undertake the alms-food practice."

Now, the alms-food practitioner should not consent to these fourteen kinds of meal: a Sangha-meal, an assigned meal, an invitational meal, a meal by ticket, a fortnightly meal, an observance-day meal, a day-after-observance meal, a visitor's meal, a traveler's meal, a sick person's meal, a meal for one attending the sick, a monastery meal, an office-holder's meal, or a meal by turn. But if such meals are given, not by saying "take the Sangha-meal" and so forth, but by saying "let the Sangha take almsfood at our house — you too take almsfood," it is proper to accept them. Non-food tickets from the Sangha, and food cooked in the monastery, remain proper as well. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner takes almsfood brought to him whether beforehand or afterward, and, standing at the bowl-door, gives to those receiving into the bowl as well; he also takes almsfood brought and given at his resting-place — but once he has sat down for the day, he takes no more almsfood. The middling practitioner accepts even after he has sat down for the day, but does not agree to accept for the next day. The mild practitioner agrees to accept almsfood for the next day, and even the day after that. Both of these latter two do not obtain the happiness of living independently; only the strict practitioner obtains it. It is said that in a certain village there was a group observing the noble lineage. The strict one said to the others, "Come, friends, let us go to hear the Dhamma." One of them said, "Venerable sir, I have been made to sit down by a certain person." Another said, "Venerable sir, I have agreed to accept almsfood from someone for tomorrow." Thus both of these fell short. The other, having walked for alms early that same morning, went and tasted the flavor of the Dhamma.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment he consents to the extra gain of a Sangha-meal and the rest. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: because of the saying "going-forth is founded upon food gathered lump by lump" (A.N. 4.27; Itivuttaka 101), there is a manner of practice suited to one's reliance; establishment in the second of the noble lineages; a livelihood not dependent on others; being grounds praised by the Blessed One as "both few and easy to obtain, and blameless"; the crushing of laziness; purity of livelihood; the fulfillment of the trainee's practice; independence from being fed by another; the act of giving others the opportunity to help; the abandonment of conceit; the restraining of craving for taste; freedom from offense under the training rules concerning communal meals, successive meals, and improper conduct; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest; the fostering of right practice; and compassion for people of later times.

Content with food gathered lump by lump, living independent of others, having abandoned greed for food, the ascetic becomes one who may go freely to any of the four quarters.

He dispels laziness; his livelihood is purified. Therefore, indeed, let the wise one not look down upon the practice of walking for alms.

For to one such as this —

"To a monk living on almsfood, who sustains himself and is not fed by another — even the gods hold such a steady one dear, provided he is not dependent on gain and praise."

This is the account of the alms-food practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse greedy alms-going; I undertake the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice."

Now, the uninterrupted-alms-goer, standing at the entrance to a village, should note whether it is free of danger. Whatever street or village has danger, it is proper, leaving that aside, to walk elsewhere. In whatever house-door, street, or village he obtains nothing, he should go on, having formed the perception that it is not a village at all. Where he obtains something, it is not proper to leave that and go on further. And this monk should enter early, for thus he will be able, leaving an uncomfortable place, to go elsewhere. But if, while he is in the monastery, people giving a gift, or people coming along the road, take his bowl and give almsfood — that is proper. And even one going along a road should, at the time for walking for alms, without passing over a village he has reached, walk there for alms; and whether he obtains nothing there or obtains a little, he should walk in the order of the village. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner does not take almsfood brought to him beforehand, or afterward, or brought and given at his resting-place; but he does hold out his bowl at the bowl-door. In this ascetic practice there is none equal to the Elder Mahākassapa; even the very place where he held out his bowl is renowned. The middling practitioner takes what is brought beforehand or afterward, and what is brought to his resting-place, and also holds out his bowl at the bowl-door — but he does not sit waiting for almsfood. In this way he conforms to the strict alms-food practitioner. The mild practitioner, having sat down for the day, waits for almsfood to come.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment greedy alms-going arises. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: constant freshness among families; likeness to the moon; the abandonment of stinginess regarding families; equal compassion toward all; freedom from the drawbacks of being too closely attached to supporting families; not delighting in being specially summoned; having no interest in food specially brought to him; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Like the moon, ever fresh among families, free of stinginess, equally compassionate to all, released from the drawbacks of attachment to supporting families — such does the uninterrupted-alms-going monk become here.

Therefore, having given up greedy alms-going, with downcast eyes, seeing no farther than a yoke's length ahead, wishing for the freedom to wander at will upon the earth, let the wise one walk the uninterrupted alms-round.

This is the account of the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The one-sessioner's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse eating at more than one sitting; I undertake the one-sessioner's practice."

Now, the one-sessioner, when sitting in the sitting-hall, should not sit on the elder's seat, but, having noted a fitting seat with the thought "this will fall to me," should sit there. If, while his meal is unfinished, his teacher or his preceptor arrives, it is proper to rise and perform the duty of respect. But the Elder Cūḷābhaya, master of the three Piṭakas, says this: "Let him preserve either his seat or his meal — but since this one's meal is unfinished, let him perform the duty, only let him not eat further." This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner, once he has lowered his hand into a meal, whether little or much, may take nothing beyond that. Even if people, thinking "the elder has eaten nothing," bring ghee and the like, it is proper to accept these only for medicinal purposes, not for the purpose of food. The middling practitioner may take more as long as the food in his bowl is not exhausted; for this one is bounded by the completion of the meal. The mild practitioner may eat as long as he has not risen from his seat; for he is bounded either by water — eating up until he takes up the water for washing the bowl — or bounded by his seat — eating up until he rises from it.

For all three of these, the practice breaks at the very moment he eats at more than one sitting. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: little affliction; little sickness; lightness of body; strength; a comfortable abiding; freedom from offense regarding food not properly disposed of; the dispelling of craving for taste; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Sickness caused by food does not overpower the ascetic who delights in eating at a single sitting; not greedy for tastes, he does not neglect his own task.

Thus, in this cause of comfortable abiding, resorted to by those who delight in pure austerity, let the ascetic of purified mind generate delight in eating at a single sitting.

This is the account of the one-sessioner's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The bowl-food-eater's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse a second vessel; I undertake the bowl-food-eater's practice."

Now, the bowl-food eater, at the time of drinking rice-gruel, having set it down in a vessel, should — if he has obtained a curry — either eat the curry first or drink the gruel first. But if he does put the curry into the gruel, then, when a foul-smelling curry such as rotten fish has been put in, the gruel becomes repulsive; and it is proper to eat it only once it has been made non-repulsive. This, therefore, was said with reference to a curry of that kind. But whatever is not repulsive, such as honey or sugar, may be put in directly. And one taking anything should take only a fitting amount. It is proper to take raw greens with the hand and eat them directly; but if this is not done, they should be put only into the bowl. And since a second vessel is refused, not even another container such as a tree-leaf is proper. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, for the strict practitioner, apart from the time of eating sugar-cane, it is not proper even to discard scraps; nor is it proper to break up a lump of rice, fish, meat, or a cake before eating it. For the middling practitioner, it is proper to break such things with one hand and eat; this one is called "hand-conforming." The mild practitioner is called "bowl-conforming"; for him, whatever can be fitted into the bowl, all of it is proper to break with hand or teeth and eat.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment he consents to a second vessel. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the dispelling of craving for various tastes; the abandonment of excessive wanting; seeing food only in terms of its purpose; freedom from the trouble of carrying about various dishes and the like; not being distracted while eating; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Having given up the distraction of various vessels, with downcast eyes, the well-restrained one, as though digging out the very roots of craving for taste —

bearing, as it were, the very form of contentment itself, with a wholesome mind, so should he partake of food — who else could be a bowl-food eater?

This is the account of the bowl-food-eater's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The after-meal-refuser's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse extra food; I undertake the after-meal-refuser's practice."

Now, the after-meal-refuser, having indicated that he is satisfied, should not, having had further food specially made allowable, eat it. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner — since there is, properly speaking, no act of declining at the very first mouthful, yet in the swallowing of that mouthful he becomes one who has declined anything further — having thus, in this sense, already declared himself satisfied by swallowing the first mouthful, does not eat a second. The middling practitioner eats only the meal he was [formally] offered and declined further of. The mild practitioner eats for as long as he has not risen from his seat.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment that, having declined further food, they nevertheless have it specially made allowable and eat it. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: being far removed from the offense of eating food not properly set aside; freedom from gluttony; freedom from storing up food; the absence of any need to search for food again; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

The wise one does not go to the trouble of further searching, nor does he build up a store; the after-meal-refusing meditator abandons gluttony.

Therefore, wishing to shake off faults, let the meditator resort to this ascetic practice, praised by the Well-Gone One, productive of the growth of contentment and the other virtues.

This is the account of the after-meal-refuser's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The forest-dweller's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse a village-edge dwelling; I undertake the forest-dweller's practice."

Now, the forest-dweller, having left a village-edge dwelling, should let dawn rise upon him in the forest. Herein, the village together with its boundary zone is itself "a village-edge dwelling."

A "village" is any settlement whatsoever — whether of one hut or of many, whether walled or unwalled, whether inhabited by humans or by non-humans — even, at the very least, a caravan encamped for more than four months.

The "village's boundary zone": for a walled village, if — as at Anurādhapura itself — it has two boundary-posts, then it is the throw of a clod of earth by a man of middling strength standing at the innermost boundary-post. Its measure, as the Vinaya-masters say, is this: just as young men, displaying their strength, stretch out an arm and hurl a clod — the area within where a clod so thrown would land. The Sutta-masters, however, say it is measured by a throw sufficient merely to drive off a crow. For an unwalled village, the boundary of the house is the point where water thrown from a vessel would fall, thrown by a woman standing at the door of the outermost house on any side. From that point, by the method just given, one clod's throw marks the "village," and a second clod's throw marks its "boundary zone."

"Forest," now: in the Vinaya's own mode of reckoning, it is said, "setting aside the village and the village's boundary zone, all this is forest" (Pārājika 92). In the Abhidhamma's mode of reckoning, it is said, "having gone out beyond the boundary-posts, all this is forest" (Vibhaṅga 529). But in this Suttanta mode of reckoning — the one that applies here — the defining measure is: "a forest dwelling is one that is, at the least, five hundred bow-lengths away." Using the standard bow-length as the unit of measure, one should measure and determine the distance starting from the boundary-post of a walled village, or from the point of the first clod's throw of an unwalled village, up to the enclosure of the monastery.

But if the monastery itself is unwalled, then whichever is nearest — the dwelling, or the refectory, or the permanent assembly place, or the Bodhi tree, or a shrine — even if that is far from the main dwelling, that point should be taken as the boundary and measured from; so it is said in the Vinaya commentaries. In the Majjhima commentary, however, it is said that the monastery's own boundary zone should likewise be drawn out just as the village's is, and the measurement taken between the two clod-throw points. This, herein, is the standard.

Now if the village is close by, so that the sound of human voices can be heard while standing in the monastery, but it is impossible to go there directly because it is separated by a mountain, a river, or the like — then, by whatever is the normal route, even if that route must be traveled by boat, that route should be taken as [the measure of] the five hundred bow-lengths. But whoever, in order to make the distance appear to satisfy the requirement, blocks off this or that more direct path to the nearby village — this person is a thief of the ascetic practice.

But if a forest-dwelling monk's preceptor or teacher becomes sick, and he, unable to obtain what is suitable for him in the forest, must bring him to a village-edge dwelling and attend upon him — that is proper. But he should go out early, and let dawn rise upon him in a place still meeting the requirement. If, at the very time dawn is about to rise, their illness worsens, he should simply do what needs to be done for them; he need not insist on remaining strictly pure in the ascetic practice at such a time. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner must let dawn rise upon him in the forest at all times. The middling practitioner may dwell at the village edge for the four months of the rains. The mild practitioner may do so in the cold season as well.

For all three of these, the practice is not broken if, having come from the forest to a village-edge dwelling at an agreed time to hear the Dhamma, dawn rises upon them there. Nor is it broken if, having heard it and being on their way back, dawn rises upon them in the middle of the road. But if, though the Dhamma-talk has ended, thinking "we shall just lie down for a moment and then go," they fall asleep, and dawn rises upon them in that state — or if, by their own preference, they let dawn rise at a village-edge dwelling — then the practice breaks. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the forest-dwelling monk, giving attention to the perception of the forest, is capable both of gaining concentration not yet gained, and of guarding concentration already gained; and the Teacher himself is pleased with him. As it is said: "Therefore, Nāgita, I am pleased with that monk on account of his forest-dwelling" (A.N. 6.42; 8.86). And for one who dwells in a remote lodging, unsuitable sights and the rest do not distract his mind; he becomes free of alarm; he abandons attachment to life; he savors the taste of the happiness of seclusion; and even his practice of the rag-robe and the other practices becomes fitting for him.

Secluded, unmixed with company, delighting in a remote lodging, satisfying the Protector's own mind through his dwelling in the woods —

the happiness that an ascetic dwelling alone in the forest obtains — even the gods together with Indra do not find its taste.

Wearing the rag-robe itself as though it were armor, having gone to the battle of the forest, armed with the remaining ascetic practices —

he is capable, before long, of conquering Māra together with his army. Therefore let the wise one take delight in dwelling in the forest.

This is the account of the forest-dweller's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The tree-root-dweller's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse a roof; I undertake the tree-root-dweller's practice."

Now, the tree-root-dweller, avoiding a boundary tree, a shrine tree, a resin tree, a fruit tree, a bat tree, a hollow tree, and a tree standing in the middle of the monastery, should take a tree standing at the edge of the monastery. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner may not take a tree of his liking and have it specially prepared; he should dwell there having only cleared away fallen leaves with his foot. The middling practitioner may have that spot prepared, but only by those who happen to come there of their own accord. For the mild practitioner, it is proper to summon monastery attendants or novices, have the ground cleared, leveled, and strewn with sand, have an enclosing wall built and a door fitted, and dwell there. But on a festival day, the tree-root-dweller should not sit there, but should sit elsewhere, in a hidden place.

For all three of these, the practice breaks at the very moment he takes up dwelling under a roof. The reciters of the Aṅguttara say it breaks only at the moment dawn rises upon him, knowingly, under a roof. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: because of the saying "going-forth is founded upon a lodging at the root of a tree" (Mahāvagga 128), there is a manner of practice suited to one's reliance; being requisites praised by the Blessed One as "both few and easy to obtain, and blameless" (A.N. 4.27; Itivuttaka 101); the arising of the perception of impermanence, through constantly seeing the changing state of the tree's leaves; freedom from stinginess about lodging and from delight in construction work; dwelling in the company of deities; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Praised by the best of Buddhas, and spoken of as "a reliance" — for one who is secluded, what dwelling could equal the root of a tree?

For the well-restrained one dwells secluded at the root of a tree, a place free of stinginess about lodging, watched over by deities.

Seeing the leaves of the tree — deep red, green, yellowing, and fallen — he dispels the perception of permanence.

Therefore let the discerning one not look down upon the root of a tree — the Buddha's own legacy, a secluded abode dear to one who delights in meditative development.

This is the account of the tree-root-dweller's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The open-air-dweller's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse both a roof and the root of a tree; I undertake the open-air-dweller's practice."

Now, it is proper for the open-air-dweller to enter an observance-day hall for hearing the Dhamma or for the observance-day itself. If, once he has entered, it begins to rain, he should not go out while it is raining, but go out once the rain has stopped. It is proper to enter a refectory or a fire-hall to perform a duty; to ask the senior monks in the refectory about the meal; to enter a roofed place while reciting the dedication verses himself, or having another recite them; and to bring inside such things as beds and chairs that have been badly left outdoors. If, while going along a road, he is carrying the requisites of more senior monks, and it begins to rain, it is proper to enter a hall standing in the middle of the road. If he is carrying nothing, it is not proper to hurry, thinking "I will get to the hall." But having gone at his ordinary pace and entered, he should wait there until the rain has stopped before going on. This is its regulation. The same method applies to the tree-root-dweller as well.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, it is not proper for the strict practitioner to dwell relying on a tree, a mountain, or a house; he should dwell only in a tent made of robe-cloth, in the open air itself. It is proper for the middling practitioner to dwell relying on a tree, a mountain, or a house, without actually going inside. For the mild practitioner, an unroofed rock overhang, a leaf-bower, a plank-shed, or even a small hut left standing there by field-watchers and the like, is also proper.

For all three of these, the practice breaks at the very moment he enters a roofed place or the root of a tree for the purpose of dwelling. The reciters of the Aṅguttara say it breaks only at the moment dawn rises upon him there, knowingly. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the cutting off of the encumbrance of a fixed dwelling; the dispelling of dullness and drowsiness; conformity with the praise, "like deer, roaming unattached, monks dwell without a fixed abode" (S.N. 1.224); freedom from attachment; belonging to all four quarters; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Beneath a canopy suited to the homeless life, not hard to obtain, a canopy of star-jewels, lit by the lamp of the moon —

the monk dwelling in the open air, with a mind become like a deer's, having dispelled dullness and drowsiness, resorting to delight in meditative development —

finds, before long, the very taste of the flavor of seclusion. Therefore, indeed, let the wise one delight in the open air.

This is the account of the open-air-dweller's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The charnel-ground-dweller's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I do not refuse a charnel ground; I undertake the charnel-ground-dweller's practice."

Now, the charnel-ground-dweller should not dwell in a place that people, when founding a village, merely designate as "this is a charnel ground." For a place does not become a charnel ground simply because a corpse has been cremated there once — but from the time of a cremation, even if the place has been abandoned for as long as twelve years, it remains a charnel ground still.

But one dwelling there should not have walking-paths and pavilions built, a bed and chair set out, and drinking and washing water arranged, and then have the Dhamma recited there. This ascetic practice is a weighty one; therefore, in order to ward off any danger that arises, one should inform the Sangha's elder or the royal official, and dwell heedfully. While walking in meditation, one should walk keeping half an eye on the cremation ground.

Even when going to the charnel ground, one should turn off the main road and go by a side path. The object of practice should be settled upon during the daytime itself — for thus it will not be frightening to him at night. Non-human beings, even while wandering about at night crying out again and again, should not be struck by anyone. It is not proper to stay away from the charnel ground even for a single day. The reciters of the Aṅguttara say it is proper to spend the middle watch of the night at the charnel ground and withdraw in the last watch. Food dear to non-human beings — sesame flour, bean porridge, fish, meat, milk, oil, molasses, and the like — should not be eaten. One should not enter a family's house. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner should dwell only where there is constant cremation, constant corpses, and constant weeping. For the middling practitioner, it is proper even if only one of the three is present. For the mild practitioner, it is proper as soon as a place has merely met the definition of a charnel ground stated above.

For all three of these, the practice breaks by failing to keep up residence in the charnel ground. The reciters of the Aṅguttara say it breaks on a day he has not gone to the charnel ground at all. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the attainment of mindfulness of death; abiding heedfully; the attainment of the sign of foulness; the dispelling of sensual lust; the constant seeing of the true nature of the body; an abundance of a sense of urgency; the abandonment of the conceit of health and the rest; the endurance of fear and dread; being greatly esteemed by non-human beings; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

For the charnel-ground-dweller, by the power of mindfulness of death, the faults of heedlessness do not touch him even while asleep; and for one who continually beholds many corpses, his mind does not fall under the sway of sensual pleasure either.

He arrives at abundant urgency, not at intoxication; and rightly he strives, seeking peace. Since the charnel-ground practice brings so many virtues, it should be resorted to by one whose heart inclines toward Nibbāna.

This is the account of the charnel-ground-dweller's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The any-bed-user's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse greed for a particular lodging; I undertake the any-bed-user's practice."

Now, the any-bed-user, with whatever lodging has been allotted to him with the words "this falls to you," should be content with that alone; he should not have another monk displaced. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, the strict practitioner may not ask whether his allotted lodging is far away, or too close, or troubled by non-humans, long creatures, and the like, or hot, or cold. The middling practitioner may ask, but may not go and inspect it. The mild practitioner may go and inspect it, and, if it does not please him, may take another.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment that greed for a lodging arises. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: because of the saying "one should be content with what one gets" (Jātaka 1.1.136; Pācittiya 793), the following of that instruction; seeking the welfare of one's fellow monks in the holy life; giving up the distinction between an inferior and an excellent lodging; the abandonment of approval and disapproval; the closing of the door to excessive wanting; a way of living in conformity with wanting little and the rest.

Content with whatever he gets, the any-bed-using ascetic, free of discrimination, sleeps happily even upon a mere spread of grass.

He is not attached when he gets the best, nor angered when he gets the poorest; he has compassion, with a heart for their welfare, even toward the newest of his fellow monks in the holy life.

Therefore let the wise one pursue delight in this any-allotted-lodging practice, practiced by hundreds of noble ones, praised by the foremost of sages.

This is the account of the any-bed-user's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

The sitter's practice too is undertaken by either one of these forms of words: "I refuse lying down; I undertake the sitter's practice."

Now, the sitter, having risen during one of the three watches of the night, should walk in walking meditation. Among the postures, it is only lying down that is not permitted at all. This is its regulation.

By way of classification, this practice too is threefold. Herein, for the strict practitioner, neither a backrest, nor a cloth sling, nor a supporting strap-band is proper. For the middling practitioner, any one of these three is proper. For the mild practitioner, a backrest, a cloth sling, a strap-band, a cushion, and even five-limbed or seven-limbed supports are all proper. The five-limbed support is made together with a back-support; the seven-limbed is made with a back-support together with supports on both sides as well. It is said that this was made for the Elder Miḷābhaya. The Elder, having become a non-returner, attained final Nibbāna.

For all three of these, the practice breaks the very moment he takes to lying down. This, herein, is the breach.

This, now, is the benefit: the cutting off of that mental bondage spoken of as "one dwells devoted to the pleasure of lying down, the pleasure of reclining, the pleasure of sleep" (D.N. 3.320; M.N. 1.186); suitability for devotion to every meditation subject; a pleasing deportment; conduciveness to the arousing of energy; the fostering of right practice.

Having folded his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, the ascetic, simply by sitting, shakes the very heart of Māra.

Having given up the pleasure of lying down and the pleasure of sleep, with energy aroused, the monk who delights in sitting adorns the grove of austerity.

Since he thereby attains a joy and happiness free of the flesh, therefore let the wise one devote himself to the observance of the sitter's practice.

This is the account of the sitter's practice by way of undertaking, regulation, classification, breach, and benefit.

Now —

"And by way of the wholesome triad, and by way of the division into 'the ascetic' and related terms, and also by way of summary and elaboration — the determination should be known."

The explanation now proceeds by means of this verse.

Herein, "by way of the wholesome triad": all the ascetic practices, according to whether undertaken by trainees, ordinary worldlings, or those whose taints are destroyed, may be wholesome, or may be indeterminate — there is no ascetic practice that is unwholesome.

But if someone should say, "because of such statements as 'one of evil wishes, overcome by desire, becomes a forest-dweller' (A.N. 5.181; Parivāra 325), an ascetic practice can be unwholesome too" — he should be told: we do not say "one does not dwell in the forest with an unwholesome mind." For whoever dwells in the forest is a forest-dweller, and he may be either of evil wishes or of few wishes. But these are the factors of a monk who is "ascetic," by having shaken off defilement through this or that undertaking; or else, the knowledge that has acquired the name "ascetic" precisely by shaking off defilement is the factor of these — hence "ascetic-factors." Or else, they are themselves "ascetic" by shaking off the opposing defilements, and are "factors" by way of practice — in this sense too they were called "ascetic-factors." And no one becomes "ascetic" by means of something unwholesome, of which these could be the factors; nor does anything unwholesome shake off anything, such that, having been made a factor of that, it could be called an "ascetic-factor." Nor does anything unwholesome shake off such things as greed for robes, nor does it become a factor by way of practice. Therefore this was well said: "there is no unwholesome ascetic-practice."

"And for those who hold that an ascetic-practice falls outside the wholesome triad altogether, for them, in truth, there is no ascetic-practice at all. From the shaking off of what non-existent thing would it be called an ascetic-practice? A contradiction with the saying 'he undertakes and practices the ascetic qualities' would also follow for them; therefore that view should not be accepted." This, for now, is the explanation by way of the wholesome triad.

"By way of the division into 'the ascetic' and related terms": "the ascetic [person]" should be understood; "the speaker of asceticism" should be understood; "the qualities of asceticism" should be understood; "the ascetic-factors" should be understood; and "for whom the practice of the ascetic-factors is suitable" should be understood.

Herein, "the ascetic" is either a person who has shaken off defilement, or a quality that shakes off defilement.

As for "the speaker of asceticism": here there is one who is ascetic but not a speaker of asceticism; one who is not ascetic but a speaker of asceticism; one who is neither ascetic nor a speaker of asceticism; and one who is both ascetic and a speaker of asceticism.

Herein, one who has shaken off his own defilements by means of the ascetic practices, but does not exhort or instruct another in them, like the Elder Bākula — this one is ascetic but not a speaker of asceticism. As it is said: "Thus the Venerable Bākula is ascetic but not a speaker of asceticism." But one who has not shaken off his own defilements by means of the ascetic practices, yet merely exhorts and instructs others in them, like the Elder Upananda — this one is not ascetic but a speaker of asceticism. As it is said: "Thus the Venerable Upananda of the Sakyan clan is not ascetic but a speaker of asceticism." One who has failed at both, like the Venerable Lāḷudāyī, is neither ascetic nor a speaker of asceticism. As it is said: "Thus the Venerable Lāḷudāyī is neither ascetic nor a speaker of asceticism." But one accomplished in both, like the General of the Dhamma, is both ascetic and a speaker of asceticism. As it is said: "Thus the Venerable Sāriputta is both ascetic and a speaker of asceticism."

"The qualities of asceticism should be understood": wanting little, contentment, austerity, seclusion, and having this as one's purpose — these five qualities that accompany the volition of undertaking the ascetic practices are called "the qualities of asceticism," because of such sayings as "relying on wanting little alone" (A.N. 5.181; Parivāra 325). Herein, wanting little and contentment are both forms of non-greed. Austerity and seclusion both fall under two states — non-greed and non-delusion. Having this as one's purpose is simply knowledge itself. And herein, by non-greed one shakes off greed for the things that are refused; by non-delusion one shakes off the delusion that conceals the danger in those very things. By non-greed one shakes off the pursuit of sensual pleasure proceeding by way of over-indulgence in what is permitted; by non-delusion one shakes off the pursuit of self-torment proceeding by way of excessive austerity in the ascetic practices. Therefore these qualities should be understood as "the qualities of asceticism."

"The ascetic-factors should be understood": the thirteen ascetic-factors should be understood — the rag-robe practice ... and so on ... the sitter's practice. These have already been explained, both as to their meaning and by way of characteristic and the rest.

"For whom the practice of the ascetic-factors is suitable": for one of lustful temperament and one of deluded temperament. Why? Because the practice of the ascetic-factors is both a difficult mode of progress and an austere way of living. By relying on a difficult mode of progress, lust is calmed. By relying on austerity, delusion is abandoned in one who is heedful. Or, here, the practice of the forest-dweller's and tree-root-dweller's practices is suitable also for one of hating temperament — for there, dwelling without being jostled by others, his hatred too is calmed. This is the explanation by way of the division into "the ascetic" and related terms.

"By way of summary and elaboration": in summary, these ascetic-factors amount to only eight — three "head factors" and five "unmixed factors." Herein, the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice, the one-sessioner's practice, and the open-air-dweller's practice are the three "head factors." For one who keeps the uninterrupted-alms-goer's practice will also keep the alms-food practice. And for one who keeps the one-sessioner's practice, the bowl-food-eater's and after-meal-refuser's practices will also be well kept. For one who keeps the open-air-dweller's practice, what is there left to keep in the tree-root-dweller's or the any-bed-user's practices? Thus these three "head factors," together with the forest-dweller's, the rag-robe, the triple-robe, the sitter's, and the charnel-ground-dweller's practices — these five "unmixed factors" — make eight in all.

Again, there are just four: two connected with robes, five connected with almsfood, five connected with lodging, and one connected with energy. Herein, the sitter's practice is the one connected with energy; the others are self-evident.

Again, by way of reliance, all become just two: twelve dependent on requisites, and one dependent on energy. By way of what should and should not be practiced, too, there are just two. For one whose meditation subject grows by practicing the ascetic practices, they should be practiced. For one for whom it declines by practicing them, they should not be practiced. But for one for whom it grows regardless, whether he practices them or not, even by him, out of compassion for later generations, they should be practiced. And for one for whom it grows neither by practicing nor by not practicing, even by him they should still be practiced, for the sake of forming a habitual disposition for the future.

Thus, even though twofold by way of what should and should not be practiced, all of them become, by way of volition, of a single kind — for the ascetic-factor is just one thing: the volition of undertaking. It is also said in the commentary: "they say that whatever the volition is, that is the ascetic-factor."

By way of elaboration, however: for monks, thirteen; for nuns, eight; for novice-monks, twelve; for female probationers and novice-nuns, seven; for laymen and laywomen, two — forty-two in all. But if there is, in the open air, a charnel ground possessing the qualification of the forest-dweller's practice, even a single monk is able to make use of all the ascetic practices at a single stroke.

But for nuns, both the forest-dweller's and the after-meal-refuser's practices are already excluded by a training rule itself; and the open-air-dweller's, tree-root-dweller's, and charnel-ground-dweller's practices — these three — are difficult to maintain. For it is not proper for a nun to dwell without a companion, and in such a place a like-minded companion is hard to find; even should she find one, she would not be free of a shared dwelling — and this being so, the very purpose for which she would practice the ascetic-practice would not itself be accomplished. Thus, since these five cannot be practiced in this way, they are set aside, and only eight remain for nuns. Among those stated for monks, setting aside the triple-robe practice, the remaining twelve should be understood as belonging to novice-monks, and seven to female probationers and novice-nuns. For laymen and laywomen, the one-sessioner's and the bowl-food-eater's practices are the two that are both fitting and possible to practice. Thus, by way of elaboration, there are forty-two in all. This is the explanation by way of summary and elaboration.

And with this much, in the Path of Purification taught by way of virtue, concentration, and understanding through the verse "A man of wisdom, established in virtue..." — the discourse on the ascetic practices that should be undertaken, for the sake of accomplishing those qualities such as wanting little and contentment by which the cleansing of virtue already described comes about, has now been spoken.

Thus, in the Visuddhimagga, composed for the gladdening of good people, this is the second chapter, called the Description of the Ascetic Practices.