… at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove at the squirrels’ feeding-place. Now at that time the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, was dependent as a regular diner on a certain family in Rājagaha. When solid food or soft food came to that family, a portion from that was set aside for the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans. Now at that time meat came one evening to that family, a portion from that was set aside for the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans. A young boy belonging to that family, getting up in the night towards morning, cried: “Give me meat.” Then the man spoke thus to his wife:

“Give the boy the master’s portion, having got another (portion) in exchange, we will give that to the master.”

Then the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, dressing in the morning and taking his bowl and robe, approached the family, and having approached he sat down on the appointed seat. Then that man approached the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans; having approached, having greeted the venerable Upananda, the, son of the Sakyans, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting at a respectful distance, that man spoke thus to the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans:

“Yesterday evening, honoured sir, (some) meat came, a portion from that was set aside for the master. This young boy, honoured sir, got up in the night towards morning and cried: ‘Give me meat,’ and the master’s portion was given to the boy. What could you get with a kahāpaṇa, honoured sir?”

“(The use of) kahāpaṇas is given up by me, sir,” he said.

“Yes, honoured sir, it is given up.”

“Nevertheless give me a kahāpaṇa, sir,” he said. Then that man having given the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, a kahāpaṇa, looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:

“As we accept gold and silver, so do these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, accept gold and silver.”

Monks heard that man who … spread it about. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can the venerable Upananda, the son of the Sakyans, accept gold and silver?” Then these monks told this matter to the lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, that you, Upananda, accepted gold and silver?”

“It is true, lord.”

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked him, saying:

“How can you, foolish man, accept gold and silver?

It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

“Whatever monk should take gold and silver, or should get another to take it (for him), or should consent to its being kept in deposit (for him), there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.”

Whatever means: … is monk to be understood in this case.

Gold means: it is called the colour of the teacher.

Silver means: the kahāpaṇa, the masaka of copper, the māsaka of wood, the māsaka of lac, used in business.

Should take means: if he himself takes, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.

Should get another to take it (for him) means: if he causes another to take it, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture.

Should consent to its being kept in deposit means: if he says: ‘Let this come to be for the master,’ or consents to its being kept in deposit, it is to be forfeited. It should be forfeited in the midst of the Order. And thus, monks, should it be forfeited: That monk, approaching the Order, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, honouring the feet of the senior monks, sitting down on his haunches, saluting with joined palms, should speak thus: ‘I, honoured sirs, accepted gold and silver, this is to be forfeited by me. I forfeit it to the Order.’ Having forfeited it, the offence should be confessed. The offence should be acknowledged by an experienced, competent monk. If an attendant of a monastery or a lay-follower comes there, he should be told: ‘Sir, find out about this.’ If he says: ‘What could be got with this?’ he should not be told: ‘Bring this or that’; oil or ghee or honey or molasses may be mentioned as allowable. If he brings what is allowable, having got it in exchange for this, it may be made use of by all except the one who accepted the gold and silver. If he can undertake to do this in this way, it is well. But if he cannot undertake to do it, he should be told: ‘Sir, remove this.’ If he removes it, it is well. But if he does not remove it, a monk endowed with five qualities should be agreed upon as silver-remover: one who would not follow a wrong course through desire, one who would not follow a wrong course through hatred, one who would not follow a wrong course through stupidity, one who would not follow a wrong course through fear, and one who would know what is removed and what is not removed. And thus, monks, should he be agreed upon: First, the monk is to be requested. Having been requested, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order should agree upon the monk so and so as silver-remover. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order agrees upon the monk so and so as silver-remover. If it is pleasing to the venerable ones to agree upon the monk so and so as silver-remover, let them be silent; if it is not pleasing, they should speak. The monk so and so is agreed upon by the Order as silver-remover, and it is right … Thus do I understand this.’ It is to be removed by the monk agreed upon making no sign. If, making a sign, he lets it drop, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

If he thinks that it is gold and silver when it is gold and silver, (and) accepts gold and silver, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. If he is in doubt as to whether it is gold and silver, (and) accepts gold and silver, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. If he thinks that it is not gold and silver when it is gold and silver, (and) accepts gold and silver, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. If he thinks that it is gold and silver when it is not gold and silver, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether it is not gold and silver, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not gold and silver when it is not gold and silver, there is no offence.

There is no offence if, taking it or causing (another), to take it within a monastery or within a house, he lays it aside, thinking, ‘It will be for him who will take it’; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.