Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Vinayapiṭaka

Vinayasaṅgaha-aṭṭhakathā

Introduction to the Text

Having paid homage to the Triple Gem, the refuge of all beings;
For the benefit of the yogāvacara bhikkhus in the study of the Vinaya,

Scattered in many places, the judgments on the Pāḷi texts;
Gathering them in one place, I will present them clearly.

Here is the table of contents –

‘‘Daytime resting, requisites, and the making of medicine;
Protection, hospitality, request, and the gathering of families.

‘‘Fish and meat, unassigned items, determination and alternatives;
Dwelling without robes, and the storage of goods.

‘‘Commercial transactions, acceptance of silver, etc.;
The transformation of gains through gifts and trusting acceptance.

‘‘Earth and the plant kingdom, twofold shared beds;
Lying down in a Saṅgha's dwelling, spreading out and departing.

‘‘The four kinds of kālika, the four grounds for allowance;
Acceptance of edibles, etc., rejection and invitation.

‘‘Ordination, dependence, boundary, Uposatha and Pavāraṇā;
Entering the rains, duties, and sharing the four requisites.

‘‘Kathina, heavy goods, investigation of accusations, etc.;
Emergence from a grave offense, permissible and impermissible actions, miscellaneous matters.’’

1. Explanation of Divāseyya

1. Here, divāseyyā means daytime lying down. In this regard, this is the judgment: "I allow, monks, for one who is resting during the day to close the door and rest" (pārā. 77). Therefore, one who lies down during the day should lie down after closing the door. Although it is not stated in the Pāḷi text, "This is the offense," because permission was granted to lie down after closing the door in a case that arose due to the fault of lying down with the door open, the Aṭṭhakathā states a dukkaṭa offense for one who lies down without closing it (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77). Indeed, the Aṭṭhakathā was established by the Elder Upāli and others after understanding the Buddha's intention. This is also established by the statement, "One incurs an offense by lying down during the day, but not at night" (pari. 323).

2. What kind of door should be closed, and what kind should not be closed? Only a door made by using any material such as tree bark, bamboo strips, or leaves, and fitted with a pivot, inserting it into a socket below and a lintel above, should be closed. Other types, such as a thorny tree branch door like those in cattle pens, a village-style door with a wheel-lock, a sliding panel door made by attaching two or three wheels to planks or screens, a hinged screen door like those in shops, a leaf-hut door made by threading bamboo strips in two or three places, or a cloth screen door—such doors should not be closed. However, for one who is holding a bowl, only arranging a cloth screen door is free from offense; incurring an offense for arranging the remainder. For one who is resting during the day, only closing a pivoted door incurs an offense; there is no offense for lying down with the others closed or unclosed, but one should lie down after closing it; this is the proper conduct.

3. How much should a pivoted door be closed? It is considered closed when the bolt is inserted into the socket. Moreover, it is valid even if only the bolt is inserted, or only the socket is engaged, or simply touching the doorframe, or even slightly not touching it; by the final method, it is valid even if it is not touching to the extent that the head does not fit through. If there is a place for many to gather, it is also valid to lie down after telling a monk or novice, "Friend, watch the door." Or, if monks are sitting doing robe work or something else, it is also valid to lie down after making the intention, "These will watch the door." However, the Kurundaṭṭhakathā states, "It is also valid to lie down after asking a lay follower or making the intention, 'He will watch'; it is not valid to ask a bhikkhuni or a woman," and that is appropriate. Thus, in all cases, whatever Theravāda or Aṭṭhakathā teaching is stated later, that should be taken as authoritative.

4. Now, if the door's socket or lintel is broken or dislodged, making it impossible to close, or if new construction material, such as a pile of bricks or a heap of clay, is placed inside the door, or if a weaving frame is set up, making it impossible to close, it is valid to lie down without closing it in such circumstances. But if there is no door, one should obtain a temporary substitute. If lying on an upper level, one should bring up a ladder and lie down. If there is a latch at the top of the ladder, one should latch it before lying down. When lying down in a room, one should close either the room door or the main door, whichever is possible. If they gather in a single-walled dwelling with doors on two sides, both doors must be guarded; even in a three-story building, the door must be guarded. If, after returning from alms round, many monks enter a building similar to the Lohapāsāda for daytime dwelling, the senior Saṅgha member should either tell the doorkeeper, "Guard the door," or make the intention, "The responsibility of guarding the door belongs to him," before entering and lying down. This should be done in the same way by the junior Saṅgha members. It is also valid for those entering first to make the intention, "The responsibility of guarding the door belongs to those who come later." An offense is incurred for those who lie down inside a room or outside without asking or making an intention, or with the door open. Even while lying down inside or outside, it is still valid to lie down after making the intention, "The responsibility of guarding the door belongs to the doorkeeper at the main gate." Thus, even when lying down on an open terrace in places like the Lohapāsāda, the door must be closed.

The Mahāpaccariyaṃ, however, states, "One is not freed from a dukkaṭa offense due to carelessness even when lying down like this."

5. Now, if someone, after staying awake for a long time at night or traveling a distance, being tired during the day, sits on a bench without removing his feet from the ground and falls asleep, there is no offense. But if, falling asleep, he unknowingly raises his feet onto the bench, there is an offense. There is no offense for one who falls asleep leaning against something while sitting. Also, there is no offense for one who is walking to dispel drowsiness and falls down, suddenly getting up. But if one falls down and lies there without getting up, he incurs an offense.

In the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, it is stated, "Only one who lies down in a single posture is freed. One who lies down after removing his feet from the ground, even if possessed by a yakkha or unconscious, is not freed." However, the Kurundaṭṭhakathā states, "Only one who is tied down and made to lie down is freed." The Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, states, "Even if one who is walking falls down unconscious and sleeps there, an offense is not seen due to lack of awareness. But the teachers do not say this, therefore, the Elder Mahāpaduma said that there is definitely an offense. However, two people are definitely freed from the offense: one who is possessed by a yakkha, and one who is tied down and made to lie down."

Thus ends the explanation of Divāseyya in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha

The explanation of Divāseyya is complete.

2. Explanation of Parikkhāra

6. Parikkhāra means monastic requisites. Here is the judgment on permissible and impermissible requisites (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85): Some sew a palm-leaf umbrella, inside or out, with five-colored thread, making it decorative; that is not permissible. But it is permissible to sew it inside or out with thread of a single color, such as blue or yellow, or any other color, or to reinforce the supporting frame of the umbrella, but that is permissible for strengthening, not for decoration. It is not permissible to cut the palm leaves of the umbrella into designs like makara teeth or half-moons. It is not permissible to have a design like a pot or a creeper on the umbrella handle, like those on house pillars. Even if lines are drawn everywhere with a stylus, that is also not permissible. The pot or creeper design should be broken off and retained, or the lines should be scraped off or removed, or the handle should be wrapped with thread. However, a design resembling a mushroom is permissible on the umbrella knob. To prevent movement due to wind, they secure the umbrella canopy by fastening ropes to the handle; in that fastening place, they carve a raised line like a ring; that is permissible.

7. For the purpose of decorating robes, they sew various threads resembling centipedes and attach a decorative border, or do any other kind of needlework decoration; all of this, such as braids or chains or hammers on the border or edge, is not permissible; only plain needlework is permissible. They make square patches and loop patches, and even octagonal and hexagonal ones, and depict valuable gems, elephants, and hammers on them, carving out crab eyes; all of that is not permissible; only a square shape is permissible, and colored corner gussets that are inconspicuous on the robes are permissible. It is not permissible to put robes into containers for sour gruel or flour paste, but it is permissible during robe-making to wash away hand dirt, needle dirt, etc., and to wash them when they are soiled; it is not permissible to put perfume, lac, or oil into the dye.

Mūlarajanaṃ (root dye) is permissible, and all khandharajanaṃ (trunk dye) is permissible except for mañjiṭṭhi and tuṅgahāra. Tuṅgahāra is a thorny tree, and its yellowish-green color is khandharajanaṃ. All tacarajanaṃ (bark dye) is permissible except for lodda and kaṇḍula. All pattarajanaṃ (leaf dye) is permissible except for allipatta and nīlipatta. However, it is permissible to dye a robe once with allipatta that has been used by a layperson. All puppharajanaṃ (flower dye) is permissible except for kiṃsuka flowers and kusumbha flowers. In phalarajanaṃ (fruit dye), nothing is impermissible (mahāva. aṭṭha. 344).

8. After dyeing the robe, it should not be rubbed with conch shells or gems or anything else, nor should it be rubbed in a trough, kneeling on the ground and holding it with the hands. However, it is permissible to place it in a trough or on a plank and have someone hold the edge and beat it with the hand, but that should not be done with the fist. The old elders did not even place it in a trough. One person holds the robe and stands, and another holds it in his hands and beats it with his hand. A thread loop on the robe is not permissible; it should be cut off during dyeing. But the one that is allowed, "I allow, monks, a thread loop" (mahāva. 344), should be tied as a loop in a windless place for hanging it during dyeing. Also, no decorations, such as designs or gussets, are permissible on the knot; they should be removed and then used.

9. It is not permissible to draw lines with a stylus on a bowl or a plate, inside or outside. It is not permissible to spin a bowl, immerse it, and cook it, thinking, "We will make it gem-colored," but an oil color is permissible. Wall decorations are not permissible on the bowl stand, but makara teeth are permissible.

It is not permissible to have designs on the top or bottom of a water filter or on the water filter's belly, but a design is permissible on the rim of the filter's mouth.

10. To beautify the waistband (kāyabandhana), they twist the thread twofold here and there, raise projections like crab eyes—this is not allowed. However, to secure the two ends of the fringe (dasāmukha), twisting it twofold is permissible. On the fringe, making any decorative shapes like a pot (ghaṭaka), a crocodile mouth (makaramukha), or a crested ibis head (deḍḍubhasīsa) is not allowed. Similarly, showing eye-like patterns in various places or making woven designs, etc., on the twisted waistband is not allowed. But twisting it straight in a fishbone pattern (macchakaṇṭaka), date-palm leaf pattern (khajjūripattaka), or a smooth strip (maṭṭhakapaṭṭika) is permissible. One fringe (dasā) on the waistband is allowed; two, three, or four are also allowed, but more than that is not allowed. A waistband made of rope (rajjukakāyabandhana) is allowed as just one, but one in the shape of a winnowing fan (pāmaṅgasaṇṭhāna) is not allowed at all. However, a fringe in the shape of a winnowing fan is allowed. Binding many ropes together and continuously wrapping them with one rope should not be called 'many ropes'; that is allowed.

Regarding the design of the waistband, any decorative shapes like the eight auspicious symbols (aṭṭhamaṅgala), etc., are not allowed; only a line to mark the boundary (paricchedalekhāmattaṃ) is allowed. At both ends of the belt (vidhaka), they make a knot to secure it; this is also allowed.

11. On an ointment stick (añjanī), decorative shapes such as figures of women, men, quadrupeds, or birds, or various designs like woven flowers, creepers, crocodile teeth, cow's horn, or crescent moons, are not allowed. It should be scraped or broken, or covered with thread and sealed so that the shape is no longer visible. However, a straight, square, octagonal, or sixteen-sided ointment stick is allowed. Two or three circular lines at the bottom are permissible, and one circular line on the neck to fasten the lid is also permissible.

For an ointment needle (añjanīsalākā), paintwork (vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ) is not allowed. Similarly, for an ointment container (añjanīthavikā), any paintwork with various colored threads is not allowed. The same principle applies to a key case (kuñcikakosaka). Paintwork on a key is not allowed, nor on a shoulder strap (sipāṭikā). However, sewing anything with thread of a single color is permissible.

12. On a toothpick holder (ārakaṇṭaka), a round gem or other paintwork is not allowed, but a boundary line (paricchedalekhā) on the neck is allowed. On a needle case (pipphalika), raising a gem or knob or anything else is not allowed, but a boundary line on the handle is allowed. Nail-cutters are always made curved (valitakaṃ), therefore that is allowed. On the upper fire-stick (uttarāraṇī), fire-bow (araṇidhanuke), or upper drilling stick (uparipellanadaṇḍaka), any paintwork like woven designs is not allowed. However, in the middle of the drilling stick, there is a circular area where only a boundary line is allowed. They make needle pliers (sūcisaṇḍāsa) with which they hold the needle to grind it; any paintwork like crocodile mouths is not allowed there, but the mouth for holding the needle is allowed.

On an axe for cutting tooth-cleaning sticks (dantakaṭṭhacchedanavāsi), any paintwork is not allowed. However, it is permissible to bind it straight with suitable metal, either on both sides or with a square or octagonal shape. On the handle of scissors (kattaradaṇḍa), any paintwork is not allowed, but one or two circular lines at the bottom and a small mushroom-shaped knob (ahicchattakamakuḷamatta) on top are allowed.

13. In oil containers, placing a horn, tube, gourd, or mango core, as well as figures of women or men, all other paintwork is allowed. On couches, chairs, cushions, bolsters, floor coverings, foot wipers, walking cushions, brooms, trash cans, dye troughs, water dippers (pānīyauḷuṅka), water pots, foot basins, wooden seats, ring stands, staff stands, bowl covers, palm-leaf fans, and seed fans, all woven designs and paintwork are allowed.

14. In monastic dwellings (senāsana), all jewel-inlaid or painted decorations are allowed on door panels, window panels, etc. Nothing in a dwelling should be prohibited except for prohibited dwellings (viruddhasenāsana). A prohibited dwelling is one built within the boundary of others by royal favorites. Therefore, those who build such dwellings should be told, "Do not build a dwelling within our boundary." If they disregard this and continue building, they should be told again, "Do not do this, do not obstruct our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, do not break our harmony. Your dwelling, even if built, will not stand in the built place." If they forcibly continue to build, when their party of supporters has dispersed, and it is possible to obtain a just decision, a message should be sent to them: "Remove your residence." If they remove it after sending the message up to three times, it is good. If they do not remove it, then, except for the Bodhi tree and the shrine (cetiya), the remaining dwellings should be destroyed, but not by making them unusable. Instead, the roofing, gables, bricks, etc., should be removed one by one and sent to them, saying, "Take away your materials and supplies." If they take them, it is good. If they do not take them, then the monks who own the boundary are not at fault if those materials and supplies become rotten due to exposure to snow, rain, wind, and sun, or are stolen by thieves, or burned by fire. They cannot be accused, "You have destroyed our materials and supplies," or "It's your fault." Whatever is done by the monks who own the boundary is well done. Also, if a learned and Vinaya-knowing monk sees another monk wandering about with an unallowable requisite and has it cut or broken, he is not at fault. He should not be accused or reminded, and it is not permissible to say, "This is my requisite that you have destroyed; give it back to me."

Thus ends the Parikkhāravinicchaya in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discourse on the Adjudication of Requisites is complete.

3. Bhesajjādikaraṇavinicchayakathā

15. Regarding the making of medicine, performing protective recitations (paritta), and hospitality (paṭisanthāra), first, regarding the making of medicine (bhesajjakaraṇa), this is the adjudication (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7): Medicine should not be made for visiting outsiders (āgatāgatassa parajanassa); one incurs a dukkaṭa offense by doing so. However, it should be made for the five co-religionists (sahadhammikānaṃ): a bhikkhu, a bhikkhuni, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, and a sāmaṇerī. For these, who are of the same virtue, faith, and wisdom, and are engaged in the three trainings, it is not permissible not to make medicine. When making it, if they have medicine of their own, it should be taken from their possessions and mixed to give to them. If they do not have it, it should be made from one's own possessions. If one also does not have it, it should be sought through the alms-round practice or from relatives' or invited places. If one cannot obtain it, it should be brought and made for the sick person's sake without solicitation (akataviññattiyā).

16. It is also permissible to make medicine for these other five: mother, father, those who attend to them, one's own attendant, and a paṇḍupalāsa. A paṇḍupalāsa is one who expects ordination (pabbajjāpekkho) and stays in the monastery while preparing his bowl and robes. Among these, if the parents are wealthy and do not expect it, it is permissible not to make medicine. But if they are even reigning as king and still expect it, it is not permissible not to make it. Medicine should be given to those who expect medicine, and it should be mixed and given to those who do not know how to mix it. For the sake of all, it should be sought in the same manner as stated for the co-religionists. But if one brings the mother to the monastery and cares for her, all services should be done without touching her intimately, and edible and chewable food should be given with one's own hand. The father, however, should be attended to by personally performing bathing, massaging, etc., as with a sāmaṇera. The same should be done for those parents who attend and care for one. A veyyāvaccakaro is one who, having taken wages, chops wood in the forest or does some other work; when illness arises for him, medicine should be made until his relatives come to see him. But for one who, being entirely dependent on a bhikkhu, does all kinds of work, medicine should certainly be made. For a paṇḍupalāsa too, one should act as with a sāmaṇera.

17. It is also permissible to make medicine for these other ten: elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, younger aunt, elder aunt, younger uncle, elder uncle, paternal aunt, and maternal uncle. However, when making medicine for all of them, medicine from their own possessions should be taken, and only mixed and given. But if they are unable to and ask, "Give us, Bhante, we will repay you," it should be given temporarily. Even if they do not ask, it should be given by saying, "We have medicine; take it temporarily," or by saying, "They will give it when they have it," or by making an arrangement (ābhogaṃ). If they repay, it should be taken. If they do not give, they should not be accused. Except for these ten relatives, it should not be made for others.

For their line of descendants, up to the seventh generation of family lineage, there is no offense of family pollution for one who provides the four requisites, or makes medicine without solicitation, or performs medical services. If a brother's wife or a sister's husband is ill, if they are relatives, it is permissible for them too. If they are not relatives, it should be made for the brother and sister and given, saying, "Give it in your place of care." Or it should be made for their children and given, saying, "Give it to your parents." In this way, the adjudication should be understood in all cases.

For their sake, when having medicine brought from the forest by sāmaṇeras, it should be brought by sāmaṇeras who are relatives, or it should be brought for one's own sake and given to those who are not relatives. Even those (sāmaṇeras) should bring it with the idea, "We will bring it for the preceptor." If the preceptor's parents are ill and come to the monastery, and the preceptor has departed in some direction, the co-resident (saddhivihārika) should give medicine belonging to the preceptor. If there is none, one should renounce one's own medicine to the preceptor and give it. Even if one does not have medicine of one's own, it should be sought in the manner stated above and given after making it the property of the preceptor. The preceptor, too, should act in the same way towards the parents of the co-resident. The same principle applies to teachers and pupils as well. If another person, whether a newcomer, a thief, a defeated warrior, a ruler, someone abandoned by relatives, a pauper, or a traveler, becomes ill and enters the monastery, medicine should be made for all without expectation.

18. A family has faith and supports the Saṅgha of bhikkhus with four conditions, acting as a mother and father. If someone there is sick, they confidently say, "Venerable sir, please prepare medicine and give it to him." It should neither be given nor prepared. But if, knowing what is allowable, they ask, "Venerable sir, what medicine do they prepare for such and such a disease?" it is permissible to say, "They take this and that and prepare it." However, if asked, "Venerable sir, my mother is sick, please tell me the medicine," it should not be told. But a conversation can be made with one another, "Friend, what medicine did such and such a bhikkhu prepare for this disease?" "They prepared this and that medicine, venerable sir." Having heard that, the other person prepares medicine for his mother; it is allowable. It is said that when a disease arose in Queen Vāsabhā, the Elder Mahāpaduma, being asked by a certain woman who came to Vasabha, without saying "I do not know," simply conversed with the bhikkhus. Having heard that, they made medicine for her. When the disease subsided, they filled a medicine basket along with the three robes and three hundred kahāpaṇas, brought it, and placed it at the Elder's feet, saying, "Venerable sir, let us make a flower offering." The Elder, understanding it was an ācariyabhāga, had it accepted in an allowable way and made a flower offering. In this way, one should conduct oneself regarding medicine.

19. Regarding Paritta (protective chanting), if it is said, "Venerable sir, do paritta for the sick person," it should not be done. But if it is said, "Recite paritta," it should be recited. If he thinks, "People do not know, they will be remorseful if it is not done," it should be done. If it is said, "Make and give paritta water and paritta thread," the water should be stirred with the hand and the thread stroked, and then given. If he gives water or thread from the monastery or his own possession, it is a dukkata. People take water and thread, sit down, and say, "Recite paritta," it should be done. If they do not know, it should be explained. When bhikkhus are seated, people pour water on their feet, place the thread, and leave, saying, "Do paritta, recite paritta," the feet should not be removed. People will be remorseful. Even inside the village, they send to the monastery for the sake of the sick, saying, "Let them recite paritta," it should be recited. Inside the village, in royal palaces etc., when disease or trouble arises, they summon and have them recite the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta and others. Even if sent, "Let them come and give the precepts to the sick, let them speak Dhamma, let them come to the royal palace or the minister's house and give the precepts, let them speak Dhamma," having gone, the precepts should be given, the Dhamma should be spoken. "Let them come for the sake of the deceased's relatives," they summon, one should not go. "We will attain mindfulness of death by seeing the charnel ground and seeing the unattractive," it is permissible to go with the contemplation subject in mind. "Even if one strikes a dead person, there is no offense for one who does not intend to kill," thus, just because it is said so, a blow should not be given to one possessed by a non-human. But a palm leaf or a paritta thread should be tied on the hand or foot, the Ratanasutta and other parittas should be recited, the Dhamma talk should be given, "Do not harm a virtuous bhikkhu," or the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta should be recited.

The Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should not be recited, but the Mettasutta(khu. pā. 9.1 ādayo; su. ni. 143 ādayo), the Dhajaggasutta(saṃ. ni. 1.249), and the Ratanasutta(khu. pā. 6.1 ādayo; su. ni. 224 ādayo) should be recited for seven days. If he is released, it is good. If he is not released, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should be recited. The bhikkhu who recites it should not eat his fill of rice or meat, and should not live in a cemetery. Why? Non-humans get an opportunity. Having had the place for doing paritta plastered with green clay, a clean seat should be arranged there and one should sit down. The bhikkhu who does paritta should be escorted from the monastery to the house, surrounded by weapons and shields. One should not speak sitting in the open air. Having closed the doors and windows, one should speak surrounded by those holding weapons, having first purified the mind with mettā. First, having administered the precepts, paritta should be done for one established in morality. Even being unable to free him in this way, he should be taken to the monastery, laid down in the cetiya courtyard, made to perform an offering of seats, lit lamps, swept the cetiya courtyard, and auspicious talk should be spoken, the entire Saṅgha should be announced. In the vicinity of the monastery there is a large tree called Jeṭṭhaka; a message should be sent there that "the Saṅgha of bhikkhus is expecting your arrival." In the place of the entire Saṅgha's meeting, one should not get the name of the one who has come, the name of the one possessed by a non-human should be asked, when the name is spoken, he should be addressed by name, "So-and-so, you have a share in the garlands and perfumes, a share in the offering of seats, a share in the alms-food, a great auspicious talk has been spoken by the Saṅgha of bhikkhus for the purpose of giving you gifts, respectfully release this to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus." If he does not release it, the deities should be informed, "You know, this non-human does not do our word, we will do the Buddha's command," paritta should be done. This is the preparation for laypeople. But if a bhikkhu is possessed by a non-human, having washed the seats, having announced the entire Saṅgha's meeting, having given a share in the perfumes, garlands, etc., paritta should be recited, this is the preparation for bhikkhus. In this way, one should conduct oneself regarding paritta.

20. Regarding Paṭisanthāra (hospitality), this is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7) – to whom should the un-besmirched alms-food be given, and to whom should it not be given? It should be given to mother and father. Even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa, there is no destruction of the gift of faith. It should also be given to those who attend to mother and father, to those who do service, and to a withered leaf. There, it is permissible to give even by putting a withered leaf in a dish. Having set that aside, it is not permissible to give to other householders or even to their parents. For renunciants, what is for use is like a cetiya for householders. Furthermore, the un-besmirched alms-food should be given even to a robber who has attained power or to a king. Why? Even if it is not given, they get angry, saying, "They do not give," and even if it is given, they get angry, saying, "They give leftovers." Being angry, they even take away life and cause danger to the Sāsana. In this regard, the story of the robber Nāga who was wandering, desiring kingship, should be told. In this way, one should conduct oneself regarding un-besmirched alms-food.

These are spoken extensively in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā.

Here is the elucidation of a single incident – it is said that in Sri Lanka, a robber named Abhaya, with a retinue of five hundred, set up camp in one place, drove away people for three yojanas around, and lived there. The residents of Anuradhapura did not cross the Kadamba River, and traffic on the Cetiyagiri road ceased. Then one day the robber went, saying, "I will plunder Cetiyagiri." The monastery attendants saw and informed the Elder Dīghabhāṇaka Abhaya. The Elder asked, "Is there ghee, molasses, etc.?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Give it to the robbers." "Are there rice grains?" "Yes, venerable sir, there are rice grains brought for the Saṅgha, and cooked greens, and curd." "Prepare food and give it to the robbers." The monastery attendants did so. Having eaten the food, the robbers asked, "Who made this hospitality?" "Our master, the Elder Abhaya." The robbers went to the Elder's presence, paid homage, and said, "We came intending to take without stealing what belongs to the Saṅgha and the cetiya, but we are pleased with your hospitality, from today onward, the protection of the monastery according to Dhamma will be in our hands, let the townspeople come and give alms, let them worship the cetiya." From then on, the townspeople who came to give alms were met at the riverbank, protected, and brought to the monastery, and they stood guard for those giving alms in the monastery as well. Those robbers also gave the leftovers of the bhikkhus to the robbers. When it was time to leave, those robbers escorted them to the riverbank and turned back.

Then one day a discussion arose among the Saṅgha of bhikkhus, "The Elder gave what belongs to the Saṅgha to the robbers out of lordliness." The Elder convened a meeting and said, "The robbers came intending to take without stealing the property of the Saṅgha and the cetiya, then I did this much hospitality to them, thinking, 'They will not take this.' Put all that together and appraise it, appraise the goods that were not plundered because of that reason by putting them all together." Then a very valuable book cover and a painting in the cetiya house that the Elder had given were not worth as much. Then they said, "The hospitality done by the Elder was well done, it is not right to accuse or dismiss him, there is no cutting off the head or any lessening." Thus, having understood that hospitality is of great benefit, it should be done by the wise bhikkhu.

Thus ends the Bhesajjādikaraṇavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Bhesajjādikaraṇavinicchayakathā is complete.

4. Viññattivinicchayakathā

21. Viññatti means requesting. Here is the judgment regarding that (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.342) – it is not permissible to request a man for a root-cutting offense. It is permissible to request a man, saying, "Give a man for the sake of a friend, for doing work." It is permissible to request a personal effort, which means manual labor to be done by a man. For manual labor is not any object; therefore, having set that aside, all remaining personal efforts are allowable, except for those of hunters, fishermen, etc. Whether asked or not, when asked, "Venerable sir, for what purpose have you come, what work needs doing?" it is permissible to request; there is no offense due to requesting. But hunters, etc., should not be asked for their personal effort. Even without specifying, "Give manual labor," it should not be requested. For those thus requested might send bhikkhus away saying, "Good, venerable sir," and kill deer and bring them. But specifying, "There is something to be done in the monastery, give manual labor there," it should be requested. It is permissible to request manual labor from even a farmer or anyone else who is engaged in their own work, going with equipment like plows, plowing or sowing or transplanting. But one who lives on gleanings or anyone else who is inactive, spending time talking uselessly or sleeping, without requesting, it is permissible to have such a person do whatever one pleases, saying, "Come here, do this or that."

To explain the complete allowability of manual labor, they state this principle. If a bhikkhu wants to build a building, he should go to a house and say, "Is it permissible to obtain manual labor, lay followers?" "What needs to be done, venerable sir?" "Stone pillars should be quarried and given." If they quarry and give them, or give their own pillars that have been quarried and set aside, it is allowable. Or if they say, "Venerable sir, we do not have time to do manual labor, have someone else quarry them, we will give the cost," having had them quarried, it is permissible to say, "Give the cost to the men who quarried the stone pillars." In the same way, for the sake of wood for the building, to the carpenters; for the sake of bricks, to the brickmakers; for the sake of roofing, to the roofers; for the sake of painting, to the painters – for whatever purpose it is needed, for the sake of that, it is permissible to go to the presence of those artisans and request manual labor, and it is permissible to take everything obtained by requesting manual labor, or by paying the cost or wages. And one who has something brought from the forest should have everything brought that has not been dwelt in.

22.Not only when intending to build a monastery, but also when intending to have couches, chairs, footstools, water strainers, water bowls, robes, etc., made, one should obtain wood, metal, thread, etc., and approach the respective artisans and request manual work in the manner described above. One should take everything obtained by requesting manual work, either by cutting off the price or by not providing food wages. But if they do not wish to do it and expect food wages, one should not give them disallowed kahāpaṇa coins, etc., but it is proper to seek rice, etc., by the alms-round practice and give that. Having had a bowl made through manual work and having it fired in the same way, when entering a village for alms for oil for wiping the newly baked bowl, one should make it known, "I have come for alms." If gruel or rice is brought, the bowl should be covered with the hand. If a female lay devotee asks, "What is it, Bhante?" one should say, "It is a newly baked bowl, I need wiping oil." If she takes the bowl and wipes it with oil and fills it with gruel or rice and gives it, it is not considered a request, and it is proper to accept it.

23.Monks, having gone for alms early, go to the assembly hall and stand, not seeing a seat. If lay devotees see the monks standing and bring seats of their own accord, when departing, they should take leave before leaving. Even for those who leave without taking leave, there is no offense involving expiation, but taking leave before leaving is a proper practice. If seats are brought by those who were told by the monks, "Bring seats," they should definitely take leave before leaving. For those who leave without taking leave, there is a breach of conduct and an offense involving expiation. The same method applies to spreading cloths, cushions, etc.

There are many flies, one should say, "Bring a fly whisk." They bring neem branches, etc., and having had them made allowable, they should be accepted. In the assembly hall, the water vessel is empty, one should not say, "Take the water bowl." For someone might break the water bowl while putting it in an empty vessel. But it is proper to say, "Go to the river or pond and bring water." One should never say, "Bring it from home," nor should one use what is brought. When doing meal duties in the assembly hall or in the forest, if one has something that has grown there, that has not been previously inhabited, any bowl or fruit that is worthy of being eaten, if one has someone bring it while doing some work, it is proper to have it brought through manual work and use it, but manual work should not be done by shameless monks or novices. This is the method regarding a person's own actions.

24.However, it is not proper to have a cow brought from an unknown, uninvited place; for one who has it brought, there is a dukkata offense. Even from a known, invited place, it is not proper to ask by cutting off the price, but it is proper everywhere by the temporary method. And such a cow, having been brought, should be guarded and cared for, and the owners should acknowledge it. If its foot or horn is broken or lost, if the owners agree to compensate, that is skillful. If they do not agree to compensate, there is an offense involving expiation. If they say, "We will give it to you," it should not be accepted. But if they say, "We will give it to the monastery," they should be told, "Tell the monastery attendants for the sake of caretaking."

25.It is not proper to say "Give me a cart" to someone unknown and uninvited, it is a request, and one incurs a dukkata offense. But in a known, invited place it is proper, it is proper temporarily, but having done the work, it must be given back. If the spokes, etc., are broken, they should be made natural and given back, if lost, there is an offense involving expiation. If they say, "We will give it to you," it is proper to accept wooden goods. This method applies to axes, hatchets, adzes, shovels, hoes, vines, etc., that belong to others. A request is only made for vines, etc., that are heavy goods and affordable, not for less than that.

26.But it is proper to have brought whatever has not been previously inhabited. For a request is called such only in a guarded, protected place. That is entirely improper in two instances. But regarding requisites for lodgings, only requesting, "Bring [it], give [it]," is improper, preliminary talk, hints, and symbolic actions are proper. There, for one desiring an uposatha hall or a dining hall or any other lodging, saying in a manner such as, "In this location, it is proper to build such a lodging," or "It is suitable," or "It is appropriate," is called preliminary talk. "Where do you lay devotees live?" "In a palace, Bhante." "Is a palace not proper for monks, lay devotees?" such a statement is called hint. Stretching out a rope after seeing people, having stakes hammered in, "What is this, Bhante?" "Here we will build a dwelling," such an action is called symbolic action. Regarding requisites for the sick, even a request is proper, let alone preliminary talk, etc.

Thus ends the section on Vinaya decisions extracted from the Pali Canon

The Discourse on the Decision of Requesting is complete.

5. Discourse on the Decision of Family Association

27.Family association is associating with families through flowers, fruits, etc. Here is the decision regarding that (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.431) – for the sake of family association, it is not proper to plant or have planted, to water or have watered, to pick flowers or have picked, to string or have strung garlands and such. There, five things should be known: disallowed speech, allowable speech, circumlocution, hints, and symbolic action.

28.There, disallowed speech is cutting or having cut fresh greens, digging or having dug a pit, planting or having planted garlands and plants, building or having built a shed, watering or having watered water, facing a clay pot, watering with allowable water, and watering for washing hands, feet, face, and bathing. Allowable speech is saying, "Know this tree, know this pit, know this garland plant, know water here," and straightening a dry clay pot. Circumlocution is saying things such as, "A wise person should have garlands and plants planted, they will soon lead to benefit." Hint is taking a hoe, digging tool, etc., and garland plants to a place. For when novices and others see someone standing like that, they go and do [the work], thinking, "The elder wants to have it done." Symbolic action is bringing a hoe, digging tool, axe, hatchet, and water vessel and placing them nearby.

29.All five of these are not proper in planting and having planted, etc., for the sake of family association. For the sake of using fruits, only the two types of allowable and disallowed speech are not proper, the other three are proper. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said that "even allowable speech is proper, and whatever is proper for one's own use is also proper for the sake of another person or the Sangha or a cetiya." For the sake of a monastery, a grove, or shade, only disallowed speech is not proper, the rest is proper. Not only the rest, but also anything, even straightening a clay pot, watering with allowable water, making a bathing enclosure and bathing, and throwing water for washing hands, feet, and face there is proper. In the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundiya, it is said that "It is also proper to plant oneself in allowable ground." For the sake of a monastery, etc., it is also proper to use the fruits of what has been planted or had planted.

30.Here now is the detailed decision regarding offenses from the beginning – for one planting a garland plant in disallowed ground for the sake of corrupting families, there is a pācittiya offense and a dukkata offense, and likewise for one having it planted with disallowed speech. For planting or having planted in allowable ground, there is only a dukkata offense. In both cases, with one command, even if many are planted, there is only one offense involving pācittiya and dukkata or a pure dukkata offense. For the sake of using, there is no offense for planting or having planted in allowable or disallowed ground with allowable speech. For the sake of a monastery, etc., there is a pācittiya offense for one planting in disallowed ground or having it planted with disallowed speech. However, this method is not well distinguished in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, but it is distinguished in the Mahāpaccariya.

Regarding watering and having watered, there is a pācittiya offense everywhere with disallowed water, and a dukkata offense as well for the sake of corrupting families and using. With allowable water, there is a dukkata offense for the sake of those two things; here, there is no offense for having watered with allowable speech for the sake of using. In a place of offense, the abundance of offenses should be understood according to the interruption of the stream and the abundance of effort.

For picking flowers for the sake of family association, there are dukkata and pācittiya offenses according to the counting of the flowers, elsewhere there are only pācittiya offenses. But when picking many flowers with one effort, it should be done according to the effort. For having [flowers] picked, if one commands once for the sake of corrupting families, even if many are picked, there is only one offense involving pācittiya and dukkata, elsewhere there is only a pācittiya offense.

31.Regarding stringing and having strung, all six flower variations should be understood – ganthimaṃ, gopphimaṃ, vedhimaṃ, veṭhimaṃ, pūrimaṃ, and vāyimaṃ. There, ganthimaṃ should be seen among lotuses, water lilies, etc., or other flowers with long stems, with or without stalks. Ganthimaṃ is what is made by stringing stalk to stalk or stem to stem. It is not proper for a monk or nun to do that or have it done with disallowed speech, but it is proper to have it done with allowable speech, such as, "Know this, it would look nice if done like this, do it so that these flowers do not scatter."

Gopphimaṃ is stringing vassika flowers, etc., with thread or bast fibers in the manner of single-stemmed or double-stemmed garlands; having doubled the bast fiber or rope, one inserts stemless nīpa flowers, etc., there and ties them in order; this too is gopphima. All of it is improper in the same way as before.

Vedhimaṃ is threading vassika flowers, etc., with stems on the stems, and stemless bakula flowers, etc., through their own holes with needles, palm-leaf needles, etc., and covering [the thread]; this is called vedhimaṃ. That is improper in the same way as before. Some, however, insert thorns or palm-leaf needles, etc., into a banana trunk and thread flowers there; some [do it] on thorny branches; some on canopies and walls for the purpose of making flower umbrellas and flower pavilions; some on thorns tied to the dhamma seat canopy; some pierce kaṇikāra flowers, etc., with sticks, making it like a double umbrella; that is very crude. For the purpose of flower piercing, it is not proper to tie thorns to the dhamma seat canopy or to pierce even one flower with thorns, etc., or to insert a flower into a flower itself. However, there is no offense in inserting flowers such as asoka flowers into the holes of lattice canopies, railings, bracket supports, flower holders, palm-leaf balls, etc., or in the spaces between. This is not considered vedhimaṃ. The same method applies to the dhamma rope.

Veṭhimaṃ: This should be understood in the context of flower garlands and hand bouquets. When making head garlands, some people encircle the bottom with flowers to resemble a pot; others tie eight or ten uppala flowers, etc., with thread or bast to small sticks to make an uppala bouquet or a lotus bouquet. All of this is not allowed, according to the previous rule. Even to tie uppala flowers, etc., that have been uprooted and placed on land with a patch of the robe is not allowed for novices. However, it is permissible to tie them with bast or a stick to make a shoulder bundle. A shoulder bundle is made by bringing both ends of the robe placed on the shoulder together into a bundle and putting flowers in it like in a bag; this is called a shoulder bundle, and it is permissible to do this. It is also permissible to pierce lotus leaves with sticks, wrap uppala flowers, etc., with the leaves, and hold them, but in that case, it is only permissible to tie the lotus leaf on top of the flowers, not to tie the stick underneath.

Pūrimaṃ: This should be understood in the context of garland strands and flower screens. When someone encircles a cetiya, a Bodhi tree, or a railing with a garland strand and then brings it back, exceeding the original point, that is called pūrimaṃ. What then to say of someone who encircles it many times? Passing it through the spaces in the nāgadantaka (a type of wall decoration), making it hang down, and then encircling the nāgadantaka again, this is also called pūrimaṃ. However, it is permissible to insert a flower ring into the nāgadantaka. They make flower screens with garland strands; in that case, it is permissible to carry only one garland strand. Bringing it back again becomes pūrimaṃ. All of that is not allowed, according to the previous rule. However, it is permissible to obtain a flower garland made with many garland strands and tie it to the top of a seat, etc. It is permissible to carry an overly long garland strand once, encircle something with it, and then give it to another bhikkhu, and it is permissible for him to do the same.

Vāyimaṃ: This should be understood in the context of flower nets, flower screens, and flower shapes. For someone making a flower net on a cetiya, there is a dukkata for each hole in the net. The same rule applies to walls, parasols, Bodhi trees, pillars, etc. Moreover, it is not permissible to weave a flower screen even if others have filled it. They make elephant and horse shapes, etc., only with gopphi flowers; those also stand in the place of vāyimaṃ. Everything is not allowed, according to the previous rule. However, it is permissible for someone placing flowers within a boundary made by others to make elephant and horse shapes, etc. In the Mahāpaccariya, eight flower variations are mentioned along with kaḷambaka and aḍḍhacandaka.

32. There, kaḷambako is said to be a hanging string of pot-shaped garlands within the aḍḍhacandaka. Aḍḍhacandako is an encircling with garland strands in the shape of a half-moon. Both of these are included in pūrimaṃ itself. In the Kurundī, however, it is said that "making a flower garland by combining two or three garland strands is also vāyimaṃ." That too is included here in the place of pūrimaṃ. Not only a flower garland, but also a garland made of flour and a garland made of ball-shaped flowers are mentioned in the Kurundī. A garland of rough leaves is also common to the training rule, so it is not permissible for bhikkhus or bhikkhunis to make or have made. However, it is permissible to speak the words of allowable for the sake of offering in all cases. Actions for the sake of lighting or illumination are certainly permissible.

For someone who gives any flower that belongs to him for the sake of family support, whether having picked it himself or having had it picked, whether having invited someone or having had someone invited, or to those who come of their own accord, there is a dukkata. If he gives something belonging to others, it is only a dukkata. If he gives with the intention of theft, he must be made to pay the value of the item. This rule applies even to Sangha property. However, this is the distinction: giving what is designated for the monastery for his own authority incurs a thullaccaya.

33. To whom is it permissible to give flowers, and to whom is it not permissible? It is permissible to give to one's mother and father, even having picked them oneself or having had them picked, whether having invited someone or having had someone invited. For other relatives, it is only permissible having had them invited. And that too, for the purpose of honoring objects. However, it is not permissible to give to anyone for the purpose of adornment or for the purpose of honoring a Sivalinga, etc. And when having one's mother and father pick flowers, it should only be had done by relatives or novices. However, if others desire it themselves, it is permissible. A bhikkhu appointed as a flower distributor is allowed to give half a share to the novices who are present at the time of flower distribution. In the Kurundī, however, it is said that "half a share" (is given) "to the laypeople who are present," and in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said that "a small amount is permissible to give." By one who is not appointed, it should be given after informing the Sangha. Novices who are respectful to their teachers and preceptors gather many flowers, pile them up, and set them aside. The elders, early in the morning, give to their pupils, etc., or lay devotees, etc., who have arrived, saying, "You take this, you take that." This is not called giving flowers. Even those who take them, saying, "We will honor the cetiya," and go, and those who are honoring and giving here and there to those who have arrived for the purpose of honoring the cetiya, this is also not called giving flowers. Seeing a lay devotee honoring with akkapuppha flowers, etc., it is also permissible to say, "There are kanikāra flowers, etc., in the monastery; lay devotees, take those and honor." When bhikkhus have made a flower offering and enter the village after midday, people ask, "Why, venerable, have you entered so late?" They reply, "There are many flowers in the monastery; we have made an offering." People, thinking, "There must be many flowers in the monastery," go to the monastery the next day with plenty of food and offerings, make a flower offering, and give a donation; this is permissible.

34. People, having asked for a flower turn, saying, "Venerable, we will make an offering on such and such a day," come on the appointed day, and the novices have already picked and set aside the flowers in the morning. Not seeing the flowers on the trees, they say, "Where, venerable, are the flowers?" The novices say, "They have been picked and set aside; you, however, make the offering and go, and the Sangha will make an offering on another day." They make the offering, give a donation, and go; this is permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundī, however, it is said that "the elders are not allowed to have the novices give; if they themselves give those flowers to them, it is permissible. However, the elders should only say, 'They have been picked and set aside by the novices.'" If, however, after asking for a flower turn and bringing rice-gruel, etc., for flowers that have not been picked, they say to the novices, "Pick and give," it is permissible to pick and give only to relatives or novices. For strangers, they put (the flowers) on a tree branch, and they should not come down and run away; it is permissible to pick and give. If, however, a certain Dhamma speaker says, "There are many flowers, rice-gruel, etc., in the monastery; having gone, make a flower offering," that itself is not allowable, so it is said in the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundī. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is said without distinction that "this is unallowable; it is not permissible."

35. It is also permissible to give fruit that belongs to oneself to one's mother and father and other relatives in the manner stated above. However, for someone giving for the sake of family support, the dukkatas, etc., should be understood in the manner stated above for what belongs to oneself, what belongs to others, what belongs to the Sangha, and what is designated for the monastery. It is permissible to give what belongs to oneself to sick people, or to visiting dignitaries, or to those whose provisions are exhausted; it is not a gift of fruit. A bhikkhu appointed as a fruit distributor is also allowed to give half a share to the people who are present at the time of fruit distribution to the Sangha; by one who is not appointed, it should be given after informing the Sangha. In a Sangha monastery, an agreement should be made by specifying the amount of fruit or by specifying the trees: "From that, four or five fruits should be given to sick people or others who ask for fruit, according to the specification, or the trees should be shown, saying, 'It is allowed to take from here.'" However, it should not be said, "Here the fruits are beautiful; take from here." If someone gives sirisacuṇṇa powder that belongs to himself or any other kasāva for the sake of family support, there is a dukkata. The decision should be understood in the manner stated above for what belongs to others, etc. However, this is the distinction: even the bark of a tree protected and guarded by the Sangha is indeed heavy property. Having understood that the powder made of clay, tooth sticks, bamboo, and leaves is included as heavy property, the decision should be understood in the manner stated above for powder.

36. Jaṅghapesaniya: This is called being a messenger for laypeople, doing the work of carrying messages; that should not be done. For someone carrying a message for laypeople, there is a dukkata at each step. For someone eating food obtained on account of that work, there is a dukkata for each mouthful. Even for someone who has not taken a message at first but later, thinking, "Now this is that village; come, let me announce the message," deviates from the road, there is a dukkata at each step. For someone eating food obtained after announcing the message, there is a dukkata in the manner stated above. However, it is permissible for someone who has not taken a message but has arrived and is asked, "Venerable, what is the news of so-and-so in that village?" to speak; there is no offense in answering the question. It is permissible to carry a message for the five co-religionists, one's mother and father, a leaf-packet, or one's attendant, and a proper message for laypeople; therefore, one should not have scruples about such messages as "Pay homage to the Buddha's feet in my name," or "Pay homage to the cetiya, the image, the Bodhi tree, the Sangha elder," or "Make a fragrance offering at the cetiya," or "Make a flower offering," or "Gather the bhikkhus; we will give a donation and have the Dhamma taught." These are proper messages; they are not connected with the affairs of laypeople. However, the requisites arising from these eight kinds of family-corrupting actions are not proper for even the five co-religionists. They are like the requisites arising from false reports or bartering with a monetary unit.

A bhikkhu subject to a pabbājanīyakamma is not allowed to wander in the village or town where he committed the family-corrupting action, nor to live in the monastery where he dwells. And even with a paṭippassaddhikamma, the requisites arising from those families in which he formerly committed the family-corrupting action should not be accepted by him; they are unallowable even for someone who has attained the destruction of the āsavas. If, when asked, "Why do you not accept?" it is said, "Because he did such a thing formerly," and they say, "We are not giving for that reason; we are now giving because he is virtuous," they should be accepted. If the family-corrupting action was committed in a place that is naturally a place for giving, it is permissible to accept only the natural gift. What they increase and give is not permissible. And because there is no offense in answering a question, if someone entering a house in the morning or evening is asked, "Why, venerable, are you wandering?" Having explained the reason why he is wandering, if it is said, "Has (anything) been received or not received?" and if nothing has been received, having said, "Nothing has been received," it is permissible to accept what he gives.

37. "Monks, one should not dwell in the forest with a preconceived notion; whoever does so, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata). Monks, one should not wander for alms with a preconceived notion…pe… Monks, one should not walk back and forth (caṅkamati) with a preconceived notion…pe… Monks, one should not stand with a preconceived notion…pe… Monks, one should not sit with a preconceived notion…pe… Monks, one should not prepare a sleeping place with a preconceived notion; whoever does so, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata)," (pāci. 239 ff.) it is said. Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest with the intention, "Thus (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.223), people will regard me, dwelling in the forest, as an arahant or as being on the path of a noble one (sekkhabhūmi), and then I will be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated by the world." Going with the intention, "I will dwell in the forest," there is a dukkata at each step. Similarly, in the forest, for all activities such as building a hut, walking back and forth, sitting, residing, wearing robes, etc., there is a dukkata for each effort. Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest in this way. Indeed, one who dwells thus incurs a dukkata, whether or not he obtains recognition. But one who has undertaken a practice of purification (dhutaṅga), wanting to "protect the dhutaṅga," or thinking, "Dwelling near the village distracts my mind; the forest is suitable," or "Surely, in the forest, I will attain one of the three kinds of seclusion (viveka)," or "Having entered the forest, I will not leave without attaining arahantship," or "Dwelling in the forest is praised by the Buddha, and if I dwell in the forest, many of my fellow monks will abandon the village and become forest-dwellers" thus, one who desires to dwell in a faultless dwelling, may dwell thus. Even when wandering for alms, from the moment of arranging the robes, etc., up to the end of the meal, there is a dukkata for each effort if one thinks, "I will wander for alms having properly arranged the outer and inner robes." Whether or not he obtains recognition, it is still a dukkata. However, entering for alms with pleasing approach and departure, etc., to fulfill the rules of training (khandhakavatta) and the sekhiya rules, or to induce fellow monks to follow a good example, is blameless in the eyes of the wise. The same principle applies to walking back and forth, etc.

Thus concludes the Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathā is complete.

6. Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathā

38.Regarding fish and meat (macchamaṃsesu), the term "fish" (macchaggahaṇena) includes all aquatic creatures. There, nothing is disallowed (akappiyaṃ). However, among meats (maṃsesu), ten kinds of meat are disallowed (akappiyāni), namely: human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, and bear. Among these, eating human meat incurs a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ), while eating the others incurs a dukkata. Thus, for these ten kinds of meat, even the bones, blood, skin, and hair are all unsuitable. Among fats (vasāsu), only human fat is unsuitable. Among milk products (khīrādīsu), nothing is disallowed. If one knowingly or unknowingly eats any of these disallowed meats or their bones, etc., there is an offense. When one knows, it must be confessed (desetabbā). If one takes it thinking, "I will eat it without asking," there is a dukkata even upon acceptance. If one takes it thinking, "I will eat it after asking," there is no offense (anāpatti). But only one who knowingly eats meat that has been killed specifically for monks (uddissakataṃ) incurs an offense. One who knows it later need not confess the offense (mahāva. aṭṭha. 281).

Uddissakataṃ means fish or meat that has been killed and prepared for the sake of monks. Both kinds of uddissakataṃ are not allowed. That which is unseen, unheard, and unthought of is allowed. Truly, fish and meat purified in three ways (tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ) is allowed by the Buddha: unseen, unheard, and unthought of. There, unseen (adiṭṭhaṃ) means that the killing of game or fish for the sake of monks is not seen. Unheard (asutaṃ) means that the killing of game or fish for the sake of monks is not heard. Unthought of (aparisaṅkitaṃ) should be understood by knowing the opposite of what is thought of as seen, thought of as heard, and thought of as freed from both. How? Here, monks see people coming out of a village or wandering in a forest with nets, traps, etc., in their hands. On the second day, they bring alms food mixed with fish and meat to those monks who have entered that village for alms. They suspect from what they have seen, "Was this done for the sake of the monks?" This is thought of as seen (diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ), and it is not allowed to be accepted. That which is not thought of in this way is allowed. But if those people, having been asked, "Why, venerable ones, do you not accept it?" and having heard the reason, say, "This was not done for the sake of the monks, venerable ones; we did it for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials, etc.," it is allowable.

Thought of as heard (sutaparisaṅkitaṃ), it is not allowed to be accepted. That which is not thought of in this way is allowed. But if those people, having been asked, "Why, venerable ones, do you not accept it?" and having heard the reason, say, "This was not done for the sake of the monks, venerable ones; we did it for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials, etc.," it is allowable.

Thought of as freed from both (tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ), this too is not allowed to be accepted. That which is not thought of in this way is allowed. But if those people, having been asked, "Why, venerable ones, do you not accept it?" and having heard the reason, say, "This was not done for the sake of the monks, venerable ones; we did it for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials, etc.; or it is meat obtained permissibly (kappiyameva) and prepared for the sake of the monks," it is allowable. The same principle applies to that which is done for the sake of the dead in funeral rites or for auspicious occasions, etc. Indeed, whatever is not done specifically for the sake of the monks, and about which there is no doubt, all of that is allowable.

39.If, in a certain monastery, something has been killed specifically for the monks (uddissakataṃ), and they do not know that it was done for their sake, but others know, it is not allowable for those who know, but it is allowable for the others. If others do not know, and only they know, it is not allowable only for them, but it is allowable for the others. If they too know that "this was done for our sake," and others also know that "this was done for their sake," it is not allowable for anyone. If no one knows, it is allowable for everyone. Indeed, among five fellow monks who share the Dhamma, if something has been killed specifically for one or another of them, it is not allowable for any of them.

If someone kills a living being specifically for a certain monk and fills his bowl with it, and that monk, knowing that it was done for his sake, takes it and gives it to another monk, and that monk consumes it out of faith in him, who incurs the offense? Neither of them incurs an offense. Since it was not eaten by the one for whom it was specifically done (uddissa kataṃ), there is no offense, and for the other, there is no offense because he did not know. There is no offense in accepting allowable meat, and if one eats something killed specifically for monks without knowing and later learns of it, there is no need to confess the offense. Indeed, only one who knowingly eats something killed specifically for monks incurs an offense, but even if one unknowingly eats disallowed meat, there is still an offense to be confessed. Therefore, one who fears offenses should examine the appearance or ask before accepting meat. At the time of consumption, one should take it thinking, "I will consume it after asking," and should consume it only after asking. Why? Because it is difficult to discern. Indeed, fish meat can resemble pork, and the meat of leopards, etc., can resemble the meat of game animals. Therefore, they say that asking before accepting is appropriate.

Thus concludes the Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathā is complete.

7. Anāmāsavinicchayakathā

40.Anāmāsa means "not to be touched." Herein is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281): Since every woman—whether she be a mother, daughter, or sister—is an obstacle to the holy life (brahmacariyassa pāribanthikāva) and not to be touched (anāmāsā ca), it is said that even touching her with affection, thinking, "This is my mother, this is my daughter, this is my sister," incurs a dukkata. Remembering this command of the Buddha, even if one sees one's mother being carried away by a river current, she should not be touched with the hand. But a wise monk should bring a boat, a plank, a banana stalk, or a piece of wood near her. If that is not available, even the outer robe (kāsāvaṃ) should be brought near and placed in front of her, but one should not say, "Grasp this." If she grasps it, one should go along pulling the robe, thinking, "I am pulling the equipment." But if she is afraid, one should go along ahead, reassuring her, "Do not be afraid." If, being afraid, she suddenly climbs onto the monk's shoulder or takes hold of his hand, she should not be pushed away, saying, "Go away, old woman," but should be brought to dry land. The same principle applies if she is stuck in mud or has fallen into a well. There too, a rope or cloth should be thrown in, and after knowing that she has grasped it with her hand, she should be lifted out, but certainly not touched.

Not only the body of a woman is not to be touched (anāmāsaṃ), but also her wearing cloth (nivāsanapārupanampi), her ornaments and belongings (ābharaṇabhaṇḍampi), even so much as a blade of grass (tiṇaṇḍupakaṃ) or a palm-leaf ring (tālapaṇṇamuddikaṃ), are not to be touched. And that wearing cloth is only that which is kept for the purpose of wearing. But if the wearing cloth is turned around and placed at the foot of the bed for the sake of being a robe, it is allowable. Among ornaments and belongings, allowable items such as a head-dressing needle (sīsapasādhanadantasūci) may be accepted when offered, "Venerable sir, we give this to you; please accept it," for the sake of being used as a toothpick or needle-case, etc. But gold, silver, pearls, etc., are not to be touched, and should not be accepted even when offered. Not only are these things related to their bodies not to be touched, but also any wooden, ivory, iron, bronze, or lacquer images made in the form of a woman, any picture or all kinds of jeweled images, even if made of flour, are not to be touched. But if one obtains such an object thinking, "Let this be yours," for the sake of use, one may keep the jeweled part and break the rest, using what is suitable for equipment as equipment, and what is suitable for use as use.

41.Just as the form of a woman is not to be touched, so too are the seven kinds of grain. Therefore, when walking through a field, one should not touch even the grain fruits growing there. If grain has been spread out at the doorway of a house or in the middle of a road, and there is a path to the side, one should not walk treading on it. If there is no path, one should walk taking the road as one's object of meditation. If they spread out a seat on top of grain inside a house and offer it, it is allowable to sit. Some scatter grain in the assembly hall; if it is possible to have it removed, it should be removed. If not, one should sit on a seat, placing it to one side without treading on the grain. If there is no space, and people spread it out and offer it in the middle of the grain, one should sit. Mung beans, black lentils, or other pulses, or fruits such as palmyra and jackfruit growing there should not be touched while playing. The same principle applies even if they are piled up by people. But in the forest, it is allowable to take fruits fallen from trees, thinking, "I will give them to those who are not fully ordained."

42.Among these ten jewels—pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch shells, stone, coral, silver, gold, ruby, and emerald—pearls that are unwashed, undrilled, and in their natural state may be touched, while the rest are not to be touched, they say, and should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, "Pearls, whether washed or unwashed, are not to be touched, and should not be accepted for the sake of barter, but are allowable for medicinal purposes for leprosy," which is fitting. Up to and including nutmeg, every kind of gem with different colors such as blue and yellow that has been washed, drilled, and polished is not to be touched, but it is said that one in its natural state, fresh from the mine, may be accepted for the sake of obtaining bowls, etc., which is also refuted in the Mahāpaccariya. It is said that only artificial glass gems (kācamaṇiyeveko) are allowable. The judgment regarding lapis lazuli (veḷuriye) is similar to that of gems.

Saṅkho (conch shell): A conch shell that is thoroughly cleaned is allowable and not a prohibited item, but one mixed with gems is not allowable; a dirty one is allowable, whether cleaned or uncleaned. The remainder is allowable to accept for the purpose of dye or medicine, or for the purpose of using it as goods for trade. Silā (stone): A thoroughly cleaned stone that contains gems and looks like the color of a mung bean is allowable and not a prohibited item; the rest is allowable to take for the purpose of sharpening knives and other such uses. Here, ratanasaṃyuttā (containing gems) means that it is made by combining it with gold and melting it down, so they say. Pavāḷaṃ (coral): Coral that is thoroughly cleaned is allowable and not a prohibited item; the rest, whether dirty or for use as goods for trade, is allowable to accept, so they say, but it should not be taken. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is stated, "Whether cleaned or uncleaned, all are not prohibited items, but it is not allowable to accept them," and that is fitting.

Rajata (silver) and jātarūpa (gold), whether in the form of finished goods or unfinished goods, are entirely and completely not prohibited items and are not allowed to be accepted, from the very beginning. It is said that a prince from the north had a golden shrine built and sent it to Mahāpaduma Thera. The Thera refused it, saying, "It is not allowable." In shrine rooms, there are golden lotuses, golden bubbles, and so on; these too are not prohibited items. However, it is said that the custodians of the shrine room, standing in the place for discarding silver, are allowed to play with it. In the Kurundī, even that is prohibited; only this much is permitted, that mere rubbish may be removed from the golden shrine. In all the commentaries, ārakūṭa loha (brass) is said to be of the same category as gold, and thus not a prohibited item. However, everything is allowable for use as senāsana (lodging), therefore, all senāsana requisites made of gold and silver are prohibited items. Monks construct jewel pavilions adorned with crystal pillars and jeweled garlands in places where the Dhamma and Vinaya are expounded; all the equipment there is allowable for monks to maintain. Lohitaṅkamasāragallā (red coral): Red coral that is thoroughly cleaned is allowable and not a prohibited item; the rest are prohibited items and it is allowable to accept them for use as goods for trade, so it is said. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is prohibited, stating, "Whether cleaned or uncleaned, all are entirely not prohibited items, and it is not allowable to accept them."

43. All āvudha (weapons) are prohibited items, and even if given for the purpose of goods for trade, they should not be accepted. Trade in weapons is not allowable. A plain bow stave, a bowstring, a goad, a dart, a hook, and even axes and hatchets, all of which are categorized as weapons, are prohibited items. If someone has placed a spear or a dart in the monastery, the one who is looking after the monastery should send word to the owners, saying, "Please take it away." If they do not take it away, the monastery should be cared for without moving it. However, having seen a sword, spear, or dart fallen on the battlefield, one is allowed to break the sword with a stone or something else and take it for use as a knife. The others too may be separated, taking some for use as knives and some for use as knife handles, etc. However, if it is being given, saying, "Take this," after destroying it and saying, "I will make it an allowable item," it is allowable to accept it all.

Macchajāla (fishing nets), pakkhijāla (bird nets), and other kinds of nets, phalaka jālika (lattice panels), and saraparittāṇa (armor) are all prohibited items; however, when nets are obtained for use, it is allowable to take the net, thinking, "I will tie it above the seat or the shrine, or I will wrap it around the umbrella." All the armor is allowable to accept for the purpose of goods for trade. This is for preventing harm from others, not for causing harm. The panel is allowable to take, thinking, "I will make a toothpick container."

In the Kurundī, however, it is stated, "Both the drum frame and the lute frame, the hollow drum, and the hide stretched over the mouthpiece, and the lute stave are all prohibited items." It is absolutely not allowed to wear, have someone wear, play, or have someone play them. Having seen something discarded by people after making offerings in the shrine courtyard, it should be swept in between without moving it, but when discarding the rubbish, it is allowable to remove and set it aside according to the rule for rubbish disposal, as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. It is also allowable to accept it for the purpose of goods for trade, but when obtaining them for use, we will make the lute resonator and the drum membrane into a toothpick container, and the hide into a knife sheath; in this way, it is allowable to take them for the purpose of the equipment for that particular requisite and do it accordingly.

Thus ends the Anāmāsavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discourse on the Determination of Non-prohibited Items is complete.

8. Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathā

44. Now, concerning Adhiṭṭhānavikappana (determination and dispensation) – "I allow, monks, the three robes to be determined but not dispensed; the rainy season cloth to be determined for the four months of the rains and dispensed thereafter; the sitting cloth to be determined but not dispensed; the spread to be determined but not dispensed; the boil covering to be determined until the sickness subsides and dispensed thereafter; the face-wiping cloth to be determined but not dispensed; the equipment cloth to be determined" (mahāva. 358). According to the rule for the three robes and so on, having determined them in this way, one should determine them by stating the name, such as "I determine this saṅghāṭi," if one wishes to use them. However, when dispensing, one should dispense them without mentioning the name, saying, "I dispense this robe to you." There, when determining the ticīvara (three robes), it should be dyed, have a kappa bindu (allowable mark) applied, and be of the proper size. Its size, in the largest measure, should be less than a Sugata's robe; in the smallest measure, the saṅghāṭi and the uttarāsaṅga should be five fist-widths in length and three fist-widths in width. The antaravāsaka (lower robe) should be five fist-widths in length and two hand-spans in width. For it is possible to cover the navel even when wearing it. However, anything exceeding or falling short of the stated measurement should be determined as a "parikkhāracoḷa (equipment cloth)."

Since it is stated, "There are two determinations for a robe: one determines with the body or one determines with speech" (pari. 322), therefore, having withdrawn the old saṅghāṭi, saying, "I withdraw this saṅghāṭi," and having taken the new saṅghāṭi in the hand and making an effort in the mind, it should be determined with the body by making a physical gesture. This is determination with the body; it is not allowable for one who does not touch it with any part of the body. For determination with speech, a distinction in speech should be made and it should be determined with speech. There, there are two kinds of determination: if it is within arm's reach, the speech should be broken, saying, "I determine this saṅghāṭi." But if it is inside a room, on an upper story, or in an adjacent monastery, having noted the place where it is kept, the speech should be broken, saying, "I determine this saṅghāṭi." This is the method for the uttarāsaṅga and the antaravāsaka. Only the name is different, therefore, all of them should be determined by one's own name as saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅga, and antaravāsaka. If, having determined them, one makes saṅghāṭis and so on from the stored cloths, once the dyeing and allowable marking are finished, they should be withdrawn, saying, "I withdraw this," and then determined again. However, when sewing a second piece or patch that is larger than the determined one, it must be determined again. There is no need for determination if it is the same size or smaller.

It is also stated in the Mahāpaccariya: "The term 'parikkhāracoḷa' refers to individual stored items. It is allowable to use the three robes after determining them as 'parikkhāracoḷa'; however, in the udositasikkhāpada (rules about dwelling outside of one's residence), the use of the three robes after determining them is described." It is said that Puṇṇavālikavāsī Mahātissa Thera, a reciter of the Ubhatovibhaṅga (the two Vibhaṅgas), said, "We used to hear from the elders, 'Monks who dwell in the forest leave their robes in tree hollows and other places when they go to strive in meditation, and when they go to adjacent monasteries to hear the Dhamma, novices or young monks go to them with their bowls and robes when the sun rises. Therefore, for the sake of comfortable use, it is allowable to determine the three robes as parikkhāracoḷa.'" It is also stated in the Mahāpaccariya: "In the past, forest-dwelling monks determined the three robes as merely parikkhāracoḷa because it was difficult to manage within an undefined boundary."

45. The vassikasāṭikā (rainy season cloth), if not exceeding the allowable size, should be determined by mentioning the name in the manner described above for the four months of the rainy season, and thereafter it should be withdrawn and dispensed. Even if its color is slightly different, it is allowable, but two are not allowable. The nisīdana (sitting cloth) should be determined in the manner described above, and it must be of the proper size and only one; two are not allowable. The paccattharaṇa (spread) should also be determined, and it can be large, one, or many; all types are allowable, whether blue, yellow, or adorned with fringes or flowers. The kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi (boil covering), as long as the ailment exists, should be determined according to the prescribed size. When the ailment subsides, it should be withdrawn and dispensed; only one is allowable. The mukhapuñchanacoḷa (face-wiping cloth) should be determined, and since one is desired for use while another is being washed, two are allowable. However, some elders say, "This is a stored item, and many are allowable." There is no limit to the number of parikkhāracoḷa (equipment cloths); as many as one desires may be determined. The thavikā (bag) and the parissāvana (water strainer), of the same size as a vikappanūpaga pacchimacīvara (a robe suitable for dispensing) should be determined as "parikkhāracoḷa." Its size is two spans in length and one span in width, which is one carpenter's hand in length and half that in width. There is this passage: "I allow, monks, a pacchimaṃ cīvara (additional cloth) that is eight aṅgulas (finger-widths) long by the Sugata's measure and four aṅgulas wide to be dispensed" (mahāva. 358). It is also allowable to determine many at once, saying, "I determine these cloths to be equipment cloths." If one keeps something for the sake of medicine, new work, one's parents, etc., there is no offense even if it is not determined. There is no need for determination for mañcabhisi (couch cover), pīṭhabhisi (stool cover), bimbohana (pillow), pāvāro (blanket), and kojava (woolen rug), and for a paccattharaṇa (spread) given for the sake of senāsana parikkhāra (lodging equipment).

If, having obtained thread from a relative's invitation, one has a robe woven by that same relative weaver or another by giving the raw material, there is no offense due to the weaving process. However, to protect against an offense due to the passing of ten days, it should be determined as soon as the cloth is in a state that is of dispensable measure. For if it is completed after the passing of ten days, it would become nissaggiya (requiring forfeiture). This same method applies even if relatives have the thread spun and then present it, saying, "Venerable sir, you should take this robe."

If a weaver, being employed in that way or wanting to donate on his own, says, "Venerable sir, I will weave a robe for you and keep it ready on such and such a day," and the bhikkhu lets ten days pass from the day specified by him, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession. But if the weaver, having said, "I will weave a robe for you and send a message," does just that, but the bhikkhu sent with the message does not inform that bhikkhu, and someone else, seeing or hearing, informs him, "Venerable sir, your robe is finished," this information is not valid. But when the bhikkhu sent with the message informs him, if he lets ten days pass from the day he hears that statement, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession.

If the weaver, having said, "I will weave a robe for you and send it in someone's hand," does just that, but the bhikkhu who received the robe and brought it, having placed it in his enclosure, does not inform him, and someone else says, "Venerable sir, the robe that was just brought is beautiful," and he asks, "Where, friend, is the robe?" and is told, "It was sent in the hand of so-and-so," even this statement is not valid. But when that bhikkhu gives the robe, if he lets ten days pass from the day he receives it, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession. If, however, the price of the weaving has not been given, even if a kākaṇika is still owing, he may keep it.

46.When using an appropriated robe (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), how does the appropriation lapse? It lapses through giving to another, through taking it back without severing the bond, through taking it back with confidence, through reversion to an inferior state, through renouncing the training, through death, through change of gender, through dis-appropriation, and through becoming torn; it lapses through these nine causes. Of these, through the first eight, all the robes lose their appropriation; but it is said in all the commentaries that appropriation lapses in the case of the three robes only through becoming torn, and that is by a tear the size of the back of a fingernail. Here, the size of the back of a fingernail should be understood as the size of the fingernail of the little finger, and the tear must be a complete tear. For if even one thread remains uncut within the tear, it retains its validity. Here, a tear within a space one span in length and eight fingerbreadths in width from the long edge of the saṅghāṭī and the uttarāsaṅga breaks the appropriation, while in the case of the antaravāsaka, a tear within a space one span in length and four fingerbreadths in width from the long edge breaks the appropriation, but beyond that it does not break it; therefore, when a tear occurs, the three robes remain in the place of extra robes, and they should be re-appropriated after needlework has been done. But if one first puts a fastening in the weak place and then cuts and removes the weak place, the appropriation is not broken. The same method applies to reversing the pattern. If a tear occurs or it wears out in one layer of a double-layered robe, the appropriation is not broken; if one makes a small robe large, or a large one small, the appropriation is not broken. If, when bringing both edges to the middle, one first cuts and then sews, the appropriation is broken. But if he sews and then cuts, it is not broken. Even if the robes are whitened by having them washed by launderers, the appropriation remains the appropriation. This, then, is the judgment regarding appropriation.

47.In waiving, there are two kinds of waiving: waiving in the presence [of another] and waiving in the absence [of another]. How does waiving in the presence [of another] occur? Having known the singularity or plurality of the robes and their being present or not present, and having said, "This robe" or "These robes" or "That robe" or "Those robes," one should say, "I waive [this] to you"; this is one kind of waiving in the presence [of another]. With this much, it is permissible to store [the robe], but it is not permissible to use it, to give it away, or to appropriate it. But if it is said, "Use, give away, or do with what belongs to me, what belongs to me, as you please," this is called dis-appropriation, and from then on, using it and so on are also permissible.

Another method: just so, having known the singularity or plurality of the robes and their being present or not present, and having said to that bhikkhu himself, "This robe" or "These robes" or "That robe" or "Those robes," having taken the name of one of the five co-religionists, whomever one likes, one should say, "I waive [this] to Tissa the bhikkhu," or "to Tissā the bhikkhunī, to Tissā the sikkhamānā, to Tissa the sāmaṇera, [or] to Tissā the sāmaṇerī"; this is another kind of waiving in the presence [of another]. With this much, it is permissible to store [the robe], but not even one of using it and so on is permissible. But when that bhikkhu says, "Use, give away, or do as you please with what belongs to Tissa the bhikkhu…pe… what belongs to Tissā the sāmaṇerī," this is called dis-appropriation, and from then on, using it and so on are also permissible.

How does waiving in the absence [of another] occur? Just so, having known the singularity or plurality of the robes and their being present or not present, and having said, "This robe" or "These robes" or "That robe" or "Those robes," one should say, "I give [this] for the purpose of waiving to you." He should be asked, "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then, by the same method as before, the other should say, "Tissa the bhikkhu"…pe… "Tissā the sāmaṇerī." Then that bhikkhu should say, "I give [this] to Tissa the bhikkhu"…pe… "I give [this] to Tissā the sāmaṇerī"; this is waiving in the absence [of another]. With this much, it is permissible to store [the robe], but not even one of using it and so on is permissible. But when that bhikkhu says, in the same way as stated in the second waiving in the presence [of another], "Use, give away, or do as you please with what belongs to so-and-so," this is called dis-appropriation, and from then on, using it and so on are also permissible.

What is the difference between the two kinds of waiving? In waiving in the presence [of another], one waives oneself and has another dis-appropriate; in waiving in the absence [of another], one has another waive and another dis-appropriate; this is the difference here. But if the one to whom he waives is not skilled in the texts and does not know how to dis-appropriate, having taken that robe, he should go to another knowledgeable one and, having waived again, have another dis-appropriate. This is called waiving of what has been waived, and it is permissible. In this way, then, the method regarding appropriation and waiving of robes should be understood.

48.Regarding bowls, this is the method: when appropriating a bowl, it should be appropriated only if it is of a suitable size, whether superior, middling, or inferior. Its size is stated in the pāḷi by the method beginning with "It holds half an āḷhaka of rice" (pārā. 602). Here is the judgment on that (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602 ff.): Having taken two magadhanāḷis of unblemished old rice, well-husked and purified, and having cooked from that rice rice that is well-made, unsticky, lumped together, very clear, like a heap of kunda buds, and undrained of water, and having poured it without remainder into the bowl, and then having poured in mung bean soup, well-prepared with all ingredients, that is neither too thick nor too thin, that can be taken up by hand, in an amount equal to one-fourth of that rice, and then having poured in relishes of fish, meat, etc., suitable for mouthful after mouthful, until the last mouthful is sufficient; but clarified butter, oil, buttermilk, juice, etc., are not to be included in the calculation. For those go with the rice; they cannot diminish [the amount], nor can they increase it. If all of this, having been poured in, stands level with the lower line of the rim of the bowl, and if, when cutting it with a string or wire, the lower end of the string or wire touches that line, this is called a superior bowl. If, having passed beyond that line, it stands piled up, this is called a superior-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line but is sunken within, this is called a superior-superior bowl.

middling bowl. If, having passed beyond that line, it stands piled up, this is called a middling-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line but is sunken within, this is called a middling-superior bowl. If all of it, including half a magadhanāḷi of rice, etc., having been poured in, stands level with the lower line, this is called an inferior bowl. If, having passed beyond that line, it stands piled up, this is called an inferior-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line but is sunken within, this is called an inferior-superior bowl. These, then, are the nine bowls. Of these, two are not bowls: the superior-superior and the inferior-inferior. Therefore, these should be used for eating, but they are not fit for appropriation or waiving. But the other seven should be used after being appropriated or waived.

The fitness of these, even though of suitable size, for appropriation and waiving should be understood thus: An iron bowl baked with five bakings and a clay bowl baked with two bakings are fit for appropriation. In both cases, [it is fit] only when the price to be given for it has been given. If even one baking is lacking, or even a kākaṇika's worth of the price has not been given, it is not fit for appropriation. If the bowl's owner says, "When you have the price, then give it and use [the bowl] after appropriating it," it is still not fit for appropriation, for due to the lack of a baking it does not go to the count of bowls, and due to the non-giving of all or part of the price it does not attain to being one's own; it belongs to another. Therefore, it is fit for appropriation only when the baking and the price are quite settled. That which is fit for appropriation is itself fit for waiving. It may be appropriated or waived when it has come into one's hand or when it has not. For if the bowl-maker, having received the price or wanting to donate it himself, says, "Venerable sir, I will make a bowl for you and keep it ready, baked, on such and such a day," and the bhikkhu lets ten days pass from the day specified by him, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession. But if the bowl-maker, having said, "I will make a bowl for you and send a message," does just that, but the bhikkhu sent with the message does not inform that bhikkhu, and someone else, seeing or hearing, informs him, "Venerable sir, your bowl is finished," this information is not valid. But when the bhikkhu sent with the message informs him, if he lets ten days pass from the day he hears that statement, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession. If the bowl-maker, having said, "I will make a bowl for you and send it in someone's hand," does just that, but the bhikkhu who received the bowl and came with it, having placed it in his enclosure, does not inform him, and someone else says, "Venerable sir, the bowl that was just brought is beautiful," and he asks, "Where, friend, is the bowl?" and is told, "It was sent in the hand of so-and-so," even this statement is not valid. But when that bhikkhu gives the bowl, if he lets ten days pass from the day he receives it, it is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession; therefore, it should be appropriated or waived without letting ten days pass.

Here, there are two ways of determining possession of the bowl: one determines it by physical act, or one determines it by verbal act. When determining possession in accordance with these, having said, "I release this bowl," or, "I release that bowl," one should release the old bowl standing in front or away, give it to another, and having touched the new bowl standing anywhere with the hand, one should determine possession by a physical act, having mentally directed one’s attention with the thought, "I determine possession of this bowl," while making a physical gesture; or having made a verbal declaration, one can determine possession by a verbal act. Here, there are two kinds of determination: if it is within arm's reach, the statement "I determine possession of this bowl" should be made; but if it is inside a room, or on an upper floor, or in an adjacent monastery, having noted the place where it is kept, the statement "I determine possession of that bowl" should be made. However, one determining possession can do so alone, or one can determine possession in the presence of another. In the presence of another, there is this benefit: if doubt arises in him, "Is it determined for me, or not?", the other, reminding him, will cut off the doubt. If someone, having obtained ten bowls, wants to use all by himself, not all should be determined; having determined one bowl, on the following day, having released that one, another should be determined. By this same method, it is possible to use them even for a hundred years.

In this way, for one who is diligent, could there be abandonment of determination? There could be. For if he himself gives the bowl to another, or is confused, or renounces the training, or dies, or his gender changes, or he releases it, or there is a hole in the bowl, the determination is abandoned. And this was said:

"Given, confused, renounced, and by one who has died;
Gender change and releasing, and seventh, by a hole." (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.608) –

It is abandoned also by being seized by robbers or by distrust from acceptance. With how big a hole is the determination broken? By that through which a grain of kaṅgu seed both exits and enters. For this is the seed of the inferior grain among the seven grains. If, in that hole, after making it smooth with iron powder or a drill, one makes a repair, it should be determined again within ten days. This, for now, is the judgment here on determination.

49.In relinquishment, there are two kinds of relinquishment: relinquishment in presence and relinquishment in absence. How does relinquishment in presence occur? Having known the singularity or plurality of the bowls and the state of being near or far, having said "This bowl" or "These bowls" or "That bowl" or "Those bowls," one should say, "I relinquish to you"; this is one kind of relinquishment in presence. With just this much, it is permissible to store it away, but it is not permissible to use it, to give it away, or to determine possession. However, when it is said, "Use my property, or give it away, or do with it as you please," then it is called releasing, and from then on, use, etc., are also permissible.

Another method: Just so, having known the singularity or plurality of the bowls and the state of being near or far, in the presence of that same bhikkhu, having said "This bowl" or "These bowls" or "That bowl" or "Those bowls," having taken the name of any one of the five co-religionists whom he likes, saying "I relinquish it to Tissa the bhikkhu," or "to Tissā the bhikkhunī, the female trainee, the sāmaṇera, Tissā the sāmaṇerī," this is another relinquishment in presence. With just this much, it is permissible to store it away. But not even one of the uses, etc., is permissible. However, when it is said by that bhikkhu, "Use the property of Tissa the bhikkhu…pe…the property of Tissā the sāmaṇerī, or give it away, or do with it as you please," then it is called releasing, and from then on, use, etc., are also permissible.

How does relinquishment in absence occur? Just so, having known the singularity or plurality of the bowls and the state of being near or far, having said "This bowl" or "These bowls" or "That bowl" or "Those bowls," one should say, "I give it for the purpose of relinquishing it to you." He should be asked, "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then, by the previous method, the other should say, "Tissa the bhikkhu"...pe... "Tissā the sāmaṇerī." Again, that bhikkhu should say, "I give it to Tissa the bhikkhu"...pe... "I give it to Tissā the sāmaṇerī"; this is relinquishment in absence. With just this much, it is permissible to store it away, but not even one of the uses, etc., is permissible. However, when it is said by that bhikkhu, in the same way as stated in the second relinquishment in presence, "Use the property of so-and-so, or give it away, or do with it as you please," then it is called releasing, and from then on, use, etc., are also permissible. This is the method in relinquishment.

50.Having thus determined possession and relinquished, if the bowl breaks while using it, what should be done? By one whose bowl does not have a crack measuring two finger-widths or less from the edge of the mouth, nothing should be done. But by one who (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.612-3) has even one such crack, having pierced it with a bowl-piercing tool at the lower end of that crack, having cooked it, and having bound it with thread, string, makaci string, etc., or with three-ply thread, that binding should be covered with three-ply wax or with some kind of attached glue in order to prevent the adhesion of food. And that bowl should be determined and used. Or a small hole should be made and bound. But it is not permissible to bind it with pure madhuka wax, kalākha resin, or sajjurasa glue, etc.; having burnt molasses, it is permissible to bind it with stone powder. But when piercing near the mouth rim with a bowl-piercing tool, it breaks due to the thickness of the potsherd; therefore, it should be pierced below. But for one who has two cracks, or even one that is four finger-widths long, two bindings should be given. For one who has three, or even one that is six finger-widths long, three [bindings should be given]. For one who has four, or even one that is eight finger-widths long, four [bindings should be given]. For one who has five, or even one that is ten finger-widths long, he, whether bound or unbound, is certainly without a bowl; another should be requested. This, for now, is the judgment on a clay bowl.

In an iron bowl, however, even if there are five or more holes, and those, bound with iron powder or a drill or an iron ring, are smooth, that same bowl should be used; another should not be requested. But if even one hole is large, even bound with an iron ring, it is not smooth, food sticks to the bowl, it is unsuitable, this is without a bowl, another should be requested. And when requesting, in a place designated by the Saṅgha, it is permissible to request another bowl with a bowl having just five bindings; but in a place designated by the individual, it is permissible even with fewer than five bindings. And having obtained a bowl, while using it, it should not be used for making rice gruel, dyeing robes, cooking dye, etc., without any exchange; but in case of illness arising on a journey, if there is no other vessel, it is permissible to smear it with clay and cook rice gruel or heat water. It should not be placed even on a bed, chair, umbrella, or ivory, etc., in an inappropriate place. For the place for placing the bowl has already been stated in the Khandhaka in the way beginning, "I allow, monks, a bowl stand," etc. (cūḷava. 254).

Thus ends in the Pāḷi-Muttaka Vinaya-Vinicchaya-Saṅgaha,

The Discourse on the Judgment of Determination and Relinquishment.

9. Discourse on the Judgment of Separation from a Robe

51.Living apart from a robe means separation from one of the three robes determined by the determination of the three robes. For, having thus determined the three robes, it is not permissible to live without even one of them; for one who lives so, with the rising of the dawn, the robe becomes subject to forfeiture. Therefore, at the time of dawn, having made the robe within arm's reach, measuring two and a half ratanas, one should live. However, in a village, settlement, dwelling, semi-circular building, palace, mansion, boat, inhabited field, field for growing grain, park, monastery, at the foot of a tree, and in the open air, this is the distinction (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.477-8): if a village belongs to one king or village headman, and is enclosed by some kind of wall or fence or moat, in such a village, having placed the robe, it is permissible to spend the dawn anywhere inside the village as desired. But if it is unenclosed, in such a village, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed, or one should stay within arm's reach of that house all around, measuring two and a half ratanas. If, having exceeded that measure, even a bhikkhu with psychic power causes the dawn to rise in the sky, the robe is still subject to forfeiture.

If the village belongs to various kings or headmen, is like Vesālī or Kusinārā, and is enclosed, in such a village, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed, or if unable to stay there due to the noise of crowds or the commotion of people, one should stay in the assembly hall or at the foot of the city gate. Even if unable to stay there, having stayed in some comfortable place and come back within the dawn, one should stay within arm's reach of those same assembly halls or city gates. But there is certainly no need to speak of [staying within] arm's reach of the house or the robe.

If, having placed it in the house, one is going to the assembly hall thinking, "I will place it in the assembly hall," and having stretched out the hand, one places the robe in some shop within arm's reach for the sake of easy depositing, by that same previous method, one should stay in the assembly hall or at the city gate or within arm's reach of them.

If the city has many gates and many assembly halls, it is not permissible to stay everywhere. But in whichever street the robe is placed, whichever assembly hall and gate are in front of that, one should stay within arm's reach of that assembly hall and gate. For when it is like this, it is possible to know the situation of the robe. But when going to the assembly hall, if the shopkeeper in whose hand it was deposited, having taken that robe too far, places it in the house, the arm's reach of the street does not protect it; one should stay within arm's reach of the house. If it is a large house standing spanning two streets, the dawn should be allowed to rise only in front or behind, within arm's reach. But having placed it in the assembly hall, the dawn should be allowed to rise in the assembly hall or in front of that at the foot of the city gate or within arm's reach of them. If, however, the village is unenclosed, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed, within arm's reach of that house.

A settlement is enclosed, with various rooms and various apartments; having placed the robe inside the settlement, one should stay inside the settlement. If it is unenclosed, in whichever room the robe is placed, one should stay in that room or within arm's reach of the room. If the settlement belongs to various families, and is enclosed, with various rooms and various apartments, in whichever room the robe is placed, one should stay in that room, or at the door of the house common to all, or within arm's reach of the room or the door of the house. If it is unenclosed, in whichever room the robe is placed, one should stay in that room or within arm's reach of the room. In a dwelling, semi-circular building, palace, and mansion, the judgment should be understood in the same way as stated for a settlement.

A boat: having placed the robe inside the boat, one should stay inside the boat. If the boat belongs to various families, with various rooms and various apartments, in whichever apartment the robe is placed, one should stay in that apartment or within arm's reach of the apartment.

There is a caravan (sattha): Having placed the robe in that caravan, one should not stray beyond the inner boundary of the caravan, either in front or behind; one should not stray beyond the surrounding boundary. One inner boundary is twenty-eight cubits. If the caravan belongs to various families, having placed the robe in the caravan, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe. If a moving caravan stops after encompassing a village or a river, having entered within and being bound together, having pervaded both sides, the protection of the caravan is obtained. But if it is encompassed by a village or a river, both the protection of the village and the protection of the river are obtained. If it stops after crossing the boundary of the monastery, and the robe is within the boundary, one should go and dwell in the monastery. If the robe is outside the boundary, one should dwell near the caravan itself. If, while moving, the caravan is broken up in between due to a broken cart or a lost ox, one should dwell where the robe is placed in whichever compartment.

There is a field (khetta): and it is fenced. Having placed the robe inside the field, one should dwell inside the field. If it is unfenced, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe. If the field belongs to various families and is fenced, having placed the robe inside the field, one should dwell at the door or within arm's reach of the door. If it is unfenced, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe.

There is a threshing floor (dhaññakaraṇa): and it is fenced. Having placed the robe inside the threshing floor, one should dwell inside the threshing floor. If it is unfenced, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe. If the threshing floor belongs to various families and is fenced, having placed the robe inside the threshing floor, one should dwell at the door or within arm's reach of the door. If it is unfenced, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe. In flower gardens and fruit gardens (pupphārāmaphalārāmesu), the decision should be understood in the same way as stated for a field.

There is a monastery (vihāra): and it is fenced. Having placed the robe inside the monastery, one should dwell inside the monastery. If it is unfenced, one should dwell in the monastery where the robe is placed, or within arm's reach of that monastery.

There is the foot of a tree (rukkhamūla): where the shade spreads all around at midday. Having placed the robe within the shade, one should dwell within the shade. However, if it is placed in an open space touched by the sun of a tree with sparse branches, it is immediately nissaggiya. Therefore, it should be placed in the shade of a branch or in the shade of the trunk of such a tree. If one places it on a branch or a twig, it should be placed where it is covered by the shade of another branch. The shade of a khujjaka tree extends far; it is permissible to place it where the shade reaches. If the foot of the tree belongs to various families, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe.

In the open air (ajjhokāse), however, in a non-village forest, having placed the robe, one should dwell within the inner boundary of seven abbataras all around. A non-village forest is found in places such as the viñjhāṭavī forest, or in the middle of the ocean, or on islands where fishermen do not go. In such a forest, for one dwelling in the middle, the boundary of seven abbataras is defined all around; with the space between, there are fourteen. Sitting in the middle, he protects the robe placed at the edge in the eastern or western direction. But if, at the time of sunrise, even the tip of a hair goes towards the eastern direction, the robe becomes nissaggiya in the western direction. This is the same method for the other directions. However, while using a nissaggiya robe without forfeiting it, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

52. If a meditative monk (padhāniko bhikkhu), having dedicated himself to meditation all night, at dawn, thinking "I will bathe," places the three robes on the bank and descends into the river, and dawn breaks while he is bathing, what should be done? If he comes out and wears the robe, the robe is nissaggiya, and he incurs a dukkaṭa offense because of using it without forfeiting it. But if he goes naked, does he also incur a dukkaṭa offense? He does not incur an offense. For as long as he does not see another monk and perform the act of confession (vinayakamma), those robes are in a state of being unfit for use, like lost robes, and for a lost robe, there is nothing that is not allowable. Therefore, having worn one and taken two in his hands, he should go to the monastery and perform the act of confession. If the monastery is far away and people are walking on the road in between, he should wear one, cover himself with one, place one on his shoulder, and go. If he does not see a fellow monk in the monastery, as they have gone for alms, having left the saṅghāṭi outside the village, he should go to the assembly hall with the antaravāsaka and uttarāsaṅga and perform the act of confession. If there is fear of thieves outside the village, he should go covered up. If the assembly hall is crowded, full of people, and it is not possible to take off the robe in a secluded place and perform the act of confession, having taken one monk, he should go outside the village, perform the act of confession, and then use the robes.

If elder monks (therā bhikkhū), giving the bowl and robes into the hands of younger ones, are going on a journey and want to lie down in the last watch of the night, they should lie down only after placing their own robes within arm's reach. If, while they are going and the younger ones have not arrived, dawn breaks, the robe is nissaggiya, but the dependence (nissaya) is not relinquished. The same method applies to the younger ones going ahead and the elders not having arrived. The same method applies even if they miss the road and cannot see each other in the forest. But if the younger ones say, "Venerable sirs, we will sleep for a moment and reach you at such and such a place," and they sleep until sunrise, the robe is nissaggiya, and the dependence is relinquished. The same method applies when the elders sleep after sending the younger ones ahead. Having seen a fork in the road, the elders say, "This is the way," and the younger ones say, "This is the way," and having not heeded each other's words, they go, with the rising of the dawn, the robes are nissaggiya, and the dependence is relinquished. If the younger ones turn off the road and, thinking, "We will return before dawn," enter a village for medicine and come back, and dawn rises before they arrive, the robes are nissaggiya, but the dependence is not relinquished. But if, due to fear of cows or fear of dogs, they stand for a moment and, thinking, "We will go," stand or sit and then go, if dawn rises in between, the robes are nissaggiya, and the dependence is relinquished.

If, thinking, "We will return before dawn," they enter a village within the boundary and dawn rises in between, the robes are neither nissaggiya, nor is the dependence relinquished. But if they sit thinking, "Let it dawn first," and dawn rises, the robes are not nissaggiya, but the dependence is relinquished. If those who go eagerly to a neighboring monastery to hear the Dhamma, thinking, "We will return before dawn," and dawn rises on the road in between, the robes are nissaggiya, but the dependence is not relinquished. If, out of respect for the Dhamma, they sit thinking, "We will go only after hearing the end," with the rising of the dawn, the robes are nissaggiya, and the dependence is relinquished. When an elder sends a younger one to a village to wash the robe, he should give it only after reclaiming his own robe; and the younger one should keep it only after having the robe reclaimed. If he goes unmindful, he should reclaim his own robe and keep the younger one's robe in trust. If the elder does not remember, but only the younger one remembers, the younger one, having reclaimed his own robe and taken the elder's robe in trust, should go and say, "Venerable sir, use your robe after re-affirming (the allowable limit)." One should also re-affirm (the allowable limit) for one's own robe. In this way, even if one is mindful, there is release from the offense.

Thus ends the Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Explanation of Deciding on Separation from Robes is Finished.

10. Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā

53. Returning Goods (Bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana) means guarding the goods of others. For (pāci. aṭṭha. 506) whether the property of others is allowable or unallowable, even if it is only the mother’s ear ornament or a black leaf, it is a pācittiya offense for one who, with the intention of being a storekeeper, returns it to a lay person. But if it is allowable property belonging to one's parents, it must certainly be returned. Having taken it for one's own benefit, it should be returned. However, if one is told, "Return this and give it," one should refuse, saying, "It is not allowable." If they drop it, saying "Return it," and leave, it is called an encumbrance (palibodha), and it is permissible to return it. If carpenters and other royal favorites doing work in the monastery say, "Return and give us our equipment or bedding," it should not be done out of desire or fear; however, it is permissible to show a safe place. And if they drop it forcibly and leave, it is permissible to return it.

If (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.111) an item placed in one's hand for safekeeping is requested by the owner with the words, "Give me my item," and, unwilling to give it back, he says, "I am not holding it," it is a dukkaṭa offense because of the intentional false speech, and because it is an attempt to steal what was not given. It is also a dukkaṭa offense for one who says, "What are you saying? This is not appropriate for me, nor for you," and so on. If the owner creates doubt, thinking, "I placed it in his hands in private; no one else knows. Will he give it to me, or not?", a thullaccaya offense is incurred by the monk. Seeing his harsh behavior, if the owner abandons the effort, thinking, "He will not give it to me," then if this monk is eager to give it after vexing him, he may keep it for a while. Even if he is not eager to give it, but the owner of the item is eager to receive it, he may keep it. If, however, he is not eager to give it and the owner of the item abandons the effort, thinking, "He will not give it to me," then with the abandonment of effort by both, the monk incurs a pārājika offense. Even if he says with his mouth, "I will give it," but in his mind he is unwilling to give it, a pārājika offense is incurred upon the owner's abandonment of effort. But there is no offense for one who, for the sake of safekeeping, moves an item placed in his hand by others from an unsafe place to a safe place. Even if he moves it from its place with the intention of stealing it, there is no carrying away. Why? Because it was entrusted to his hand; however, there is a debt for the item. The same method applies even if he uses it with the intention of stealing it.

54. However, it is permissible to return any requisites whatsoever belonging to the five co-religionists. If a visiting monk places his bowl and robes near resident monks who are doing robe work, thinking, "They will keep these safe," and goes to bathe or elsewhere, if those resident monks keep them safe, that is skillful. If not, there is no liability if they are lost. Even if he says, "Venerable sirs, please keep this," and leaves, and the others do not know because they are busy, the same method applies. But if, having been asked or not asked, they say, "We are busy," and refuse, and the other, not paying attention, leaves thinking, "They will definitely keep it," the same method applies. If, however, having been asked or not asked by him, they say, "We will keep it, you may go," it must be kept safe. If they do not keep it safe, there is liability if it is lost. Why? Because they accepted the responsibility.

If a monk, being a storekeeper, early in the morning lowers the bowls and robes of the monks from the upper story, closes the door, and goes far away for alms without informing them, if thieves steal those items, he alone is liable. But if a monk, having been told by the monks, "Venerable sir, lower the bowls and robes; it is time for drawing lots," asks, "Are you all assembled?", and, having been told, "Yes, we are assembled," takes out the bowls and robes, puts them down, closes the storehouse door, and says, "You should take the bowls and robes, guard the door of the upper story, and go," and then leaves. There, a certain lazy monk, after the monks have left, gets up late, wiping his eyes, and goes to the water place to wash his face; seeing that moment, thieves steal his bowl and robe, it is well done, there is no liability for the storekeeper.

If someone places their requisites in the storeroom without informing the storeroom manager, the storeroom manager is not responsible if they are lost. But if the storeroom manager sees it and, thinking, "It is placed in the wrong place," takes it and puts it away, he is responsible if it is lost. Even if the bhikkhu who placed it says, "Bhante, I have placed such-and-such requisites; please take note of them," and he replies, "Good," accepting it, or thinking it is insecurely placed, puts it in another place, he is responsible if it is lost. But if he refuses, saying, "I do not know," he is not responsible. Also, if someone places it while he is watching, and does not get the storeroom manager's agreement, what is lost is properly lost. But if the storeroom manager places it elsewhere, he is responsible if it is lost. If the storeroom is well-guarded, and all the Saṅgha's and shrine's requisites are placed there, and the storeroom manager, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes somewhere to listen to a Dhamma talk or to do something else, he is responsible for all that the thieves steal, seeing the opportunity. He is responsible for all that the thieves steal due to his negligence if he leaves the storeroom and walks outside, or opens the door to warm his body, or sits there engaged in the practices of a samaṇa, or sits there occupied with some work, or even if he is afflicted by the need to urinate or defecate but goes outside while the necessary facilities are available there in the vicinity, or is negligent in any other way, and they enter through the open door or break in or cut through the wall. However, they say, "It is allowable to open a window to lie down in hot weather." But if someone afflicted by the need to urinate goes elsewhere because there are no facilities in the vicinity, he is not liable because he is in a sick person's situation; therefore, he is not responsible.

55. But if someone, being oppressed by the heat inside, securely fastens the door and goes outside, and thieves seize him and say, "Open the door," it should not be opened until the third request. But if those thieves raise axes, etc., saying, "If you do not open it, we will kill you and break down the door and steal the requisites," it is allowable to open it, thinking, "If I die, there will be no benefit in the Saṅgha losing its dwelling." Here too, they say, "He is not responsible because it is unavoidable." If some newcomer gives the key or opens the door, he is responsible for all that the thieves steal. If the Saṅgha has provided a sliding bolt and a key-seal joined together for the protection of the storeroom, and the storeroom manager gives it a quick turn and lies down, and the thieves open it and steal the requisites, he is responsible. But if, when he has lain down with the sliding bolt and key-seal joined together, thieves come and say, "Open the door," he should proceed in the same way as before. But if, when he has lain down after making it secure in this way, they steal by breaking through the wall or the roof or entering through a tunnel, he is not responsible.

If other theras also live in the storeroom, and they take their own requisites and leave through the open door, and the storeroom manager does not watch the door after they have left, if anything is stolen there, the storeroom manager is responsible, due to the storeroom manager's position of authority. However, the theras should be supportive. This is proper conduct. If the storeroom manager says, "You stand outside and take your requisites; do not enter," and one very greedy mahāthera together with sāmaṇeras and attendants enters the storeroom and sits and lies down, he is responsible for all the goods that are lost; however, the storeroom manager and the remaining theras should be supportive. But if the storeroom manager himself, together with the greedy sāmaṇeras and attendants, sits and lies down in the storeroom, he is responsible for all that is lost. Therefore, only the storeroom manager should live there; the rest should live at the foot of a tree, not in the storeroom.

56. Those who place their requisites in the living quarters of their fellow bhikkhus are responsible for the loss of the requisites that have been placed with them; however, the others should be supportive. But if the Saṅgha provides gruel and meals to the storeroom manager in the monastery itself, and he goes to the village for alms, he is responsible for what is lost. If a monastery watchman, who has been provided with gruel and meals, places his extra robe for safekeeping and goes for alms, he is responsible for all that is lost there. And not only this much, but like the storeroom manager, he is responsible for all that is lost due to his negligence.

If the monastery is large, he is not responsible if something is stolen from one area while he goes to guard another area, as it is beyond his scope. In such a monastery, one should sit in the middle, in a place accessible to all, after placing one's requisites there, or two or three monastery watchmen should be appointed. Even if something is lost while these vigilant ones are guarding from here and there, they are not responsible. Nor are the monastery watchmen responsible for goods stolen after being tied up and carried away, or for goods stolen along a different path when they have gone to intercept the thieves. If the monastery watchmen are not given gruel or meals in the monastery, they should keep two or three extra gruel tickets and sufficient meal tickets from the alms they receive; but they should not keep them permanently fixed. People are apt to complain, "The monastery watchmen are always eating our food," therefore they should keep them rotating. If their fellow members bring and give them ticket meals, etc., that is skillful. If they do not give, they should have them issued in turn. If a monastery watchman receives two or three gruel tickets and four or five meal tickets and goes for alms, he is responsible for all that is lost, like the storeroom manager. If the Saṅgha has no meal or food to give to the monastery caretakers, the bhikkhus take turns watching the monastery in their own residences; one may not refuse to take one's turn when it comes. As the other bhikkhus do, so should it be done. But a bhikkhu who has no support, or no second person, or whose fellow bhikkhu does not bring food to give him, should not be assigned a turn.

Also, one who lives on what is kept in the monastery for the sake of cooking should stay there. One who does not live on it should not be assigned a turn. They also keep a bhikkhu in the monastery for the sake of fruits, and they eat them after dividing them according to the fruit season, having guarded and protected them. One who eats those fruits should stay there; one who does not live on them should not be assigned a turn. They also keep someone to protect the monastery's beds, chairs, and coverings; one who lives in the dwelling should stay there, but one who lives in the open air or at the foot of a tree should not be assigned a turn. There is a new bhikkhu who is very learned and recites the Dhamma to many, gives explanations, elucidates the Pāḷi, gives a Dhamma talk, and discharges the Saṅgha's duties; even if he enjoys the gains and lives in the dwelling, he should not be assigned a turn. They say, "A distinguished person should be recognized." One who cares for the uposatha hall and the image house should be given twice the gruel and a nāḷi of rice daily, and three robes and allowable goods worth ten or twenty [ māsa ] annually. But if something is lost there due to his negligence while he is receiving this, he is responsible for all of it. He is not responsible for what is tied up and forcibly taken away. There, one should have what belongs to the shrine protected by what belongs to the shrine or to the Saṅgha, but one should not have what belongs to the Saṅgha protected by what belongs to the shrine. But it is allowable to have what belongs to the Saṅgha protected along with what belongs to the shrine, as it is protected when what belongs to the shrine is protected. Even when one guards the uposatha hall, etc., on a fortnightly basis, one is responsible for what is lost due to negligence.

Thus ends the Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The discussion on deciding about goods is complete.

11. Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathā

57. Kayavikkayasamāpatti means incurring [the offense of] buying and selling. Indeed, one incurs [the offense of] buying when one takes another's allowable goods in the way of saying, "Give this to me for that," etc. (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595), and one incurs [the offense of] selling when one gives one's own allowable goods. However, this buying and selling is not allowable with anyone other than the five co-religionists, be they laypersons or renunciates, not even with one's parents.

Herein is the decision: whether it is cloth for cloth or food for food, if he says, "Give this to me for that," regarding anything allowable, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Thus, even if he gives his own goods to his mother, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Or, when told, "Give this to me for that," or having said, "Give me this, I will give you that," he takes his mother's goods for himself, there is an offense of dukkaṭa; when his own goods reach another's hand and the other's goods reach his own hand, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya. But there is no soliciting when he tells his mother or father, "Give me this," and there is no destroying of faith-given alms when he gives, saying, "Take this." There is soliciting when he tells a stranger, "Give me this," and there is destroying of faith-given alms when he gives, saying, "Take this"; when he incurs buying and selling by [saying,] "Give this to me for that," there is a nissaggiya. Therefore, one who exchanges allowable goods should exchange them with his parents avoiding buying and selling, and with strangers avoiding the three offenses.

Because it is firmly stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, it is not possible to reject this; therefore, just as one declares a pācittiya when a nissaggiya object has been used or lost, so too should it be declared here.

It is allowable to ask the price of any allowable goods that one wants to obtain; therefore, if he is asked, "How much is your bowl worth?" and he says, "It is worth so much," and if his own allowable item is very expensive, he should reply, "Lay follower, my item is very expensive; give your bowl to someone else." Hearing that, if the other says, "I will give you another dish too," it is allowable to take it. If his bowl is very expensive and the bhikkhu's item is cheap, and the bowl's owner does not know that it is cheap, the bowl should not be taken; he should be told, "My item is cheap." Indeed, one who deceives and takes [the bowl] knowing it is expensive incurs the offense of having the item valued and made. If the bowl's owner says, "Let it be, Bhante, the rest will be merit for me," it is allowable. It is allowable to tell an alms-arranger, "Take this for me for that"; therefore, setting aside the one from whose hand he takes the item, he appoints another, even his son or brother, as an alms-arranger and tells him, "Take such-and-such for me for that"; if he is clever, removes [the item], argues, and takes it, one should remain silent. But if he is not clever, does not know how to take it, and the merchant deceives him, he should be told, "Do not take it."

However, when it is said, "We have this received oil or ghee, and we need another unreceived one," if he takes that and gives another, one's own oil should not be measured first. Why? Because there may be oil remaining in the nāḷi, and it might contaminate the unreceived [oil] when he measures it later. This buying and selling has been stated in terms of allowable goods. Indeed, a nissaggiya is stated by the buying and selling training rule for one who exchanges an allowable item for an allowable item; for one who exchanges an unallowable item for an unallowable item, or an allowable item for an unallowable item, or an unallowable item for an allowable item, there is a nissaggiya by the money-dealing training rule; therefore, when either both or one is unallowable, it is called money-dealing.

58. This set of four types of bowls should be understood to emphasize the gravity of using money. If someone accepts money and uses it to produce raw metal, smelts it, and then makes a bowl out of that metal, this bowl is called "highly unacceptable (mahāakappiya)"; it cannot be made acceptable by any means. Even if they destroy it and make a plate, that too is unacceptable. If they make an axe, even a toothpick cut with that axe is unacceptable. If they make a fishhook, even the fish killed with it are unacceptable. If they heat water or milk using an heated axe, that too is unacceptable.

It is said in the Mahāpaccariya: "It is possible to make it acceptable." That is, if the money is returned to the original owners, and the bowl to its owner, it becomes acceptable; it is permissible to use after giving an acceptable item in exchange.

If someone has money accepted and goes with an artisan to the smithy, points out a bowl and says, "I like this one," and the artisan pays the smith with that money, this bowl, even though acquired through an acceptable transaction, is still like the second type of bowl, unacceptable because the original money was received. Why is it not acceptable for others? Because the original money has not been relinquished.

However, if without accepting money, one goes with a trustworthy artisan sent (by a donor), to the smithy, points out a bowl and says, "Take these kahāpaṇas and give me this," this bowl is not allowable only for that bhikkhu because of his double-dealing, but it is allowable for others, since the original money was not received. It is said that Mahāsumatthera's preceptor was named Anuruddhatthera. He filled such a bowl of his with ghee and dedicated it to the Sangha. A similar bowl belonged to the pupils of Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāgatthera. That Thera also had it filled with ghee and dedicated it to the Sangha. This is the set of four unacceptable bowls.

If, without accepting money, one goes with a trustworthy artisan sent (by a donor), to the smithy, points out a bowl and says, "I like this," or "I will take this," and the trustworthy artisan pays the smith with that money, this bowl is entirely acceptable, fit for use even by Buddhas. However, when making this monetary transaction, it is not allowable to instruct the trustworthy agent, "Take this and get that for me."

Thus ends the section on rules extracted from the Vinaya, in the Vinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The discussion on resolving issues regarding purchase and sale is complete.

12. Discussion on Resolving Issues Regarding the Acceptance of Money, etc.

59.Rūpiyādipaṭiggaho means the acceptance of gold and so on. Here, gold (jātarūpa), silver (rajata), a gold māsaka, and a silver māsaka are the four kinds of items entailing forfeiture (nissaggiyavatthu) (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4). A metal māsaka is made of copper or other metals. A wooden māsaka is made by cutting a shape from softwood or bamboo or even a palm leaf. A lac māsaka is made by forming a shape from lacquer or resin. Whatever is current in whatever country at whatever time, even if made of bone, leather, or the seed of a tree fruit, whether the shape is formed or unformed, all of this is included in the silver māsaka. Pearls, gems, veḷuriya, conch shells, stones, coral, lohitaṅka, masāragalla, the seven grains, female slaves, male slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, and fruit gardens, etc., these are items entailing an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭavatthu). It is not allowable to accept items entailing forfeiture for the sake of oneself or for the Sangha, a group, an individual, or a shrine. By accepting for one's own sake, there is forfeiture and an offense of wrong-doing; for the sake of the others, there is an offense of wrong-doing. By accepting items entailing a dukkaṭa offense for the sake of all, there is only a dukkaṭa offense.

Here is the resolution (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9): If someone brings gold and silver and says, "I give this to the Sangha; may you make a park, shrine, or dining hall, or something else," it is not allowable to accept this. But if, when it is rejected, saying, "It is not allowable for bhikkhus to accept this," the person says, "It will be in the hands of carpenters or workmen; you just know what is skillful and unskillful," and departs after giving it into their hands, that is allowable. Or if the person says, "It will be in the hands of my men, or it will be in my own hands; you just send (word) for whatever is to be given to whomever for that purpose," that too is allowable. But if, without addressing the Sangha, a group, or an individual, they say, "Let us give this gold and silver to the shrine, to the monastery, for construction," it is not allowable to refuse; the trustworthy agents should be informed, "These people are saying this." But if, when told, "Take and keep (it) for the sake of the shrine, etc.," (the agents) should refuse, saying, "It is not allowable for us to take (it)."

If someone brings a lot of gold and silver and says, "I give this to the Sangha; may you use the four requisites," if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both the acceptance and the use. If one bhikkhu refuses, saying, "This is not allowable," and a lay follower takes it, saying, "If it is not allowable, it will be mine," that bhikkhu should not be told anything by anyone, "You have created an obstruction to the Sangha's gain." Whoever accuses him is himself liable to an offense. By him alone, many have been made free from offense. But if, when refused by the bhikkhus, (the donor) says, "It will be in the hands of the trustworthy agents, or it will be in the hands of my men or in my own hands; you just use the requisites," that is allowable.

What is given for robes should be applied only to robes. If there is no such need for robes, and the Sangha is struggling with alms food etc., it should be applied to that purpose too, after informing the Sangha, for the Sangha's well-being. This same method applies to what is given for alms food or medicine. But what is given for lodging should be applied only to lodging, because lodging is a heavy item. But if the lodging is being ruined because the bhikkhus have left it behind and departed, in such a case, it is permitted to dispose of the lodging and use (the proceeds) for the bhikkhus. Therefore, without completely destroying the lodging, it should be used only for the minimum upkeep.

60.If someone says, "I have a large pond that produces rice three times a year; I give that to the Sangha," if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both the acceptance and the use. But whoever refuses it should not be told anything by anyone, according to the previous method. Whoever accuses him is himself liable to an offense. By him alone, many have been made free from offense. But if someone says, "I will give such a pond," and, when refused by the bhikkhus, says, "Such-and-such a pond belongs to the Sangha; how is that allowable?" He should be told, "It will have been given having been made allowable." How is it made allowable when given? "Having been given, saying, 'May you use the four requisites.'" If he then gives, saying, "Good, venerable sirs, may you use the four requisites," that is allowable. Or if, after saying, "Take the pond," and being refused, he asks, "Is there a trustworthy agent?" and, when told, "There is not," says, "So-and-so will manage this, or it will be in the hands of so-and-so or in my hands; may the Sangha use allowable items," that is allowable. Even if, when refused, he says, "The water will be used, the bowls will be washed, the birds and animals will drink," that too is allowable. Or if, when refused, he says, "Take (it) with an allowable heading." "Good, lay follower, the Sangha will drink water, wash bowls, (and) the birds and animals will drink," having said this, it is allowable to use (the pond). Or if, when told, "I will give my pond or pool to the Sangha," having said, "Good, lay follower, the Sangha will drink water," etc., it is indeed allowable to use (the pond).

If, having requested manual labor from the bhikkhus, and having dug the allowable earth with their own hands, a pond has been made for the use of water, and relying on that, people produce crops and give allowable items to the monastery, that is allowable. Or if the people themselves, for the benefit of the Sangha, dig the Sangha's land, and from the crops produced relying on that, they give allowable items, this too is allowable. And if they say, "Appoint a trustworthy agent for us," it is permissible to appoint (one). Then, if those people, harassed by royal taxes, depart, and others take over, and they give nothing to the bhikkhus, it is permissible to prevent (them from using) the water, but only at the time of cultivation, not at harvest time. If they say, "But, venerable sirs, previously people made crops relying on this," then they should be told, "They did this and that service for the Sangha, and gave this and that allowable item." If they say, "We too will give," that too is allowable.

Like Aḷanāgarājamahesī, that too is allowable. Even in a pond accepted by way of allowable transaction, it is allowable for those of pure heart to do things like removing mud and binding the banks for the sake of the water. But having seen crops being grown relying on that, it is not allowable to appoint a trustworthy agent. If they themselves give allowable items, (they) should be accepted. If they do not give, (they) should not be urged. In a pond accepted by way of requisites, it is allowable to appoint a trustworthy agent, but it is not allowable to have things like removing mud and binding the banks done. If the trustworthy agents do (it) themselves, that is allowable. But in the case of things had done by a modest bhikkhu through indirect means, even though the acceptance is allowable, due to the mixing caused by the bhikkhu's involvement in the cause, it is like alms food from which the essence has departed, like food mixed with unacceptable meat broth, and is difficult to use; it is unacceptable to all.

61.If there is space for water, and the bank of the pond is strong, it is allowable to consider only the water, "Make it so that it holds a lot of water; make the water near the bank." It is not appropriate to light a fire in the hearth. It is allowable to say, "May the lay followers get water work done," but it is not allowable to say, "Having made crops, bring (them)." If, having seen a lot of water in the pond, he has earth removed from the front or back, or has a forest cleared and rice fields made, or takes an excessive amount from old rice fields without taking the natural share, or collects kahāpaṇas from the new crop, saying, "Give so many kahāpaṇas," it is unacceptable for all.

Furthermore, if without saying "a field for cultivation," he determines, "This is such and such a portion of this land," or when farmers say, "We have cultivated crops on this portion of land, take such and such a share," he measures the land with a rope or stick to determine the land's size, or stands on the threshing floor and guards it, or has it removed from the threshing floor, or stores it in a barn, that is unallowable for him. If the farmers bring kahāpaṇas and say, "These are brought for the Saṅgha," and another bhikkhu, knowing that "the Saṅgha does not consume kahāpaṇas," says, "With these kahāpaṇas bring robes, with these prepare rice-gruel and so on," whatever they bring is unallowable for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas were specified. If they bring grain and say, "This is brought for the Saṅgha," and another bhikkhu, in the same manner as before, says, "With so much rice, bring this and that," whatever they bring is unallowable for him alone. Why? Because the grain was specified. If they bring rice or pulses and say, "This is brought for the Saṅgha," and another bhikkhu, in the same manner as before, says, "With so much rice, bring this and that," whatever they bring is allowable for all. Why? Because the rice and other allowable items were specified. There is no offense in buying and selling, as the allowable-maker has been informed. (pāci. 239)

62. Formerly, at Cittala Mountain, a certain bhikkhu made a mark on the ground at the gate of the assembly hall, intending to inform the ārāmikas, "Oh, that they would bake cakes of such and such a size for the Saṅgha tomorrow!" Seeing that, a clever ārāmika did exactly that, and on the second day, when the Saṅgha had assembled at the beating of the drum, he took the cakes and said to the Saṅgha-elder, "Venerable sir, never before have we or our forefathers heard of such a thing. An elder has made a sign at the gate of the assembly hall for cakes. From now on, let the elders say whatever they wish according to their own desires, so that we too may live comfortably." The great elder turned back from there, and not even one bhikkhu took a cake. Thus, formerly, they did not partake of what arose from such a cause. Therefore:

A bhikkhu intent on austerity,
Who is diligent and mindful,
Should not even for allowable things desire,
Out of craving for material gains. (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9);

62. The same principle applies to what has been said about ponds, canals, watercourses, and so on.

63. When any field or plot of land, a place for growing early-ripening grains, late-ripening grains, sugarcane, fruits, or unripe fruits, etc., is offered, it should be refused, saying "It is not suitable." But when, using the language of allowability, one says, "I give it for the use of the four requisites," then it should be accepted, as stated regarding the pond. However, when one says, "I give a forest, I give a wilderness," it is suitable. If people, without being instructed by the bhikkhus, cut down trees there and prepare pulses and other things and give a share to the bhikkhus, it is suitable; they should not be urged if they do not give. If, due to some obstacle, others do it when those ones have left, and they do not give anything to the bhikkhus, they should be prevented. If they say, "But, venerable sirs, formerly people cultivated crops here," then they should be told, "Those people gave such and such allowable goods to the Saṅgha." If they say, "We too will give," then it is suitable.

If they offer a boundary line with reference to some land where crops are grown, it is suitable. However, pillars or stones should not be set up by oneself to demarcate the boundary, because land is priceless; one could incur pārājika for even a small amount. However, the ārāmikas should be told, "Our boundary extends to this place." Even if they take more, there is no offense, as it was said indirectly. But if kings, royal ministers, or other dignitaries themselves have pillars set up and give it, saying, "Use it for the four requisites," it is indeed suitable.

If someone digs a pond within the boundary, or leads a canal through the middle of the monastery, or damages the cetiya courtyard, the Bodhi-tree courtyard, etc., he should be prevented. If the Saṅgha obtains something and does not prevent it due to being attached to material gains, but one bhikkhu prevents it, that bhikkhu alone is the master. If one bhikkhu does not prevent it, saying, "Do not bring it," that is their faction. If the Saṅgha prevents it, the Saṅgha alone is the master. For in Saṅgha-owned activities, whoever does the lawful action is the master. If he does it even while being prevented, the soil taken from below should be put back below, and the soil taken from above should be put back above, and it should be filled in.

If someone wishes to give sugarcane, pulses, gourds, pumpkins, or creeping fruits that have grown naturally, and says, "I give this entire sugarcane field, pulse plot, or creeping fruit garden," the Elder Mahāsumata said that it is not suitable, as it involves the land itself. However, the Elder Mahāpaduma said, "This is merely a form of expression, for that portion of land belongs to the owners; therefore, it is suitable." If one says, "I give a slave," it is not suitable. When one says, "I give an ārāmika, I give one who does service, I give an allowable-maker," it is suitable. If the ārāmika does work for the Saṅgha both before and after the meal, everything, including medicine and care, should be provided for him, just as for a sāmaṇera. If he does work for the Saṅgha only before the meal and does his own work after the meal, evening alms should not be given. Even those who do work for the Saṅgha for a five-day period or a fortnight and do their own work during the remaining time should be given food and evening alms only during the time they are working. If there is no work for the Saṅgha and they live by doing their own work, and if they bring the proceeds of their manual labor and give it, it should be accepted. If they do not give it, nothing should be said. Any slave who weaves or any slave who sews may be accepted under the name of ārāmika.

If they say, "We give cows," they should be refused, saying, "It is not suitable." "Where did these cows come from?" They should be given to be used for the five products of the cow by the wise. If they say, "We too give them to be used for the five products of the cow," they are suitable. The same principle applies to goats and so on. If they say, "We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, a chicken, a pig," it is not suitable to accept. If some people take them, saying, "Be free from anxiety, venerable sirs, we will take these and give you allowable goods," it is suitable. Chickens and pigs may be released into the forest with the thought, "May they live happily." If they say, "We give this pond, this field, this land to the monastery," it is not permissible to refuse.

64. If someone sends robes-cloth-money, gold or silver, by a messenger to a certain bhikkhu, saying, "Having had a robe made with this robes-cloth-money, clothe such and such a bhikkhu with the robe," and if that messenger approaches that bhikkhu and says thus, "Venerable sir, this robes-cloth-money has been brought for the venerable one, accept the robes-cloth-money," that bhikkhu should say thus to that messenger, "We do not accept robes-cloth-money, friend, but we accept a robe, if it is allowable and in due time." If that messenger says thus to that bhikkhu, "Does the venerable one have a helper who does service?" the bhikkhu who desires a robe should indicate a helper who does service, either an ārāmika or a lay follower, saying, "This one is a helper who does service for the bhikkhus." He should not say, "Give it to him," or "He will deposit it, he will exchange it, he will have it made." If that messenger makes an agreement with that helper who does service and approaches that bhikkhu and says thus, "The one whom the venerable one indicated as a helper who does service has been instructed by me, let the venerable one approach him in due time, he will clothe him with a robe," the bhikkhu who desires a robe should approach the helper who does service and urge him two or three times, reminding him, "I need a robe, friend." He should not say, "Give me a robe, bring me a robe, exchange a robe for me, have a robe made for me." If, when being urged and reminded two or three times, he produces that robe, that is skillful. If he does not produce it, he should go there and stand silently, intending to receive the robe, four, five, or up to six times at most, without sitting on a seat, without accepting food, without teaching the Dhamma. If he is asked, "Why have you come?" he should say only this much, "You know, friend."

If he sits on a seat, or accepts food, or teaches the Dhamma, he breaks the grounds. If he urges four times, he should stand four times. If he urges five times, he should stand two times. If he urges six times, he should not stand. For with one urging, he breaks two grounds. Just as one should not stand after urging six times, so too, one should not urge after standing twelve times. Therefore, if he only urges and does not stand, six urgings are allowed. If he only stands and does not urge, twelve standings are allowed. If he both urges and stands, two standings should be deducted for one urging. There, if he goes again and again on the same day and urges six times, or goes only once and says, "I need a robe, friend," six times, there, if he goes again and again on the same day and stands twelve times, or goes only once and stands in that very place, he also breaks all the urgings and all the standings; what need to mention (doing so) on different days? If, making further effort after that, he produces that robe, there is an offense of dukkaṭa for the effort, and it becomes subject to forfeiture upon acquisition. If he is not able to produce it, he himself should go to the one from whom that robes-cloth-money was brought for that bhikkhu, whether it was from a king or a royal minister, or he should send a messenger, saying, "That robes-cloth-money which you venerable ones sent for the bhikkhu is of no benefit to that bhikkhu, venerable ones should use what belongs to you, lest your property be destroyed." This is the proper course there. But whoever neither goes himself nor sends a messenger incurs an offense of dukkaṭa for a difference in speech.

65. But how (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9) should one conduct oneself in this way with all allowable-makers? One should not conduct oneself (in that way). For this allowable-maker is defined concisely as being of two kinds: specified and unspecified. Of these, the specified is of two kinds: specified by the bhikkhu and specified by the messenger. The unspecified is also of two kinds: an allowable-maker who is authorized directly, and an allowable-maker who is authorized indirectly. Among these, the one specified by the bhikkhu is fourfold based on being face-to-face or not face-to-face, and so too is the one specified by the messenger. How? Here, someone sends unallowable material by a messenger for a bhikkhu's robe; the messenger approaches that bhikkhu and says, "This, venerable sir, has been sent by so-and-so for your robe, accept it." The bhikkhu refuses, saying, "This is not suitable." The messenger asks, "Do you have a helper who does service, venerable sir?" Some lay followers, being instructed by those who desire merit to "do service for the bhikkhus," or some helpers who do service who are seen and associated with by the bhikkhus, are present near the bhikkhu at that moment; the bhikkhu indicates one of them, "This one is a helper who does service for the bhikkhus." The messenger gives the unallowable material into his hand and goes away, saying, "Buy a robe for the elder and give it to him." This is specified by the bhikkhu face-to-face.

If he is not present near the bhikkhu, but the bhikkhu indicates, "In such and such a village, so-and-so is a helper who does service for the bhikkhus," he goes and gives the unallowable material into his hand and, having said, "Buy a robe for the elder and give it to him," comes and informs the bhikkhu and goes away. This is specified by the bhikkhu not face-to-face.

Indeed, that messenger does not come himself and announce, but sends another, saying, "I have given the cloth-value into his hand, venerable sir; you should receive the cloth." This is the second unappointed alms-arranger for the monk.

Indeed, he does not send another, but while going, he tells a monk, "I will give the cloth-value into his hand; you should receive the cloth." This is the third unappointed alms-arranger for the monk. Thus, one is appointed in his presence, and three are unappointed in his presence. These four are called alms-arrangers appointed by the monk. One should act towards them in the manner stated here.

Another monk, when asked by the messenger in the same way as before, says "We have no alms-arranger," either because there is none or because he does not want to bother. At that moment, a certain man arrives. The messenger gives the non-allowable thing into his hand and says, "Receive the cloth from this man." and then leaves. This is one appointed in his presence by the messenger.

Another messenger enters the village, gives the non-allowable thing into the hand of someone he approves of, and then, in the same way as before, either comes and announces it himself or sends another, or while going, says, "I will give the cloth-value into the hand of so-and-so; you should receive the cloth." This is the third unappointed in his presence by the messenger. Thus, one is appointed in his presence, and three are unappointed in his presence. These four are called alms-arrangers appointed by the messenger. One should act towards them in the manner stated in the Meṇḍaka training rule. For it was said:

"Monks, there are people who are faithful and devout; they deposit silver with alms-arrangers, saying, ‘With this, give whatever is allowable to the venerable one.’ I allow you, monks, to use whatever is allowable from that, but I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be used or sought after in any way" (mahāva. 299).

Here, there is no limit to the demand; even a thousand times, one may use allowable goods by demanding or requesting, as long as the original thing is not used. If he does not give it, it should be brought by establishing another alms-arranger. If he wishes, it should be told to the original owners. If he does not wish, it should not be told.

Another monk, when asked by the messenger in the same way as before, says, "We have no alms-arranger." Then another person standing nearby hears and says, "Bring it, friend, I will have the cloth prepared and give it to the venerable one." The messenger says, "Well then, friend, you should give it," and gives it into his hand without announcing it to the monk. This is an alms-arranger who volunteers. Another, giving the non-allowable thing into the hand of the monk’s attendant or another person, departs after only saying, "Give the cloth to the Elder." This is an alms-arranger behind his back. These two are called unappointed alms-arrangers. One should act towards them as towards unacquainted, uninvited people. If they bring the cloth themselves and give it, it should be accepted. If not, nothing should be said. And just as the decision has been stated regarding the non-allowable thing sent for the sake of cloth by the hand of a messenger, so too should the decision be understood regarding that which is sent for the sake of alms-food, etc., and when it is given by coming in person.

66.However, this is the decision regarding the use of deposited items (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4): If a certain non-allowable thing is placed at the foot of a monk, and it is said, "May this belong to the venerable one," even if he approves of it in his mind and wants to accept it, but rejects it with his body or speech, saying, "This is not allowable," there is no offense. Even without rejecting it with body or speech, if he is pure in mind and does not approve of it, saying, "This is not allowable for us," there is no offense. For whatever is rejected by any one of the three doors, is indeed rejected. But if, without rejecting it with body or speech, he accepts it in his mind, because of the non-performance of the rejection that should be done with body and speech, he incurs an offense through non-performance in both the body-door and the speech-door, but there is no offense in the mind-door.

If someone places a hundred or a thousand at his feet, saying, "May this belong to you," and the monk rejects it, saying, "This is not allowable," and the lay follower departs, saying, "I have relinquished it to you," and another comes there and asks, "What is this, venerable sir?" what was said by him and by oneself should be told. If he says, "I will guard it, venerable sir; show me a secure place," even climbing up to a seven-storied building, one should point out, "This is a secure place," but one should not say, "Put it here." Thus, one remains dependent on both the allowable and the non-allowable. One should live guarding it by closing the door. If he brings some merchandise, a bowl, or a robe, and says, "Please accept this, venerable sir," one should say, "Lay follower, we have a need for this, and such-and-such a thing exists, but there is no alms-arranger." If he says, "I will be an alms-arranger; open the door and give it to me," opening the door, one should say, "It is placed in this location," but one should not say, "Take this." Even in this way, one remains dependent on both the allowable and the non-allowable. If he takes it and gives the allowable item for it, it is allowable. If he takes more, he should be told, "We do not accept your item; please leave."

67.Now, what should be done with the four kinds of forfeitable items, such as gold and silver, that have been accepted? It should be forfeited in the midst of the Saṅgha. How? That monk (pārā. 584), having approached the Saṅgha, draped his upper robe over one shoulder, paid homage at the feet of the senior monks, knelt down, held up his joined hands, and should say this: "Venerable sirs, I have accepted silver; this is forfeitable to me; I forfeit this." Having forfeited it, he should confess the offense. A competent and able monk should accept the offense. If an attendant or a lay follower comes there, he should be told, "Friend, be aware of this." If he says, "What will I bring with this?" he should not be told, "Bring this or that," but an allowable item should be indicated: ghee, oil, honey, or molasses. And while indicating, one should not say, "Bring ghee, oil, honey, or molasses with this," but only this much should be said, "This and this is allowable for the Saṅgha." If he exchanges it for an allowable item and brings it, it should be divided and used by all except the one who accepted the silver; the one who accepted the silver should not take a share.

It is not allowable for other monks (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) or attendants to obtain and use even a bowl-portion. It is not allowable even if a monkey or other animal takes it from there and places it in the forest, or if it drips from their hands, or if it is received by an animal, or if it is refuse-rag. It is not allowable even to fumigate the dwelling with molasses brought from it. It is not allowable to make a lamp with ghee or oil and lie down in the lamplight, to do kasiṇa-exercises, or to read a book. It is certainly not allowable to smear a wound on the body with oil, honey, or molasses. It is not allowable to use that thing to acquire beds, chairs, etc., or to build an uposatha hall or a dining hall. Even the shade that remains within the boundary of the building is not allowable; what is beyond the boundary is allowable because it is adventitious. It is not allowable to travel on a road, bridge, boat, or raft made by disposing of that thing. It is not allowable to drink or use water from a pond dug with that thing. But if there is no water inside, other adventitious water or rainwater that has entered is allowable. What is bought with it is not allowable, even if it is adventitious, if it was bought together with it. If the Saṅgha leaves that thing as a deposit and uses requisites, those requisites are not allowable for him. If a monastery has been acquired, it is also not allowable to use it. If both the land and the seeds are non-allowable, it is not allowable to use either the land or the fruit. If only the land is bought and other seeds are planted, the fruit is allowable. But if the seeds are bought and planted in allowable land, the fruit is not allowable; it is allowable to sit or lie down on the land.

If, however, an alms-arranger comes there who does not know how to exchange it and bring an allowable item such as ghee or oil for the Saṅgha, he should be told, "Friend, discard this." If he discards it, that is skillful. If he does not discard it, a monk endowed with five qualities should be appointed as a silver-discarder: one who would not go to partiality due to desire, would not go to partiality due to aversion, would not go to partiality due to delusion, would not go to partiality due to fear, and would know what has been discarded and what has not been discarded. And thus should he be appointed: first the monk should be requested, and having requested, the Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and able monk:

"Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as a silver-discarder. This is the motion. Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. The Saṅgha is appointing the monk named so-and-so as a silver-discarder. If it is agreeable to any venerable one that the monk named so-and-so be appointed as a silver-discarder, let him be silent. If it is not agreeable to anyone, let him speak. The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the Saṅgha as a silver-discarder. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it" (pārā. 585).

68.That appointed monk (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), without making a mark, closing his eyes, should discard it without concern, like excrement, in a river, precipice, or dense forest, in a suitable place and being unworthy of handling. If he drops it after making a mark, he incurs a dukkata offense. Even though silver is so disgusting, the Blessed One indicated its use by monks in a roundabout way. However, the user of requisites arising from it in any way is not allowable for the one who accepted the silver. Just as this is not allowable for him, so too requisites arising from false pretenses, actions that corrupt families, or deceit, etc., are not allowable for either him or another. Even those arising from what is lawful and equitable are not allowable to use without reflection. For there are four kinds of use: use as a thief, use as a debtor, use as an heir, and use as an owner. Among these, the use by an immoral person who sits and uses in the midst of the Saṅgha is called use as a thief. The use by a virtuous person without reflection is called use as a debtor. Therefore, a robe should be reflected upon at each use, alms-food at each mouthful, or, if unable to do so, in the forenoon, afternoon, first watch, middle watch, and last watch. If the dawn breaks while he is not reflecting, he stands in the place of a debtor's use. A dwelling should also be reflected upon at each use. Mindfulness should be present both in the acceptance and use of medicine; even so, there is an offense for not being mindful at acceptance but being mindful at use, but there is no offense for using without being mindful at acceptance. For there are four kinds of purification: purification by confession, purification by restraint, purification by seeking, and purification by reflection.

Desanāsuddhi is the Pātimokkhasaṃvara Sīla (morality based on the Pātimokkha restraint). It is called "desanāsuddhi" because it is purified by confession. Saṃvarasuddhi is the Indriyasaṃvara Sīla (morality based on sense restraint). It is called "saṃvarasuddhi" because it is purified by the restraint of the mind with the determination "I will not do this again." Pariyeṭṭhisuddhi is the Ājīvapārisuddhi Sīla (morality based on purity of livelihood). It is called "pariyeṭṭhisuddhi" because it is purified by the search (for requisites) by generating requisites righteously, abandoning wrong livelihood. Paccavekkhaṇasuddhi is the Sīla based on reflection on the use of requisites. It is called "paccavekkhaṇasuddhi" because it is purified by reflection as stated in the manner beginning with "reflecting wisely, I use the robe" (ma. ni. 1.23; a. ni. 6.58). Therefore, it is said, "If one uses (the requisites) without mindfulness in receiving, there is no offense."

Dāyajjaparibhogo means inheritance consumption. They are the sons of the Blessed One; therefore, having become heirs to the requisites belonging to the Father, they consume those requisites. But do they consume the requisites of the Blessed One, or do they consume the requisites of laypeople? Even if given by laypeople, they belong to the Blessed One because they are permitted by the Blessed One. Therefore, it should be understood that they consume the requisites of the Blessed One. Here, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta (ma. ni. 1.29 ff.) is the proof. The consumption of the Khīṇāsavas (those with destroyed influxes) is called sāmiparibhogo, ownership consumption. Because they have gone beyond the slavery of craving, they consume as owners. Thus, among these consumptions, both sāmiparibhogo and dāyajjaparibhogo are suitable for all. Iṇaparibhogo is not suitable, and there is no question of theyyaparibhogo (consumption by theft).

In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is said, "If an immoral person, having received invitation-meal, etc., from the Saṅgha, gives it to the Saṅgha itself, these are suitable, as they were taken just as given." If the person is conscientious, the alms-food is unrighteous and disgusting, it should not be taken. If the person is conscientious and the alms-food is righteous, it is suitable.

There are two more acceptances and two more consumptions: acceptance by a conscientious person, acceptance by an unconscientious person, consumption of Dhamma, consumption of material things. There, it is suitable for an unconscientious person to accept from a conscientious person; he should not be made to commit an offense. But if a conscientious person accepts from an unconscientious person, invites (him) to rejoice, invites (him) to a Dhamma talk, supports (him) in families, and the other also speaks praise of him in gatherings, saying, "Our teacher is such and such," this should be understood as causing the decline and disappearance of the Sāsana. Moreover, where consumption of material things is suitable, consumption of Dhamma is also suitable there. But it is said that if someone is on the verge (of death), and the text will be lost with the passing of that person, it is suitable to learn it through regard for the Dhamma. Here is a story: it seems that in the time of Mahābhaya, only one bhikkhu was proficient in the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of Tissatthera, who knew the four Nikāyas, named Mahātipiṭakatthera, said to Mahārakkhitatthera, "Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him." "He is evil, Venerable Sir; I will not learn." "Learn, friend; I will sit near you." "Good, Venerable Sir; I will learn with you sitting there." Having begun and continuously learning day and night, on the last day, seeing a woman under the bed, he said, "Venerable Sir, I have only heard before. If I had known thus, I would not have learned the Dhamma from such a person." However, having learned from him, many great elders established the Mahāniddesa.

Thus ends the chapter on deciding the Vinaya, an extract from the Pāḷi

The discussion on deciding the acceptance of money, etc., is complete.

13. Discussion on Deciding the Characteristics of Giving, etc.

69. Here, first, regarding the alteration of gain by accepting with trust in giving: dāna (giving) means giving to anyone, such as a co-resident, one's own requisites like robes, etc. Herein is the characteristic of giving: whether one says, "I give this to you, I am giving, I will give, I bestow, I relinquish, I give up," or "I give to so-and-so… I give up," it is indeed given whether given in person or behind one's back. When it is said, "Take it for yourself," and he says, "I take it for myself," it is well-given and well-taken. When it is said, "Make it yours, may it be yours, may it be yours," and he says, "I will make it mine, may it be mine, may it be mine," it is ill-given and ill-taken. Neither does the giver know how to give, nor the other to take; but if, when it is said, "Make it yours," he takes it, saying, "Good, Venerable Sir, I take it for myself," it is well-taken. If one says, "Take this robe," and the other says, "I do not take it," then the former again says, "I have given it to you; take it," and the other also says, "I have no need of this," then if the former exceeds ten days saying, "I have given it," and the latter (exceeds ten days) saying, "I have refused it," whose offense is it? It is not an offense for anyone. But whoever likes it should use it after determining (it). When given, saying, "Give it to so-and-so," as long as it does not reach the hand of the other, it belongs to the one who sends it. But when given, saying, "I will give it to so-and-so," it belongs to the one to whom it is sent. Therefore, a bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "Give this robe to so-and-so." Whoever takes it on the way with trust in the one who sends it, it is well-taken. Whoever takes it with trust in the one to whom it is sent, it is ill-taken.

A bhikkhu (mahāva. 378-379) sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "Give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "The one who sent it is deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased; it is self-determined. Whoever takes it with trust in the one to whom it is sent, it is ill-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "Give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "The one to whom it is sent is deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased; it is doubly determined. Whoever takes it with trust in the one who sends it, it is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "Give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "Both are deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased who sent it; it is self-determined. He determines the robe of the deceased to whom it is sent; it is doubly determined. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "I will give this robe to so-and-so." Whoever takes it on the way with trust in the one who sends it, it is ill-taken. Whoever takes it with trust in the one to whom it is sent, it is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "I will give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "The one who sent it is deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased; it is doubly determined. Whoever takes it with trust in the one to whom it is sent, it is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "I will give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "The one to whom it is sent is deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased; it is self-determined. Whoever takes it with trust in the one who sends it, it is ill-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe to a bhikkhu, saying, "I will give this robe to so-and-so." On the way, he hears, "Both are deceased." He determines the robe of the deceased who sent it; it is doubly determined. He determines the robe of the deceased to whom it is sent; it is self-determined.

Having given (something) by relinquishing, one cannot have it brought back due to anger for any reason. Indeed, if one takes back a robe given by oneself with the intention of appropriation, it is Nissaggiya; if one takes back another requisite, even a needle, it is a Dukkaṭa. But if one himself gives, saying, "Venerable Sir, this is suitable for you," it is suitable to take it. But if, having said things such as, "Friend, we gave you the robe so that you would do duties and reciprocal duties, take a preceptor in our presence, learn the Dhamma, but now you do not do duties, do not take a preceptor, do not learn the Dhamma," and he says, "Venerable Sir, I think you are speaking for the sake of a robe; here is your robe," even this is suitable. Or, when a young one is leaving the territory, one says, "Do not turn back," and he does not turn back, and one seizes the robe and restrains (him); if he turns back thus, it is good. If one says, "I think you are speaking for the sake of bowl and robe; take it," even this is suitable. Or, seeing one wandering confused, one says, "We gave you the bowl and robe so that you would do duties, but now you wander confused," and the other says, "Take your bowl and robe," even this is suitable. But it is not suitable to give thus: "I give only to one who takes a preceptor in my presence; I do not give to one who takes (a preceptor) elsewhere; I give only to one who does duties; I do not give to one who does not do (duties); I give only to one who learns the Dhamma; I do not give to one who does not learn; I give only to one who does not wander confused; I do not give to one who wanders confused." In giving thus, there is a Dukkaṭa, but it is suitable to have it brought back. Having released (it) and given (it), if one takes (it) back by snatching, one must be made to pay the value of the item. This is the decision regarding giving.

70. The characteristic of accepting with trust should be known by this Sutta:

"I allow, bhikkhus, to accept with trust from one who possesses five qualities: he is seen, familiar, spoken to, alive, and pleased when (something is) taken" (mahāva. 356).

Sandiṭṭho means a friend by mere sight. Sambhatto means a close friend. Ālapito means one who has been told, "You may take whatever you want of my possessions; there is no reason to ask before taking." Jīvati means, even if lying down in a state of non-rising, he has not yet reached the cessation of the life faculty. Gahite ca attamano means he is delighted when (something is) taken. It is suitable to take, knowing that "He will be pleased when something of this sort is taken from his possession." These five qualities are stated as not leaving any remainder. However, acceptance with trust thrives with three qualities: he is seen, alive, and pleased when (something is) taken; he is familiar, alive, and pleased when (something is) taken; he is spoken to, alive, and pleased when (something is) taken. But if he is not alive and is not pleased when (something is) taken, even if (something) belonging to him is taken with trust, it must be given back. When giving, the property of the deceased should be given to those householders or renunciates who are in charge of that property. What belongs to one who is displeased should be given to him. But one who, having first approved with a verbal expression or with a mere thought of mind, saying, "It is well done by you in taking my property," is later angry for some reason, cannot have it brought back. Also, one who does not want to give but approves in mind and says nothing, he also cannot have it brought back. But if, when it is said, "Something of yours has been taken or used by me," he says, "Whether it has been taken or used, it was kept by me for some reason; it is suitable to make it natural," this one can have it brought back. This is the decision regarding acceptance with trust.

71. Lābhassa pariṇāmananti, this refers to the transferring of gains (lābha) that have been allocated for others, either for oneself or for another. Here is the ruling on this matter (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.659-660): If one, knowing that something has been allocated to the Sangha or to fellow Dhamma practitioners or to laypeople, even if it belongs to his mother, takes it by transferring it to oneself, saying "Give this to me," it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offence. If he transfers it to another, saying, "Give this to that bhikkhu," it is a suddhika pācittiya offence. Therefore, even if during the time for rain-cloths (vassikasāṭika), knowing that a rain-cloth has been allocated to the Sangha even in his mother’s house, he transfers it to himself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offence; if he transfers it to another, it is a suddhika pācittiya offence. If people bring ghee, oil, etc., intending to offer a Sangha meal (saṅghabhatta), even if a sick bhikkhu, knowing that it has been allocated to the Bhikkhu Sangha, asks for some, it is indeed a nissaggiya pācittiya offence. But if he asks, "Do you have ghee, etc., that has been brought?" and they reply, "Yes, we do," and then he says, "Give some to me as well," it is permissible. Or if lay followers, feeling scruples, say to him, "The Sangha also receives what has been given by us; please take it, Bhante," even then it is permissible.

If one, allocating something that has been allocated to the Sangha in one monastery, directs it to another monastery, saying, "Give it to the Sangha in such-and-such monastery," or if he allocates it to a cetiya, saying, "What is the use of giving it to the Sangha? Let us make an offering to the cetiya," it is a dukkaṭa offence. If one allocates something allocated to a cetiya to another cetiya, or to the Sangha, or to a group (gaṇa), or to an individual (puggala), it is also a dukkaṭa offence. After designating a flower garden planted for the sake of another cetiya, it is not permissible to transplant even a flower to another cetiya. However, if a parasol or banner has been erected for one cetiya, it is permissible to have the remainder given to another cetiya. Even if something has been allocated to a dog, it is a dukkaṭa offence if one directs it to another person, saying, "Do not give it to this dog; give it to that one." But if donors say, "We wish to offer a Sangha meal, or to make an offering to a cetiya, or to give requisites to a bhikkhu; we will give according to your preference; please tell us where we should give," then the bhikkhu should say, "Give wherever you wish." If they ask only, "Where should we give?" it is permissible to say, "Give where your gift may obtain use or renovation, or where it may last long, or where your mind is pleased."

Thus ends the section on rulings extracted from the Pāḷimuttaka Vinaya

The Discourse on the Rulings on the Characteristics of Giving, etc., is complete.

14. Discourse on the Rulings on Digging the Earth

72. Earth (Pathavī): There are two kinds of earth: cultivated earth (jātā pathavī) and uncultivated earth (ajātā pathavī). Of these, cultivated earth (jātā pathavī) means pure dust, pure clay, with few stones, few gravels, little hard soil, little marumba soil, little sand, mostly dust, mostly clay; even hardened earth is called "cultivated earth." Even a heap of dust or a heap of clay that has been rained on for more than four months is called "cultivated earth." Uncultivated earth (ajātā pathavī) means pure stones, pure gravel, pure hard soil, pure marumba soil, pure sand, little dust, little clay, mostly stones, mostly gravel, mostly hard soil, mostly marumba soil, mostly sand; even burnt earth is called "uncultivated earth." Even a heap of dust or a heap of clay that has been rained on for less than four months is called "uncultivated earth" (pāci. 84-86).

There, it is a pācittiya offence to dig or cause to be dug cultivated earth. Here is the ruling on this matter (pāci. aṭṭha. 86): If one digs oneself, it is a pācittiya offence for each strike of the tool. If one orders another, even if the other digs the whole day after being ordered once, there is only one pācittiya offence for the one who ordered. But if he is lazy, he should be ordered repeatedly; for each utterance when ordering and causing to dig, there is a pācittiya offence. If one says, "Dig a pond (pokkharaṇi)," it is permissible, for a pond is so called only when it has been dug. Therefore, this is an allowable expression. This principle applies to "dig a well (vāpi), a tank (taḷāka), a pit (āvāṭa)," and so on. However, it is not permissible to say, "Dig this space, dig a pond in this space." It is permissible to say without specifying, "Dig a tuber (kanda), dig a root (mūla)"; it is not permissible to say, "Dig this creeper, dig a tuber or root in this space."

73. When cleaning a pond, it is permissible to remove thin mud that can be scooped up with a basket (kuṭa), but not thick mud. When sun-dried mud cracks, it is permissible to remove only that part which is not connected to the earth below. In a place reached by water, there forms what is called a water crust, which moves with the wind; it is permissible to remove that. The bank of ponds, etc., may collapse and fall into the water. If it has been rained on for less than four months, it is permissible to cut or break it off; it is not permissible after four months. But if it falls only into the water, even if it has been rained on by the heavens for more than four months, it is permissible because water has fallen into water.

If one digs a cavity in a rock surface, and fine dust falls there first, it is considered to have been rained on by the heavens; after four months, it becomes reckoned as impermissible earth. When the water has receded, it is not permissible to disturb the cavity while cleaning it. If it fills with water first, and dust falls later, it is permissible to disturb it, for even when the heavens rain, water falls into water. If there is fine dust on the rock surface, and it sticks when moistened by the heavens, it is also not permissible to disturb it after four months. If an anthill has risen in an open space without a foundation, it is permissible to disturb it as one pleases. But if it rises in an open space, it is permissible only if it has been rained on for less than four months. The same principle applies to soil adhering to trees, etc. The same principle applies to earthworms, excrement, mice, dogs, gokaṇṭaka, etc. Gokaṇṭaka is the mud churned up by the hooves of cows. But if it is connected to the ground below, it is not permissible even for one day. The same principle applies to taking a clod of earth broken by a plough in a cultivated field.

An old dwelling site (purāṇasenāsana) that is without a roof or has a ruined roof and has been rained on for more than four months is reckoned as cultivated earth. From that, it is permissible to take the remaining roofing tiles or other equipment such as gutter tiles, with the intention, "I am taking bricks, gutter tiles, wall bases, paving stones, palace pillars," and if soil falls with them, there is no offence. But there is an offence if one takes wall soil. If one takes whatever is loose, there is no offence. If there is a heap of clay inside a house, and the house is roofed on a day it has been rained on, it is indeed cultivated earth after four months if all of it is wet. But if only the upper part of it is wet, and the inside is dry, it is permissible to remove as much as is wet by allowable methods by allowable workers, and the remainder can be moved as one pleases because it has been moistened with water. For it is only the congealed earth that is cultivated earth, not the rest. If there is a clay wall in an open space and it has been rained on for more than four months, it is reckoned as cultivated earth; however, it is permissible to take dust clinging to it by touching it with a damp hand. If it is a brick wall, it stands mostly in a hardened state; it is permissible to dismantle it as one pleases. It is not permissible to take a pillar erected in an open space by moving it this way and that, thus disturbing the earth; it must be lifted straight up. The same principle applies to taking another dry tree or a dry stump.

74. When novice workers (navakammika) lift and roll a pillar, a stone, or a tree with levers, the cultivated earth is broken. If they roll it with a pure intention, there is no offence. But if they intend to break the earth under that pretext, there is an offence. The same principle applies to pulling branches, etc., and splitting wood on the earth. It is not permissible to hammer or drive anything, such as bones, needles, or thorns, into the earth, nor is it permissible to urinate, thinking, "I will break the earth with the force of urine." If the earth breaks while doing so, there is an offence. It is not permissible to scrape the earth with a broom, thinking, "I will level the uneven ground." It should be swept only with the tip of the broom. Some tap the ground with a walking stick, or scratch it with a toe. It is not permissible to repeatedly break the ground while walking, thinking, "I will show the walking path." However, one who is practicing the ascetic life may walk with a pure intention, with effort and mindfulness. It is not permissible to scrape the earth, thinking, "I will clean my hand." But it is permissible to take dust by placing a damp hand on the earth without scraping.

Some who are afflicted with scabies, etc., rub their limbs on a broken bank, etc.; it is not permissible. It is a pācittiya offence to burn or cause to be burned cultivated earth. Even when cooking in a bowl, for every place where one applies fire, it is a pācittiya offence. Therefore, even when cooking in a bowl, one should cook only in a previously burned place. It is not permissible to place fire on unburned earth, but it is permissible to place fire on top of a bowl for cooking. If one places it on wood, and that fire goes on burning and burns the earth, it is not permissible. The same principle applies to bricks, potsherds, etc. There, too, it is permissible to place it only on top of bricks, etc. Why? Because they are not fuel. For they are not reckoned as fuel for the fire. It is not permissible to set fire to dry stumps or dry trees either. But if one thinks, "I will extinguish it before it reaches the earth and then leave," it is permissible. If one cannot extinguish it later, there is no offence due to lack of intention. If one is walking with a burning torch (tiṇukka) and it falls to the ground when one's hand is burned, there is no offence. It is permissible to make a fire at the place where it fell by adding fuel. All the area affected by the heat of the burned earth is permissible to be disturbed.

If a bhikkhu who does not know how, produces fire with a fire drill and lifts it up with his hand and asks, "What should I do?" he should be told, "Light it." If he says, "My hand is burning," he should be told, "Do it in such a way that it does not burn." But he should not be told, "Drop it on the ground." If he drops it when his hand is burning, there is no offence because he did not drop it with the intention of burning the earth; but it is permissible to make a fire at the place where it fell. "Know the hole for this pillar, know the heavy clay, know the paddy-husk clay, give heavy clay, give paddy-husk clay, bring clay, bring dust, there is need for clay, there is need for dust, make the hole for this pillar allowable, make this clay allowable, make this dust allowable": it is permissible to have anything done with such allowable expressions. If another bhikkhu, while talking with someone, stands scratching the earth with his toe or with a walking stick, there is no offence if he scratches or breaks it unintentionally.

Thus ends the section on rulings extracted from the Pāḷimuttaka Vinaya.

The Discourse on the Rulings on Digging the Earth is complete.

15. Discourse on the Rulings on Vegetable Growth (Bhūtagāma)

75. Bhūtagāma means this is a designation for trees, creepers, etc., which originate from five kinds of seeds. These are the five kinds of seeds: root-seed, trunk-seed, joint-seed, shoot-seed, and seed-seed. Herein, root-seed means turmeric, ginger, sweet flag, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, or any others that grow from roots and originate from roots; this is called root-seed. Trunk-seed means the banyan tree, the Indian fig tree, pilakkha, udumbara, kacchaka, wood apple tree, or any others that grow from the trunk and originate from the trunk; this is called trunk-seed. Joint-seed means sugarcane, bamboo, reeds, or any others that grow from the joints and originate from the joints; this is called joint-seed. Shoot-seed means ajjuka, phaṇijjaka, hirivera, or any others that grow from the shoots and originate from the shoots; this is called shoot-seed. Seed-seed means grains and pulses, or any others that grow from seeds and originate from seeds; this is called seed-seed (pāci. 91). In this connection, if someone is conscious of bhūtagāma in bhūtagāma, and he cuts it or has it cut, splits it or has it split, cooks it or has it cooked, there is a pācittiya. There is a pācittiya for one who harms bhūtagāma. For one who harms the five kinds of bījagāma that have been extracted from bhūtagāma, there is a dukkaṭa.

76. Concerning bījagāma and bhūtagāma (pāci. aṭṭha. 922), some exist in water, and some exist on land. Among these, that which exists in water includes all kinds of algae, with and without leaves, down to the duckweed, with distinctions such as mustard seed, mattika seed, sesame seed, etc.; it should be understood as "bhūtagāma." Duckweed is hard and rough in color on the surface and soft and blue in color underneath. Among these, that algae whose roots go down and are established in the earth, the earth is its location. That which moves about in water, water is its location. For one who harms that which is established on the earth in any way, or who uproots it or moves it to another place, there is a pācittiya; there is a pācittiya for one who harms that which moves about in water. However, it is allowable to push it here and there with the hands in order to bathe. For all the water is its location; therefore, it is not considered moved to another place by that much. However, it is not allowable to intentionally lift it out of the water without water; it is allowable to lift it out with water and put it back into the water. For one who removes water-born creepers and grasses such as lotuses and water lilies from the water, or who harms them there, there is a pācittiya; for one who harms them after they have been uprooted by others, there is a dukkaṭa. For these are included in bījagāma. Sesame seed, mustard seed, mattika algae, even when removed from the water, if they have not withered, are included in aggabīja. In the Mahāpaccariya and other texts, it is stated that "anantaka, sesame seed, duckweed, etc., are objects involving dukkaṭa"; the reason for this is not apparent. In the Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā, it is stated that "it is not complete bhūtagāma; therefore, there is a dukkaṭa"; that too does not agree. For in bhūtagāma, a pācittiya is stated, and in bījagāma, a dukkaṭa is stated. An incomplete bhūtagāma, a third category, does not occur in the Pāḷi or in the Aṭṭhakathās; therefore, it will be included in bījagāma—that too is not proper, since that kind is rooted in abhūtagāma as bījagāma. Moreover, the vinaya principle is that "in serious and light matters, one should abide by the serious."

On land, the remaining green stump of cut trees is called khāṇu. Among these, the khāṇu of trees such as kakudhaka, karañja, piyaṅgu, jackfruit, sāda grows upwards; that is included in bhūtagāma. The khāṇu of trees such as palm and coconut does not grow upwards; that is included in bījagāma. In the case of the banana tree, the khāṇu of an unfruitful one is included in bhūtagāma; that of a fruitful one is included in bījagāma. However, a fruitful banana tree is included in bhūtagāma as long as the leaves are blue, and so is fruitful bamboo. But when it begins to dry up from the top, then it is included in bījagāma. Which bījagāma? Joint-seed. What arises from that? Nothing. For if something were to arise, it would be included in bhūtagāma. When they cut down indasāla trees, etc., and make a pile, even if branches the size of jewels emerge from the sticks in the pile, they are still included in bījagāma. When they bury them in the ground for the purpose of a maṇḍapa, a fence, or planting creepers, once roots and leaves have emerged, they are once again counted as bhūtagāma; but even if only roots or only leaves have emerged, they are still included in bījagāma.

Any seeds whatsoever that have been placed in the earth after being watered, or that have been placed in pots, etc., after being put in damp soil, all of these, even if only a root or only a leaf has emerged, are still seeds. Even if roots and a sprout above emerge, as long as the sprout is not green, they are still seeds. However, when the leaves of beans, etc., have sprouted, or when the sprout of rice, etc., has turned green and blue, they are included in bhūtagāma. In the case of palm shoots, first a root like a boar's tusk emerges; even when it has emerged, as long as the leaf stalk above does not emerge, it is still called bījagāma. In the case of the coconut, when the husk has been broken and a sprout like a toothpick emerges, as long as there is no blue leaf stalk like a deer's horn, it is still bījagāma. Even if the root has not emerged but such a leaf stalk has arisen, it is included in amūlakabhūtagāma (bhūtagāma without roots).

Mangoes and others should be distinguished from rice and other grains. Any creeper, such as vandākā or any other, that grows on a tree and covers the tree—the tree is its location; for one who harms it or removes it from there, there is a pācittiya. There is a kind of rootless creeper that wraps around shrubs like a finger ring; the same rule applies to that as well. On the walls of houses, fences, terraces, shrines, etc., there is blue algae; as long as two or three leaves have not arisen, it is included in aggabīja. Once leaves have arisen, it is an object involving pācittiya; therefore, it is not allowable to apply whitewash to such places. It is allowable for one who is not fully ordained to apply a greasy substance on top of what has been applied. If, in the hot season, dry algae remains, it is allowable to sweep it away with a broom, etc. Algae on the outside of water pots, etc., is an object involving dukkaṭa; inside, it is not for use. Even mold on tooth sticks, cakes, etc., is not for use. It was said, "If a wall that has been decorated with red ochre becomes moldy, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and wiped over it" (mahāva. 66).

77. Kinds of stone, such as stone-lichen, stone-rashes, algae, seleyyaka, etc., that are not green in color and have no leaves, are objects involving dukkaṭa. The mushroom is an object involving dukkaṭa as long as it is a bud; from the time it blooms, it is not for use. However, when picking a mushroom from a living tree, one harms the tree's bark; therefore, there is a pācittiya in that case. The same rule applies to tree fungus as well. However, if the fungus of indasāla, kakudha, etc., has detached from the tree and is standing apart, there is no offense in picking it. It is allowable to pick resin that has detached from the tree and is standing apart, or that is attached to a dry tree; it is not allowable to pick it from a living tree. The same rule applies to lac as well. There is a pācittiya for one who shakes a tree and causes withered leaves or flowers of the paribāṣita tree, etc., that are ripe to fall. The same rule applies to one who, out of manual restlessness, cuts letters into soft indasāla, nuhī trunks, etc., or into palm leaves, etc., that grow there. It is allowable for novices who are picking flowers to bend down a branch and give it to them. However, the water should not be scented with those flowers; a novice should be lifted up by someone who wants to scent the water and have them pick the flowers. A fruit-bearing branch should not be bent down by one who wants to eat the fruit himself; a novice should be lifted up and made to take the fruit. When novices are uprooting any clump or vine, they should not take hold of it together and pull on it; however, to encourage them, it is allowable for one who is not pulling to appear to be pulling, as if by taking hold of the end. For those trees whose branches grow back, if a branch has been taken for the sake of bee larvae, etc., after having it made allowable, there is a dukkaṭa for one who scratches the bark or leaves, even with a fingernail. The same rule applies to living ginger, etc., as well. But if, after having it made allowable, the root of something kept in a cool place sprouts, it is allowable to cut off the upper part. If a shoot sprouts, it is allowable to cut off the lower part; it is not allowable if both root and shoot have sprouted.

When sweeping the ground with a broom stick, if one sweeps in a way that one either cuts or has cut grass, etc., it is not allowable. When walking, if one intentionally steps on grass, vines, etc., with one's feet, thinking, "Let what is cuttable be cut, let what is breakable be broken; I will mark the walking path," thereby either cutting or having them cut, it is not allowable. Even if grass or vines break while one is tying a knot, it is not allowable to tie the knot. On palm trees, etc., they nail wooden monkeys to prevent thieves from climbing them, or they attach thorns; it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to do such a thing. If the wooden monkey is only clinging to the tree and not harming it, it is allowable. It is allowable to say, "Cut the tree, cut the vine, uproot the tuber or root," because it is not specific. However, it is not allowable to say specifically, "Cut this tree," etc. Even saying, after mentioning the name, "Cut, split, uproot this mango tree, square vine, arum root, muñja grass, asukaru tree bark," etc., is not specific. For saying "This mango tree," etc., is specific, and that is not allowable. One who, intending to cook leaves, makes a fire intentionally on top of grass, etc., either cooking oneself or having someone else cook, it is not allowable. However, it is allowable to say without specifying, "Cook beans, cook lentils," etc.; it is not allowable to say, "Cook these beans." It is allowable to say, "Identify this medicinal root, give this root or leaf, bring this tree or vine, there is a need for this flower or fruit, make this tree or vine or fruit allowable." In this way, the restriction on bhūtagāma has been removed.

78. However, for the purpose of using it, allow it to be made allowable again in order to have bījagāma restriction removed. And here, this is how to understand making allowable, according to this sutta:

"I allow, bhikkhus, the use of fruit by five samaṇa-kappas: that which is consumed at the tip, that which is consumed with a knife, that which is consumed with nails, that which is seedless, and nibbaṭṭabīja is the fifth" (cūḷava. 250).

Aggiparijita means consumed by fire, overcome, burnt, touched. Satthaparijita means consumed by a knife, overcome, cut, pierced. The same method applies to nakhaparijita. Seeds that sprout without seeds are allowable by themselves. When making something allowable with fire, it should be made allowable with any kind of fire, such as a wood fire or a cow-dung fire, or even with a piece of heated metal, but it must be done by touching it in one place and saying "kappiya". When doing it with a knife, it should be done by showing a cut or piercing with the tip or edge of any iron knife, even a needle or nail cutter, and saying "kappiya". When making something allowable with a fingernail, it should not be done with a rotten fingernail, but the fingernails of humans, lions, tigers, leopards, monkeys, and birds are sharp, so it can be done with those. The hooves of horses, buffaloes, pigs, deer, cows, etc., are too sharp, so it cannot be done with those; even if it is done, it is not considered done. However, elephant nails are not hooves, so it is permissible to use them. But with whatever is permissible to use, even if taken out and grabbed from those born there, it must be done by showing a cut or piercing and saying "kappiya".

There, even if there is a pile of seeds as big as a mountain, or a thousand trees cut down and tied together, or a large bundle of sugarcane tied up, if something is made allowable on one seed, branch, or sugarcane, everything is considered done. If sugarcane and wood are tied together, and one pierces the wood saying, "I will make the sugarcane allowable," it is valid. But if one pierces the rope or vine with which they are tied, it is not valid. When they bring a basket filled with sugarcane pieces, if one piece is made allowable, everything is considered done. Also, when they bring food mixed with pepper, etc., if one pierces even a speck of food when told, "Make it allowable," it is valid. The same method applies to sesame seeds, rice, etc. But things put in gruel do not stay bound together, so one must pierce each one and make it allowable. For fruits like wood apples, the kernel inside moves around after breaking the shell; it should be made allowable after breaking it open, since it is bound together, it is also valid to do it on the shell.

Thus ends the collection of decisions on points omitted from the Pali, [Vinaya Vinicchaya Saṅgaha]

The discussion on the decision regarding growth ends.

16. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Sharing a Sleeping Place

79. Sharing a sleeping place is of two kinds, referring to the two training rules on sharing a sleeping place stated thus: "Whatever bhikkhu should share a sleeping place with one who is not fully ordained for more than two or three nights, it is to be confessed (pāci. 49). Whatever bhikkhu should share a sleeping place with a woman, it is to be confessed" (pāci. 56). Here is the decision regarding that (pāci. aṭṭha. 50-51): With an unordained person, when the sun sets on the fourth day after three nights, in a lodging that is completely covered and completely enclosed, or mostly covered and mostly enclosed, a pācittiya is incurred for lying down in succession or at the same moment. Here, knowing that covering is not required, even if enclosed by a wall etc. to a height of one and a half hands, it should be understood to be fully enclosed. A lodging that is completely enclosed above by five coverings or by anything else, this is called a completely covered lodging. In the commentaries, however, taking the well-known usage, it is said verbally, "Completely covered means covered by five coverings." Although it is said, it is not possible to claim non-offense even when sleeping in a cloth tent; therefore, here, anything capable of covering should be understood as both covering and enclosure. If only the five kinds of coverings are considered, there would be no sharing of a sleeping place even under a mat covering; therefore, a lodging that is surrounded from the ground up to the covering by a wall or anything else, even by a cloth, this is called a completely enclosed lodging. Even if enclosed by a wall etc. to a height of one and a half hands, without requiring covering, in the last analysis, it is still completely enclosed. But a lodging where much of the space above is covered, and little is uncovered, or where much is enclosed on all sides, and little is unenclosed, this is called mostly covered and mostly enclosed.

Even if a seven-storied mansion, endowed with this characteristic, has a single courtyard, or a hundred chambers or a four-sided hall, it counts as a single lodging. In such a lodging, a pācittiya is incurred for lying down with an unordained person when the sun sets on the fourth day. If there are many novices and one bhikkhu, the pācittiya is according to the number of novices. If they get up and lie down repeatedly, the bhikkhu incurs an offense with each attempt. But if the bhikkhu gets up and lies down repeatedly, the bhikkhu incurs an offense only by his own attempt. If there are many bhikkhus and one novice, even one novice causes an offense for all. Even with his getting up and lying down repeatedly, the bhikkhus incur an offense. The same method applies when both are numerous.

80. Moreover, here, a quartet such as a single dwelling should be understood. Whoever shares a sleeping place for three nights with one unordained person in a single dwelling incurs a daily offense beginning from the fourth day. Whoever shares a sleeping place for three nights with various unordained persons in a single dwelling also incurs a daily offense. Whoever shares a sleeping place for three nights with one unordained person in various dwellings also incurs a daily offense. Whoever goes even a hundred yojanas and shares a sleeping place with various unordained persons in various dwellings also incurs a daily offense beginning from the fourth day.

This offense of sharing a sleeping place, since it is said that "except for a bhikkhu, the rest are called unordained," occurs even with a subhuman being that is the basis for a defeat, at the very least; therefore, even if a gecko, cat, mongoose, etc., enters and sleeps in a bhikkhu's dwelling place in a single courtyard area, it is still sharing a sleeping place. But if one enters through a hole in a pillar above a building built on pillars that has no walls connected to the upper floor, sleeps inside the beam, and exits through the same hole, the bhikkhu sleeping in the lower building incurs no offense. If there is a hole in the roof, and one enters through it, lives inside the roof, and leaves through the same hole, one incurs an offense for sleeping inside the roof on the non-courtyard upper floor, but the bhikkhu sleeping on the lower floor incurs no offense. If they climb up inside the building itself and use all the floors, they are considered a single courtyard; one incurs an offense for sleeping anywhere in them. If pigeons etc. sleep in a lodging made by briefly putting up a half-wall in what is called a shed, or in beams or fences, one incurs an offense. If they sleep outside the enclosure, inside a roofless area, there is no offense. Even if a lodging is round or square, and has a hundred chambers under one roof, if one can enter all the chambers by entering through a single common door in a courtyard that is not enclosed by a separate wall, and an unordained person is lying down in one chamber, all those lying down in all the chambers incur an offense. If the chambers have porticoes, and the portico is uncovered above, one sleeping in the portico does not cause an offense for those sleeping in the chambers. But if the roof of the portico is connected to the roof of the chambers, one sleeping there causes an offense for all. Why? Because it is completely covered and completely enclosed. Indeed, the enclosure of the chambers is his enclosure.

81. Even in large buildings consisting of one-hall, two-hall, three-hall, or four-hall arrangements, where one can walk around everywhere after entering and washing one's feet in one place, one is not released from the offense of sharing a sleeping place. If courtyards are defined and made in each place, the offense occurs only in a single courtyard area. If they build a wall in the middle of a stucco-roofed pavilion with two doors, and an unordained person sleeps in one enclosure, and a bhikkhu in one, there is no offense. If there is a hole in the wall just large enough for geckos etc. to enter, and geckos sleep in one enclosure, there is no offense. For a hole does not make a house a single courtyard. If they cut a hole in the middle of the wall and attach a door, there is an offense because it is a single courtyard. If they close that door with a gate and sleep, there is an offense. For closing a door does not make a house a non-courtyard, whether there is a door or no door. Indeed, a gate is made for conveniently opening and closing, not for cutting off the courtyard. If they close that door again with bricks, it becomes a non-door, and remains in the former non-courtyard state. If there is a long-fronted shrine room, with one gate inside and one outside, an unordained person between the two gates causes an offense for one sleeping inside the shrine room because it is a single courtyard.

Here is the summary: Whether the lodging is small or large, connected or unconnected to another, long, round, or square, single-storied or multi-storied, wherever there is a single courtyard, there is the offense of sharing a sleeping place. Here, with everything completely covered and completely enclosed by any kind of covering, there is a pācittiya; mostly covered and mostly enclosed, a pācittiya; completely covered and mostly enclosed, a pācittiya; completely covered and half-enclosed, a pācittiya; mostly covered and half-enclosed, a pācittiya; completely enclosed and mostly covered, a pācittiya; completely enclosed and half-covered, a pācittiya; mostly enclosed and half-covered, a pācittiya - these are the eight pācittiyas. Half-covered and half-enclosed is a dukkata; completely covered and slightly enclosed, a dukkata; mostly covered and slightly enclosed, a dukkata; completely enclosed and slightly covered, a dukkata; mostly enclosed and slightly covered, a dukkata - these are the five dukkatas that should be understood. There is no offense in completely covered and completely unenclosed, completely enclosed and completely uncovered, mostly covered and mostly unenclosed, half-covered and slightly enclosed, half-enclosed and slightly covered, slightly enclosed and slightly covered. The same decision applies to one lying down with a woman. Here is the difference: the offense for lying down with an unordained person occurs on the fourth day, but with a woman, on the first day. For a subhuman female spirit with a visible form and capable of sexual intercourse, there is only a dukkata; for the rest, there is no offense.

Thus ends the collection of decisions on points omitted from the Pali, [Vinaya Vinicchaya Saṅgaha]

The discussion on the decision regarding sharing a sleeping place ends.

17. Discussion on How to Conduct Oneself in Monastic Lodgings with Beds, Chairs, etc.

82. In a monastic lodging belonging to the Sangha, having spread out a bed, leaves means having spread out a bed in a monastic lodging belonging to the Sangha and leaving the lodging with the desire to live elsewhere. Here is the decision regarding that –

"Whatever bhikkhu, having spread out a bed in a monastic lodging belonging to the Sangha, or having had it spread out, when leaving, should neither remove it nor have it removed, or should leave without informing, it is to be confessed" (pāci. 115) –

According to the statement, for a bhikkhu who has himself spread out a bed in a monastic lodging belonging to the Sangha, or has had someone else spread it out, a pācittiya is incurred for transgressing the boundary of the enclosed monastery or, for one not enclosed, the boundary of the vicinity, without removing it, etc.

When he has gone, the Thera himself is responsible, and the offense for him should be understood in the same way as before.

Then, if a young novice, immediately after being instructed, says, "Venerable sir, is there any work for me to do, such as washing bowls?", but the Elder, having told him, "Go after arranging the seat," leaves the dining hall and goes elsewhere, he should be made to leave by having his feet removed (from the hall). If he goes and sits there, he incurs an offense in the same way as before, if he transgresses the leḍḍupāta. But if the Elder instructs the sāmaṇera, even if the sāmaṇera arranges a couch or chair there and sits down, he should be made to leave by having his feet removed when going elsewhere from the dining hall. Having gone and sat down, he should be made to leave with an offense if he transgresses the leḍḍupāta again when departing. But if, when instructing, he instructs, "Arrange a couch or chair and sit there," he is allowed to go and come as he pleases. But for one going away without doing the usual practice, there is a pācittiya offense for transgressing the leḍḍupāta. When leaving after arranging couches, chairs, etc., in an antarasannipāta, the ārāmikas should be told, "Take these away," if they leave without saying so, there is an offense for transgressing the leḍḍupāta.

87. There is something called a great Dhamma sermon; there, they arrange couches and chairs brought from the uposatha hall and the dining hall, the encumbrance is only for the residents. If the visitors take them claiming, "This is for my upajjhāya, this is for my ācariya," from then on the encumbrance is theirs. There is an offense for those who transgress the leḍḍupāta without doing the usual practice when departing. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, "As long as others have not sat down, the burden is on those who arranged them; when others have come and sat down, the burden is on those who are sitting. If they leave without removing them or having them removed, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Why? Because they were arranged without instruction." When a seat is arranged on the Dhamma seat, as long as the inviter or the Dhamma speaker does not come, the encumbrance is on those who arranged it. When he comes and sits down, the encumbrance is his. If the Dhamma sermon lasts all night, and one inviter or Dhamma speaker gets up and another sits down, whoever comes and sits down, the burden is his. But the one getting up should leave after saying, "This seat is your burden." Even if, when the other has not arrived, the one who sat down first gets up and leaves, and the other comes and sits down within the boundary, the one who got up and left should not be charged with an offense. But if, when the other has not arrived, the one who sat down first gets up from the seat and transgresses the leḍḍupāta, he should be charged with an offense. "Everywhere, for transgressing the leḍḍupāta, there is a dukkaṭa offense for the first foot, and a pācittiya offense for the second foot," this is the method said in the Mahāpaccariya.

88. If, from the types of lodgings mentioned, he spreads out or has spread out another belonging to the Saṅgha, such as a cīmilikā, or an uttarattharaṇa, or a bhūmattharaṇa, or a mat (taṭṭika), or a piece of leather (cammakhaṇḍa), or a foot-wiper (pādapuñchanī), or a wooden seat (phalakapīṭha) in the open, and when leaving, neither removes it nor has it removed, or leaves without asking permission, there is a dukkaṭa offense. There is also a dukkaṭa offense for one who, having placed a stand (ādhāraka), a bowl cover (pattapidhānaka), a footstool (pādakaṭhalika), a palm fan (tālavaṇṭa), a betel-leaf case (bījanipattaka), any wooden item, even a water dipper (pānīyauḷuṅka) or a water conch shell (pānīyasaṅkha) in the open, leaves. Having cooked dye in the open, the dye pot (rajanabhājana), dye dipper (rajanauḷuṅko), dye trough (rajinadoṇika), all should be returned to the fire hall. If there is no fire hall, it should be placed in a non-rainy cave (pabbhāra). Even in that absence, it is proper to leave it in such a place where the monks can see it by looking. However, even with another person's couches, chairs, etc., there is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, however, in the Mahāpaccariya and other texts, it is said, "In the property of one in whom trust does not grow, there is a dukkaṭa offense. However, in the property of one in whom trust grows, it becomes one's own personal property." However, in one's own personal property, there is no offense. There is also no offense for a monk, sāmaṇera, or ārāmika who is conscientious and regards it as his own encumbrance, and leaves without asking permission. There is also no offense for one who, while warming himself in the sun, leaves thinking, "I will come back and remove it."

Thus ends in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha

The discussion on the decisions of how to act

Regarding Saṅghika lodgings such as couches and chairs.

18. Discussion on the Decisions Regarding Kālikas

89. Here in "Kālikāni are four," (pāci. aṭṭha. 255-256) these four kālikas should be understood: yāvakālika, yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika. Among them, any edibles (khādanīya) or foods (bhojanīya) that should be accepted and consumed before noon (purebhatta), and should be consumed until the time reckoned as midday (majjhanhika), is called yāvakālika. The eight kinds of drinks (pāna) along with suitable allowable drinks, that should be consumed until the time reckoned as the last watch (yāma) of the night, the time is a watch (yāma), therefore it is called yāmakālika. The five kinds of medicines, such as ghee (sappi), etc., that should be accepted and stored for seven days, the seven days is its time, therefore it is called sattāhakālika. Except for water, all the remaining accepted items that should be kept for as long as one lives (yāvajīva), and consumed when there is a reason, is called yāvajīvika.

90. Among those yāvakālika items, food (bhojanīya) is rice (odana), barley gruel (kummāsa), flour (sattu), fish (maccho), and meat (maṃsa). The five foods are called edibles (khādanīya) except for those that are yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika. Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 248-9), whatever edibles are made of grains or flour, such as sakkhalimodaka, there is no need to say anything about them. And whatever is of the nature of meat, with different kinds of forest roots, such as root edibles (mūlakhādanīya), tuber edibles (kandakhādanīya), stalk edibles (muḷālakhādanīya), pith edibles (matthakakhādanīya), stem edibles (khandhakhādanīya), bark edibles (tacakhādanīya), leaf edibles (pattakhādanīya), flower edibles (pupphakhādanīya), fruit edibles (phalakhādanīya), kernel edibles (aṭṭhikhādanīya), flour edibles (piṭṭhakhādanīya), and sap edibles (niyyāsakhādanīya), these also go into the category of edibles.

Among root edibles, turnip roots, khāraka roots, caccu roots, tambaka roots, rice-gruel roots, vatthuleyyaka roots, vajakali roots, jajjhari roots, and so on are soup and vegetable roots that are of the nature of meat. Here, in the vajakali root, the old, hard part is cut off and discarded, that is yāvajīvika. Other similar things should also be understood in this way. It is said that even the old, hard parts of turnip, khāraka, and jajjhari roots are of the nature of meat. Those that are in the Pāḷi –

"I allow, monks, roots that are medicine: turmeric (haliddi), ginger (siṅgivera), vaca, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, and whatever other roots there are that are medicine, which are neither used as edibles for eating purposes, nor used as foods for eating purposes" (mahāva. 263) –

That are said, are yāvajīvika. There is no end to the calculation of those that are counted in the way of small five roots, great five roots, and so on, but the characteristic of these is that they are not used for the purpose of edibles and foods. Therefore, whatever root in those various regions is naturally used by people for the purpose of edibles and foods is yāvakālika, the other is to be known as yāvajīvika. Even after saying a lot, one should remain in this characteristic. However, in mentioning name designations, there is only confusion for those who do not know those names, therefore, without paying attention to the name designation, only the characteristic is shown. And just as with roots, we will show the characteristic with tubers and so on, the decision should be known according to that.

Among tuber edibles, there are two kinds of tubers: long ones, such as bhisakiṃsukaka tubers, etc., and round ones, such as uppalakaseruka tubers, etc., which they also call gaṇṭhi. Among them, the old, hard parts of all tubers, the outer skin, and the fine roots are yāvajīvika; however, young, easily edible tubers such as young sālakalyāṇi tubers, young kiṃsuka tubers, ambāṭaka tubers, ketaka tubers, māluvaka tubers, bhisa tubers (known as lotus and white lotus tubers), piṇḍālumasāluā and other milky vine tubers, āluvaka tubers, siggu tubers, palm tubers, tubers of blue lotus, red lotus, kumuda, and sogandhika, kadali tubers, bamboo tubers, kaseruka tubers, and so on, tubers that are used by people as natural food in those various regions for the purpose of edibles and foods are yāvakālika. Unwashed milky vine tubers are yāvajīvika, washed ones are yāvakālika. Khīrakākolijīvikausabhakalasuṇā and other tubers are yāvajīvika. Those are included in the Pāḷi with the inclusion of root medicines as "or whatever other roots there are that are medicine" (mahāva. 263).

Among stalk edibles, lotus stalks, white lotus stalks are just like roots. Eraka stalks, kandula stalks, and so on, stalks that are used by people as natural food in those various regions for the purpose of edibles and foods are yāvakālika, haliddisiṅgiveramakacicaturassavalli (turmeric, ginger, amakaci, four-sided vine), ketaka, tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, nāḷikera, pūga (betel nut) tree stalks are yāvajīvika. All of that is included in the Pāḷi with the inclusion of root medicines as "or whatever other roots there are that are medicine."

Among pith edibles, the pith of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, ketaka, nāḷikera, pūga (betel nut) trees, date palms, rattan, eraka, bananas, known as shoots; bamboo shoots, reed shoots, sugar cane shoots, turnip shoots, mustard shoots, satāvari shoots, shoots of the seven grains, and so on, the pith of trees, vines, etc., that is used by people as natural food in those various regions for the purpose of edibles and foods, is yāvakālika, the shoots of haliddi, siṅgivera, vaca, makaci, and suṇā, and the hard core that is cut off from the shoots of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, nāḷikera, are yāvajīvika.

Among stem edibles, the inner part without the outer bark, stems of sālakalyāṇī, sugar cane stems, stems of blue lotus, red lotus, kumuda, and sogandhika, and so on, stems that are used by people as natural food in those various regions for the purpose of edibles and foods are yāvakālika, the leaf stalks of lotus species, all stalks of lotus species, karavinda stalks, and all the remaining stems are yāvajīvika.

Among bark edibles, only sugar cane bark is yāvakālika, and that too when it is juicy; the rest is all yāvajīvika. The inclusion of all three, pith, stem, and bark, should be understood in the Pāḷi with astringent medicines. For it was said –

"I allow, monks, astringent medicines: nimba astringent, kuṭaja astringent, paṭola astringent, phaggava astringent, nattamāla astringent, and whatever other astringent medicines there are that are neither used as edibles for eating purposes, nor used as foods for eating purposes" (mahāva. 263).

Here, the inclusion of these also succeeds. And the astringents mentioned should be known as all allowable.

Among leaf edibles, the leaves of turnip, khāraka, caccu, tambaka, taṇḍuleyyaka, papunnāga, vatthuleyyaka, vajakali, jajjhari, sellu, siggu, kāsamaddaka, ummā, cīnamugga, māsa, rājamāsa, except for the great nipphāva, the remaining nipphāva, aggimantha, sunisannaka, setavaraṇa, nāḷikā, and loṇī that grows on the ground; and other similar leaves that are used by people as natural food in those various regions for the purpose of edibles and foods are certainly yāvakālika; however, the leaf of one that has leaves the size of a large nail or the back of a hand, and climbs on trees and shrubs, is yāvajīvika. The inhabitants of the island say that brahmi leaves are yāvakālika. Mango leaves are yāvakālika, but asoka leaves are yāvajīvika. And whatever other leaves there are in the Pāḷi –

"I allow, monks, leaves as medicine: neem leaves, kuṭaja leaves, paṭola leaves, basil leaves, cotton leaves, and any other leaves that are medicines, which are neither consumed as food nor used for food purposes," (Mahāva. 263) –

These are said to be allowed for life. And not only the leaves, but also their flowers and fruits. However, there is no end to the enumeration of the leaves permissible for life, such as phaggava leaves, ajjuka leaves, phaṇijjaka leaves, betel leaves, and lotus leaves.

Among flowers that are consumed as food, there are radish flowers, date flowers, caccu flowers, tambaka flowers, vajakali flowers, jajjhari flowers, cūḷanipphāva flowers, mahānipphāva flowers, kaseruka flowers, the young flowers of coconut, palmyra palm, and screwpine, white varaṇa flowers, drumstick flowers, only the pistils of lotus and water lily flowers, non-fragrant flowers, karīra flowers, jīvantī flowers, etc. Whatever flowers in those various regions are naturally used by people for food or for food purposes are allowed until the next day. But the flowers of asoka, bakula, kuyyaka, punnāga, campaka, jasmine, oleander, kaṇikāra, kunda, navamālikā, mallikā, etc., are allowed for life, and there is no end to their enumeration. In the Pali, however, it should be understood that these are included as astringent medicines.

Among fruits that are consumed as food, there are jackfruit, breadfruit, palmyra palm fruit, coconut, mango, rose apple, hog plum, tintiṇika, citron, wood apple, gourd, white gourd, pussa fruit, timbūsa fruit, katipusa, eggplant, coca, moca, madhuka, etc. All the fruits that in those various regions are naturally used by people for food or for food purposes are allowed until the next day, and it is not possible to show the limit by way of enumeration. But those that are mentioned in the Pali –

"I allow, monks, fruits as medicine: bilaṅga, long pepper, black pepper, myrobalan, vibhītaka, emblic myrobalan, goṭṭha fruit, and any other fruits that are medicines, which are neither consumed as food nor used for food purposes," (Mahāva. 263) –

are allowed for life. Even among those, unripe fruits such as acchiva, bimba, varaṇa, ketaka, kāsmarī, etc., and spice fruits like nutmeg, bitter fruit, cardamom, takkola, etc.; it is not possible to show the limit by way of naming them.

Among seeds that are consumed as food, labuja seeds, jackfruit seeds, hog plum seeds, sāla seeds, date seeds, young fruit seeds of ketaka and timbarūsaka, tintiṇika seeds, bimba fruit seeds, the inner core of lotus and water lily etc., these kinds of seeds that in those various regions are naturally used by people for food or for food purposes are allowed until the next day. Madhuka seeds, punnāga seeds, myrobalan seeds, white mustard seeds, brown mustard seeds, etc., are allowed for life. In the Pali, these should be understood as included with the fruit medicines.

Among flours that are consumed as food, there are flours of the seven grains, flours of grains which can be combined with the seven grains, and other pulses, jackfruit flour, labuja flour, hog plum flour, sāla flour, dhotaka palmyra palm flour, and khīravalli flour, etc. These kinds of flours that in those various regions are naturally used by people for food or for food purposes are allowed until the next day. Adhotaka palmyra palm flour, khīravalli flour, assagandha, and other flours are allowed for life. In the Pali, these should be understood as included with astringents and root fruits.

Among saps that are consumed as food, only sugarcane sap is allowed for a week; the rest –

"I allow, monks, resins as medicine: asafoetida, asafoetida resin, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, sajjulasaṃ, and any other resins that are medicines," (Mahāva. 263) –

The saps that are mentioned in this way in the Pali are allowed for life. Among those that are included by way of "and so forth," such as mango sap, kaṇikāra sap, and so on, it is not possible to show the limit by way of naming them. Thus, whatever among these root foods, etc., is allowed until the next day is all included in this context as remaining food.

91.Among the foods allowed for a day, there are eight drinks: mango drink, rose apple drink, coca drink, moca drink, madhuka drink, grape drink, sālūka drink, and phārusaka drink. Here, mango drink (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 300) is a drink made from unripe or ripe mangoes. In making it from unripe mangoes, young mangoes should be broken, put in water, cooked in the sun by solar heating, strained, and combined with honey, sugar, camphor, etc., that have been received that day; what is made in this way is allowable only before the meal. Having received what was made by those who are not fully ordained before the meal, it is allowable before the meal even with the use of non-pure foods; after the meal, it is allowable until dawn with the use of pure foods. This is the method for all the drinks. Rose apple drink is a drink made from rose apples. Coca drink is a drink made from seeded bananas. Moca drink is a drink made from seedless bananas. Madhuka drink is a drink made from the essence of madhuka. That is allowable mixed with water, but not pure. Grape drink is a drink made by squeezing grapes in water like mango drink. Sālūka drink is a drink made by squeezing the sālūka of red water lilies, blue water lilies, etc. Phārusaka drink is a drink made from phārusaka fruits like mango drink. These eight drinks are allowable both cold and sun-cooked, but not fire-cooked.

Juice of grains that can be combined with the seven grains and juice of fruits means the juice of the seven grains, as well as of the nine large fruits—palmyra palm, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, white gourd, gourd, white pumpkin, tipusa, eḷāluka, and of all the pulses that can be combined with the grains, is allowable until the next day; therefore, it is not allowable after the meal. Since it was said, "I allow, monks, all leaf juice except ḍāka juice" (Mahāva. 300), leaving out ripe ḍāka juice, juice made from leaves that are allowable until the next day, squeezed with cold water or sun-cooked, is allowable. Since it was said, "I allow, monks, all flower juice except madhuka flower juice," leaving out madhuka flower juice, all flower juice is allowable.

92.Allowed for a week are the five medicines: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses. Here, ghee is ghee from cows, goats, or buffaloes, whose meat is allowable. Fresh butter is fresh butter from those same animals. Oil is sesame oil, mustard oil, madhuka oil, castor oil, and tallow. Honey is bee honey. Molasses is what is produced from sugarcane (pāci. 260). However, what is allowable for life should be understood in the same way as stated above regarding root foods and other foods allowable until the next day.

93.Here, (pāci. aṭṭha. 256) what is received at dawn and is allowable until the next day, even if it is stored a hundred times, it is allowable to use it as long as the time does not pass. What is allowable for a day is for one day and night, what is allowable for a week is for seven nights, and the rest it is allowable to use for life as long as there is a reason. But when one takes anything that is allowable until the next day or allowable for a day, having received it and let one night pass, with the intention of consuming it, there is a dukkaṭa for receiving it. But for each consumption, there is a pācittiya due to the condition of storing. Even if the bowl is poorly washed, so that a line appears when one rubs it with a finger, or if grease has entered between the ridges of a ridged bowl, and it drips out when one heats it, or it sticks when hot rice gruel is taken, there is a pācittiya for eating from such a bowl again on the next day. Therefore, having washed the bowl, one should ascertain that there is no grease by pouring in pure water again or by rubbing it with a finger. For if grease is in the water or a finger line appears on the bowl, it is poorly washed. But on an oiled bowl, if a finger line appears, it is not considered a fault. Also, whatever monks give up without concern to novices, if the novices store it and give it back, all is allowable. Indeed, it is only what one has received oneself and not given up that is not allowable on the second day. For then, there is a pācittiya for consuming even a single grain. Among non-allowable meats, there is a pācittiya for human meat together with a serious offense; for the rest, together with a dukkaṭa.

There is a pācittiya for consuming what is allowable for a day when there is a reason, and together with a dukkaṭa for consuming it for the purpose of nourishment. If, having been invited, he consumes what has not been redistributed, there are two pācittiya for natural non-pure food, two for human meat together with a serious offense, and for the remaining non-allowable meat together with a dukkaṭa. There are two pācittiya for consuming what is allowable for a day with a non-pure mouth when there is a reason, and only one with a pure mouth. A dukkaṭa increases in both alternatives when consuming it for the purpose of nourishment. If he consumes it at the wrong time, there are two pācittiya due to the condition of storing natural food and due to the condition of eating at the wrong time; a serious offense and a dukkaṭa increase for non-allowable meat. There is no offense due to the condition of the wrong time for what is allowable for a day. However, there is no offense in all alternatives at the wrong time because of the condition of not being redistributed.

However, for one who receives what is allowable for a week and what is allowable for life for the purpose of nourishment, there is a dukkaṭa for the condition of receiving, but if it is pure, there is a dukkaṭa for consuming it. But if what is mixed with non-pure food has been received and stored, there is a pācittiya according to the actual situation.

94.Here, in regard to ghee and the others among the foods allowable for a week, this is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.622): Ghee, indeed, having been received before the meal, it is allowable to use it that day before the meal even with non-pure food and with pure food; from after the meal onward, it should be used with pure food for a week. If a week passes and it is stored in one container, there is one forfeiture. If in many, there are forfeitures according to the number of items. Having been received after the meal, it is allowable only with pure food. It is not allowable to consume what has been taken out and set aside, whether before the meal or after the meal; it should be applied for rubbing etc. There is no offense even if a week passes, because it has reached the state of not being consumable. If a person who is not fully ordained makes ghee with fresh butter received before the meal, it is allowable even with non-pure food before the meal that day; if he makes it himself, it is allowable only with pure food even for a week. Ghee made by anyone with fresh butter received after the meal is allowable only with pure food even for a week; the judgment should be understood in the same way as the previously stated pure ghee rule for what is made with what has been taken out. Ghee made with milk or yogurt received before the meal, made by a person who is not fully ordained, is allowable even with non-pure food before the meal that day; what is made oneself is allowable only with pure food.

95.Fresh butter does not require cooking by oneself for it to be allowable, but meat is not allowable with it if it is self-cooked, and it is absolutely not allowable from after the meal onwards. Even after seven days, there is no offense because it was received with the ingredient. However, that which has been done with things received after the meal should be applied to anointing and so on. Also, that which has been done with things acquired before the meal is allowable before the meal as well, and there is no offense for both even after the passing of seven days. This same principle applies to non-allowable meat ghee. But this is a distinction: wherever ghee obtained according to the Pali results in a nissaggiya offense, this results in a dukkata offense. In the Andhaka Commentary, having said something appearing to be a valid reason, human ghee and fresh butter are rejected, but that rejection is not valid because it is allowed in all Commentaries. Moreover, its resolution will come later. Fresh butter obtained according to the Pali, even if received before the meal, is allowable with meat before that meal on that day, but only without meat from after the meal onwards. After the passing of seven days, if placed in various containers, it becomes nissaggiya according to the count of containers; if placed in one container but kept as separate lumps without mixing, it becomes nissaggiya according to the count of lumps. That which is received after the meal should be understood according to the principle of ghee. Here, however, there are also curds and drops of whey; therefore, the elder monks said that rinsing is allowable. But Mahāsiva Thera said, "From the time the Blessed One allowed it, they only ate what was removed from the whey." Therefore, when consuming fresh butter, one should rinse it and consume it after removing curds, whey, flies, ants, and so on. One who wishes to cook it and make ghee can consume it even without rinsing, because whatever curd or whey is in it will be destroyed. For this is the intention here: that it is not called 'received with the ingredient'. However, those who are scrupulous are scrupulous about even that, because it is cooked with meat. Now, concerning fresh butter that has been acquired and stored, and fresh butter made from milk and curds received before the meal, and fresh butter made from those received after the meal, and fresh butter made by those who have acquired them, and fresh butter from non-allowable meat, all the rules regarding offenses, non-offenses, consumption, and non-consumption should be understood according to the method stated in the case of ghee. However, for monks who have entered for alms of oil, they offer ghee, fresh butter, cooked oil, and uncooked oil right there. In that, there are drops of whey and curd, remnants of food, grains of rice, flies, and so on. Having made it sun-cooked, strained, and taken, it is allowable for seven days. And having received it and cooked it with medicines that have been stored, it is allowable to use it for nasal medication and drinking. If, at the time of distribution, a shameless novice does not cook the grains of rice and so on that have fallen there, but melts them in the fire, strains them, and gives them again, it is allowable for seven days according to the previous method.

96.Regarding oils, sesame oil, if received before the meal, is allowable with meat before the meal, but is allowable only without meat from after the meal onwards. After the passing of seven days, its state of being nissaggiya should be understood by the count of containers. That which is received after the meal is allowable without meat for seven days; it is not allowable to consume if made into acquired items and stored, but it should be applied to head anointing and so on; even after the passing of seven days, there is no offense. Oil made from sesame received before the meal is allowable with meat before the meal, but is not allowable for consumption from after the meal onwards, but should be applied to head anointing and so on; even after the passing of seven days, there is no offense. Oil made from sesame received after the meal is not allowable for consumption, because it was received with the ingredient. Even after the passing of seven days, there is no offense, but it should be applied to head anointing and so on. The same principle applies to oil made from sesame acquired before or after the meal. Sesame received before the meal, whether fried, made into sesame flour, or steamed and moistened with hot water, if made by one who is not fully ordained, is allowable with meat before the meal; if made by oneself because it has been extracted, it is allowable without meat before the meal, but is not allowable with meat because it is self-cooked. However, because it was received with the ingredient, both are not allowable for consumption from after the meal onwards, but should be applied to head anointing and so on; even after the passing of seven days, there is no offense. But if there is a small amount of hot water, just for sprinkling, it is not considered mixed and does not go into the calculation of self-cooking. In the case of mustard oil and so on, in things not received with an ingredient, the judgment is similar to what was said about sesame oil not received with an ingredient.

But if it is possible to make oil from the powder of mustard etc. received before the meal by sun-cooking, it is allowable with meat before the meal, but is allowable only without meat from after the meal onwards, and becomes nissaggiya after the passing of seven days. However, since they make oil by steaming mustard and madhuka powders and frying eraṇḍa seeds, oil made from these by one who is not fully ordained is allowable with meat before the meal, but because the ingredients are allowable for a lifetime, there is no fault in receiving it with the ingredient. If made by oneself, it should be consumed only with non-meat consumption for seven days. That which is made from acquired things is not allowable for consumption, but is allowable for external use, and even after the passing of seven days, there is no offense. Mustard, madhuka, and eraṇḍa seeds received for the purpose of making oil are allowable for seven days; if made on the second day, it is allowable for six days; if made on the third day, it is allowable for five days; if made on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day, it is allowable only on that day. If it remains until the rising of dawn, it becomes nissaggiya; if made on the eighth day, it is not allowable for consumption, but is allowable for external use because it is not nissaggiya. Even if one does not make it, there is still a dukkata offense for the mustard etc. taken for the purpose of oil after the passing of seven days. Moreover, there are other oils not mentioned in the Pali, such as coconut, neem, kosamba, and karamanda oils; there is a dukkata offense for allowing these to pass seven days after receiving them. This is the distinction among them: the rest should be understood according to the method stated, having noted the lifetime allowable ingredients and the lasting allowable ingredients, and the rules for self-cooked ingredients, ingredients received before the meal, ingredients received after the meal, and acquired ingredients.

Vasā oil means the oil of the allowed vasās, as in "I allow, monks, five vasās: acchavasā, macchavasā, susukāvasā, sūkaravasā, and gadrabhavasa"(mahāva. 262). Here, by the word "acchavasā", having excluded human vasā, the vasās of all non-allowable meats are allowed. By the inclusion of fish, susukā is also included, but it is mentioned separately because it is a predatory fish. And by the inclusion of fish etc. here, the vasās of all allowable meats are allowed. For among meats, the meats of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas are non-allowable, and among vasās, only human vasā. Among milk etc., there is nothing non-allowable. Vasā oil made by one who is not fully ordained and extracted, if received before the meal, is allowable with meat before the meal, but is allowable only without meat for seven days from after the meal onwards. However, whatever subtle, dust-like meat, sinew, bone, or blood is there is not considered mixed. But if one receives vasā and makes it oneself, having received it before the meal, cooked it, and strained it, it should be consumed with non-meat consumption for seven days. For this was said with reference to non-meat consumption: "Having received it at the proper time, cooked it at the proper time, mixed it at the proper time, it is allowable to consume it as oil" (mahāva. 262). Even there, what is not mixed is not mixed. However, it is absolutely not allowable to receive or make it after the meal. For this was said:

"If, monks, it is received at the wrong time, cooked at the wrong time, mixed at the wrong time, and if one consumes it, there is an offense of three dukkata offenses. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the wrong time, mixed at the wrong time, and if one consumes it, there is an offense of two dukkata offenses. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the wrong time, and if one consumes it, there is an offense of one dukkata offense. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, and if one consumes it, there is no offense" (mahāva. 262).

Then the resident disciples asked Upatissa Thera, "Venerable sir, are ghee, fresh butter, and vasā that have been cooked and extracted together allowable or not allowable?" "Not allowable, friends." It seems the Elder was scrupulous here, as if it were mixed with cooked oil. Then they asked him further, "Venerable sir, if there are curds or drops of whey in fresh butter, is that allowable?" "That too, friends, is not allowable." Then they said to him, "Venerable sir, when cooked together and mixed together, they are potent and cure disease." "Good, friends," the Elder agreed. But Mahāsuma Thera said, "Just as vasā from allowable meat is allowable for consumption with meat, the others are allowable for consumption without meat." But Mahāpaduma Thera, having rejected it, saying, "What is this?" said, "Surely, monks suffering from wind disorders drink gruel with five roots, into which they put acchasūkaratela and so on, and because it is potent and delicious, it cures disease," and said, "It is allowable."

97.Honey means honey made by madhukarī bees, honeybees, small bees, and bumblebees. If received before the meal, it is allowable even for consumption with meat before the meal, but is allowable only for consumption without meat for seven days from after the meal onwards, and becomes nissaggiya after the passing of seven days. If large honey resembling phlegm is cut into pieces and stored, or other honey is stored in various containers, they become nissaggiya by the count of ingredients. If it is just one piece, or other honey in one container, only one becomes nissaggiya. Acquired honey should be understood in the same way as stated before, and should be applied to eye anointing and so on. A honeycomb or beeswax, if pure and not smeared with honey, is allowable for a lifetime, but if smeared with honey, it follows the rule of honey. Cīrikā means winged long flies, and tumbaḷanāmikā means bony-winged black large bumblebees; in their nests, there is honey resembling resin, which is allowable for a lifetime.

98. Phāṇita means any product derived from sugarcane juice, whether unrefined or refined, and all sugarcane derivatives without substantial ingredients. This phāṇita is allowable before the meal, even if accepted with allowable ingredients before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is allowable only without allowable ingredients for seven days. Beyond seven days, it becomes subject to the rule regarding allowable ingredients, and is subject to nissaggiya. If many lumps are made into powder and placed in one container in a dense mass, it is considered a single nissaggiya. Uggahitaka should be understood in the same manner as stated before and should be applied to practices such as fumigating dwellings. Phāṇita made from unclarified sugarcane juice accepted before the meal is allowable even with allowable ingredients if made by a non-ordained person; if self-made, it is allowable only without allowable ingredients. However, from after the meal onwards, because it is accepted with allowable ingredients, it is not to be consumed, but there is no offense even after seven days. Similarly, phāṇita made from unclarified juice accepted after the meal is also not to be consumed, and there is no offense even after seven days. The same principle applies to phāṇita made after accepting sugarcane. However, phāṇita made from clarified juice accepted before the meal is allowable even with allowable ingredients before the meal if made by a non-ordained person, and from after the meal onwards, only without allowable ingredients for seven days. If self-made, it is allowable only without allowable ingredients even before the meal; but phāṇita made from clarified juice accepted after the meal is allowable only without allowable ingredients for seven days. Uggahitakata is as previously stated. It is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā: "Boiled sugarcane phāṇita or crushed sugarcane phāṇita is allowable only before the meal." However, in the Mahāpaccariya, after posing the question, "Is this allowable as cooked with allowable ingredients, or is it not allowable?" it is said, "There is no such thing as sugarcane phāṇita being unallowable after the meal," and that is correct. Phāṇita from madhuka flowers made with cold water is allowable even with allowable ingredients before the meal, and from after the meal onwards, it is allowable only without allowable ingredients for seven days; beyond seven days, it is a dukkaṭa offense due to the consideration of allowable ingredients. Madhuka phāṇita made with milk added is allowable for the duration. As for khaṇḍasakkharā, they purify it by removing the milk scum, therefore it is allowable.

99. However, madhuka flowers, even fresh, are allowable before the meal. Fried ones are also allowable. Whether fried and mixed with sesame seeds etc., or made into crushed (powdered) form without mixing, is allowable. But if they are taken and used for meraya, once used, they are not allowable from the beginning of the fermentation. Phāṇita from all fruits that are allowable for the duration, such as bananas, dates, mangoes, labuja, jackfruit, tamarind etc., is allowable for the duration only. Phāṇita is made with ripe peppercorns; that is allowable for life. Thus, the five things allowable for seven days, as mentioned above, such as ghee etc., are allowed under the name of medicine, "I allow, monks, five medicines" (mahāva. 260), so whether they perform the function of medicine or not, even if they are capable of satisfying for the purpose of food, having accepted them, they should partake of them as they please before the meal of that day, and from after the meal onwards, with a reason, they should be used for seven days as stated, but after seven days, it is nissaggiya pācittiya by the bhesajja training rule. Even if it is the size of a mustard seed, or just taken once with a finger and tasted on the tongue, it must be relinquished, and the pācittiya must be confessed. Having been relinquished, it should not be received back and consumed, nor should it be used for physical enjoyment. The body should not be smeared with it, nor sores on the body. Things smeared with them, such as robes, knives, walking sticks, shoes, footstools, couches, chairs, etc., are also not to be used. "The place for holding with the hand at doors and windows should not be smeared," it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. "But doors and windows should be smeared after putting it in dye," it is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. It is allowable to use it for lamps or to make black dye. But it should be used by another monk for physical enjoyment, not for consumption. However, since it is said, "There is no offense in determining within seven days" (pārā. 625), there is no offense in determining ghee, oil, and fat on the head as oil or ointment, honey for smearing on sores, and phāṇita for fumigating dwellings within seven days, nor is it nissaggiya. If one intends to pour determined oil into a container of undetermined oil, and if there is a fine hole in the container, the oil that enters is covered over by the old oil; it must be determined again. But if it has a large opening, much oil suddenly enters and covers over the old oil; there is no need for the act of determining again. For that remains in its determined state. By this method, the pouring of undetermined oil into a container of determined oil should also be understood.

If, however, something that has exceeded seven days is given to a non-ordained person and then, having made it one's own again, it is given back, it is allowable to consume it. If he were to give it to that monk for nasal medication, either intentionally or unintentionally, having taken it, nasal medication should be done. If he is a child and does not know how to give, another monk should be told, "Do you have oil, novice?" "Yes, venerable, I do." "Bring it, I will use it as medicine for the elder." Even this is allowable. If something is jointly owned by two people and accepted by one person but not divided, there is no offense for either of them when seven days have passed, but it is not allowable to consume. If the one who accepted it says to the other, "Friend, this oil is allowable to use for seven days," and he does not use it, who incurs an offense? No one. Why? Because it was relinquished by the one who accepted it, and it was not accepted by the other.

100. Among these four kinds of kālika (mahāva. aṭṭha. 305), only the yāvakālika and yāmakālika are both antovutthaka and cause storage, while the sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika can even be put in an unallowable dwelling, and do not cause storage. However, the yāvakālika, along with the other three yāmakālika etc. that are mixed with it and have a combined taste, brings the others under its own nature. The yāmakālika brings the two, sattāhakālika etc., under its own nature, and the sattāhakālika that is mixed with it brings the yāvajīvika that is mixed with itself under its own nature only. Therefore, the remaining three kālika which are mixed with the yāvakālika accepted on that day and have a combined taste, are allowable only before the meal of that day. However, the other two, mixed with the yāmakālika and accepted on that day, are allowable until sunrise. But the yāvajīvika mixed with the sattāhakālika accepted on that day, whether accepted on that day or previously accepted, is allowable for seven days. If accepted two days ago, it is allowable for six days. If accepted three days ago, it is allowable for five days…pe…if accepted seven days ago, it should be understood that it is allowable only on that day. In cases where the time limit of a kāla, yāma, or seven days has passed, offenses should be understood according to the training rules of unseasonable eating, storage, and medicine here.

If, however, the four kālika accepted together are not of mixed taste, they are allowable to be used according to the respective time for each. If, however, a drink like mango juice etc. is accepted together with the entire coconut fruit without removing even the shell, having removed the coconut, it is allowable even at the wrong time. If they give cool pāyāsa with a lump of ghee placed on top, the ghee that is not mixed with the pāyāsa can be removed and used for seven days. The same principle applies to hardened honey, phāṇita, etc. If they give piṇḍapāta decorated with takkola, nutmeg, etc., those can be taken out, washed, and used for life. The same principle applies to ginger etc. put into gruel and given, and to licorice etc. put into oil etc. and given. Thus, whatever is not of mixed taste, even if accepted together, can be washed or cut as if it were pure, and used according to the respective time for each. If it is of mixed taste and mixed together, it is not allowable.

Thus ends the Kālikavinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discourse on the Determination of Time-defined Requisites is complete.

19. Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathā

101. Kappiyācatubhūmiyoti here, "I allow, monks, four kappiya-bhūmi: the ussāvanantika, the gonisādika, the gahapati sammuti" (mahāva. 295), these four kappiya-bhūmi should be understood: the ussāvanantika, the gonisādika, and the gahapati sammuti. Among them (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295), the ussāvanantikā should be done thus: for a dwelling that is made by setting (posts) into pillars or at the base of walls, the stones that support the pillars below are indeed part of the ground. However, when setting up the first pillar or the first base of the wall, surrounded by many people, while uttering the words "We are making a kappiya-kuṭi, we are making a kappiya-kuṭi," the pillar or the base of the wall should be lifted by the people uttering the words and set in place, or having touched it, or having lifted it oneself. In the Kurundimahāpaccarī, however, it is said, "It should be set up after saying, 'kappiya-kuṭi, kappiya-kuṭi'." In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, "I determine a kappiya-kuṭi for the Saṅgha" is said, but even without saying that, there is no fault if it is said in the manner stated in the commentaries. The general characteristic here is that "the setting up of the pillar and the completion of the utterance should occur at the same time." If the pillar is set up before the utterance is completed, or if the utterance is completed before the pillar is set up, the kappiya-kuṭi is not made. Therefore, it is said in the Mahāpaccariya, "It should be uttered surrounded by many people, for surely in this case, the completion of the utterance and the setting up of the pillar will occur at the same time for at least one person." In the case of dwellings made of brick, stone, or mud walls, whether they build a foundation below or not, from wherever they intend to raise the wall, the kappiya-kuṭi should be made in the manner stated above, having taken that very first brick, stone, or lump of mud. The bricks etc. are not allowable below the first bricks etc. in the wall, but the pillars rise upwards, therefore they are allowable. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, "When making (a dwelling) with pillars, four pillars (should be determined) at the four corners; in a mud wall made of brick etc., two or three bricks should be determined at the four corners," is said. However, there is no fault even if it is not done that way, for only what is said in the commentaries is authoritative.

Gonisādikā is of two kinds: ārāma-gonisādikā and vihāra-gonisādikā. Among these, where neither the ārāma nor the lodgings are enclosed, this is called ārāma-gonisādikā. Where all or some of the lodgings are enclosed, but the ārāma is not enclosed, this is called vihāra-gonisādikā. Thus, in both cases, the fact that the ārāma is unenclosed is the determining factor. "Even if half of the ārāma is enclosed, or if most of it is enclosed, it is still considered unenclosed," it is said in the Kurundimahāpaccarī, and it is allowable to obtain a kappiya-kuṭi here.

Gahapatī means people build a dwelling and say, "We give a kappiya-kuṭi, use it." This is called gahapati. It is also allowable even if they say, "We give (this) to make a kappiya-kuṭi." In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, however, it is said, "Since acceptance from the hands of all co-religionists and all gods and humans except for the monk, and storage and internal dwelling belonging to them is allowable for the monk, therefore their houses or the kappiya-kuṭi given by them is called gahapati," and it is said again, "Except for the monastery belonging to the community of monks, a lodging for nuns or the ārāma of the attendants or heretics or gods or nāgas, or even the celestial abode of Brahmā, is a kappiya-kuṭi." That is well said. Indeed, a house belonging to the Saṅgha or belonging to a monk is not a gahapati-kuṭikā.

Sammuti means having been authorized through a formal announcement with a second reading (ñattidutiyakammavācā). And, monks, it should be authorized in this way: a competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha:

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should authorize such-and-such a monastery as kappiyabhūmi. This is the motion (ñatti).

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. The Sangha authorizes such-and-such a monastery as kappiyabhūmi. Whoever agrees with the authorization of such-and-such a monastery as kappiyabhūmi, let him be silent. Whoever disagrees, let him speak.

"The Sangha has authorized such-and-such a monastery as kappiyabhūmi. It is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I understand it." (mahāva. 295).

Even an authorization done through announcement by way of apalokanakamma, without reciting the kammavāca, is still an authorization.

102. All the non-permitted things (āmisa) that are mentioned (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295) in these four kappiyabhūmis do not count as "having been kept inside overnight." Kappiya huts are allowed for monks and nuns only to remove the prohibition of staying overnight. However, if things belonging to the Sangha or an individual, belonging to a monk or a nun, are kept even for one night in a house suitable for shared residence on non-permitted land, it is "having been kept inside overnight," and what is cooked there is called "cooked inside," and this is not allowable. But things that are seven-day allowable (sattāhakālika) and lifetime allowable (yāvajīvika) are permissible.

In the Mahāpaccari, it is stated, "it is considered 'having been kept inside overnight'." There, only the names are different. A monk may cook together and consume ghee kept in a non-permitted hut and lifetime-allowable greens; seven-day allowable is permissible. If he makes it mixed with non-permitted things and consumes it, it is both "having been kept inside overnight" and "self-cooked." All combinations should be understood in this way. It is not allowable for a monk to cook any kind of non-permitted thing. If they put fragrant leaves (sulasipaṇṇāni) or ginger or salt into hot rice-gruel for him, it is not even allowable to stir it, but it is allowable to stir it saying, "I will cool the rice-gruel." It is not allowable to cover up cooked rice after receiving it. But if people cover it up and give it, it is allowable. It is allowable to cover it saying, "Lest the rice cool down." But in the case of milk, buttermilk, etc., it is allowable to apply heat once they have been boiled, because re-cooking is allowed.

But when do these kappiya huts lose their established base? Those built by embedding pillars or wall bases, until the eaves are removed from all the pillars and wall bases, they lose their established base. But if they reposition the pillars or wall bases, it remains established wherever it is placed; even if all are repositioned, it still does not lose its established base. Those made of bricks, etc., lose their established base when the brick, stone, or lump of clay placed on top of the pile for the wall is destroyed. But those which are supported by bricks, etc., even when those are removed, it remains established on others; thus, it does not lose its established base. A hut made of matting loses its established base when it is enclosed by walls, etc. It is allowable to acquire a kappiya hut again in that same monastery. But if the walls, etc., are broken in places again, and cows enter from there, it becomes a kappiya hut again. The other two, however, lose their established base when the entire roof is destroyed, except for the window frame. If there is even one section of the roof above the window frame, it protects it.

103. Where these four kappiyabhūmis do not exist, what should be done there? It should be given to a non-ordained person, making it his property, and then consumed. In this regard, there is this story: It seems that the Elder Karavikatissa, foremost in Vinaya, went to the Elder Mahāsiva. Seeing a pot of ghee by the light of a lamp, he asked, "Venerable, what is this?" The Elder said, "Friend, a pot of ghee was brought from the village to be eaten with ghee on a rough day." Then the Elder Tissa said to him, "It is not allowable, Venerable." The Elder had it put away in a prominent place the next day. The Elder Tissa came again one day, saw it, and asked the same question, saying, "It is not allowable to keep it in a place suitable for shared residence, Venerable." The Elder had it taken out and put away the next day, but thieves stole it. He then said to the Elder Tissa, who had come one day, "Friend, when you said, 'It is not allowable,' that pot was taken out and stolen by thieves." Then the Elder Tissa said to him, "Surely, Venerable, it should have been given to a non-ordained person, for it is allowable to give it to a non-ordained person, making it his property, and then consume it."

Thus ends the section on the Vinaya decisions extracted from the Pali Canon

The Discourse on the Decision of Kappiyabhūmi is complete.

20. Discourse on the Decision of Receiving

104. The reception of edibles, etc., means the receiving of any kind of edible or food that is to be ingested. In this case, this is the decision: Receiving is valid with five factors: it is the amount that can be uttered by a person of middling strength; the hand's reach is apparent; the gesture is apparent; a deva, a human, or an animal gives with the body or something connected to the body as a relinquishment; and the monk receives it with the body or something connected to the body. Thus, receiving is valid with these five factors.

The hand's reach should be understood thus: If the monk is sitting, it begins from the rear edge of the seat; if standing, it begins from the end of the heel; if lying down, it begins from the far edge of the side on which he is lying. For the giver, whether sitting, standing, or lying down, having placed it and extended the hand, the nearest part is demarcated by the inner edge, and one and a half hands is called the hand's reach.

If one of the giver or receiver is in the air and one is on the ground, then the measurement of the hand's reach should be determined by which nearest limb of the person on the ground and head of the person in the air, who is extending his hand to give or take, is closer to the item. Even if one is in a well and one is on the well's edge, or one is in a tree and one is on the ground, the measure of the hand's reach should be determined in the manner stated above. If, standing within such a hand's reach, even a bird takes a flower or fruit with its beak or an elephant with its trunk and gives it, the receiving is valid. But if he is sitting on the shoulder of an elephant that is eight and a half cubits tall and takes something given by its trunk, it is indeed allowable. Giving with any part of the body, such as the hand, etc., even with a toe, is considered given with the body. The same method applies to receiving. For what is taken with any part of the body is indeed taken with the body. Even if he receives with the nostril something given in a nasal douche, or an unsuitable thing (akallako) with the mouth, the consideration here is only appropriateness (ābhoga).

105. But when given with any utensil, such as a ladle, etc., it is considered given with something connected to the body. The same method applies to receiving. For what is taken with anything connected to the body, such as a bowl or plate, etc., is indeed taken with something connected to the body. However, even when something is handed over to one standing within the hand's reach after removing it from the body or from something connected to the body, it is called given with relinquishment (nissaggiyena payogena). If someone, with many containers of rice and curry on his head, comes and stands near a monk and says, "Take it," the gesture is not apparent, therefore it should not be taken. But if he bends down even slightly, the monk should extend his hand and receive the bottom container even with a part of it. All the containers are considered received in this much. From then on, it is allowable to take whatever he wants after unloading or opening them. In the case of a rice basket, etc., there is nothing that needs to be said about a single container.

Even when bringing rice on a carrying pole, if he hands it over tilting the pole, it is allowable. If there is a thirty-hand bamboo pole, with a container of jaggery tied at one end and a container of ghee at the other, and he receives it, everything is considered received. When he says, "Take the juice," while it is flowing from a sugar cane press, it should not be taken because the gesture is not apparent. But if he throws away the residue and scoops it out with his hand and gives it, it is allowable. If many bowls are placed on a cot, a seat, a woven bamboo tray, a trough, or a plank, and the giver is within hand's reach from where he is standing, then having touched the cot, etc., with a finger with the intention of receiving, whatever is given into those bowls, whether he is standing, sitting, or lying down, is all considered received. Even if he climbs onto the cot, etc., and sits down, saying, "I will receive it," it is indeed allowable.

If they are placed on the ground touching the belly, whatever is given where he touches with a finger or a needle while sitting is considered received. It has been said that receiving is not valid for a bowl placed on a large woven bamboo tray, a spread, etc., wherever it may be. This should be understood as referring to exceeding the hand's reach. But when the hand's reach is present, it is allowable anywhere except on something that grows there. On something that grows there, such as a lotus leaf or a Butea frondosa leaf, etc., it is not allowable. For that does not count as connected to the body. Just as with something that grows there, it is also not valid on a plank or stone that cannot be moved, fixed by tying it to a bed, etc. For those too are included in what grows there. Receiving is not valid on very small leaves such as tamarind leaves spread on the ground, because they are not capable of supporting it. But it is valid on large lotus leaves, etc. If he stands beyond the hand's reach and gives with a long-handled ladle, he should be told, "Come and give it." If he does not hear the words or disregards them and just pours it into the bowl, it should be received again. The same method applies even if he throws a lump of rice from afar.

106. If there is dust in the bowl being taken out of the bowl bag, it should be washed if there is water; if not, the dust should be wiped off and then alms should be collected or one should go for alms. If dust falls into the bowl while one is going for alms, it should be received and then alms should be taken; if he takes alms without receiving it, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) according to the Vinaya, but there is no offense when he receives it again and consumes it. If, when told, "Give it after receiving it," they give alms without hearing the words or disregarding them, there is no offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) according to the Vinaya; other alms should be taken after receiving it again. If a great wind blows dust from here and there, and it is not possible to take alms, it is allowable to take it with a pure mind, intending, "I will give it to a non-ordained person." Having gone for alms in this way and gone to the monastery or assembly hall, it is allowable to give it to that non-ordained person and then consume what is given by him or with his trust after receiving it again. If someone gives a monk a dusty bowl on the alms round, he should be told, "Receive this and then take alms or consume it." He should do it that way. If the dust floats on top, the rice water should be poured off and the rest should be consumed. If it has entered inside, it should be received. If there is no non-ordained person, it should be taken to where a non-ordained person is without removing it from the hand, and then received. Dust that has fallen on dry rice can be removed and consumed. If it is very fine, it should be removed along with the rice on top, or it should be received and consumed. When those who are stirring rice-gruel or soup in front of him, what is touched by the container comes out and falls into the bowl, the bowl should be received.

107. When offering alms by carrying them with a carrying-pole, if some of the alms fall from the pole into the bowl even before the offering begins, there is no offense as it has fallen well and been brought forward with the intention of giving. Similarly, if while rice gruel is being poured from a pot, ashes or charcoal fall into the bowl, there is no offense because it has been brought forward. If alms are being given to the bhikkhu next in line, and it falls from his bowl into another's bowl, it has fallen well. It is considered as already received. If, when splitting firewood to give to one bhikkhu, splinters fly off and land in another's bowl, the bowl should be accepted. If they fall into the bowl of the bhikkhu for whom it is being split, there is no offense because it has been brought forward with the intention of giving. When a bowl is filled with pāyāsa and given, if it is too hot to hold from underneath, it is permissible to hold it by the rim. If even that is not possible, it should be accepted with a stand. If a bhikkhu, having taken a bowl and sat down in the assembly hall, falls asleep and is not aware that food is being brought or given, it is not considered received. But if he is sitting with mindfulness established, it is permissible. And even if he lets go of the stand with his hand and steadies it with his foot while sleeping, it is still permissible. However, it is an unmindful reception if one steps on the stand with the foot to receive it while awake; therefore, it should not be done. Some say, "Receiving with a stand like that is called receiving connected to the body, so it is not permissible." But that is just words; in reality, all of this is connected to the body. This principle has also been shown in the case of bodily contact. And even if what is being given to a bhikkhu falls, it is permissible to pick it up himself and use it.

Herein is the sutta:

"I allow, bhikkhus, for what falls while being given to be picked up and consumed oneself; that, bhikkhus, has been relinquished by the donors" (cūḷava. 273).

Said in the Kurundi. Why is it not permissible for another bhikkhu to pick it up? Because it is not allowed by the Blessed One. For by saying, "to be picked up and consumed oneself," the Blessed One has permitted the person to whom it was being given to pick up and use even what was unreceived. And in this context, the statement, "that, bhikkhus, has been relinquished by the donors," indicates that it is no longer the property of others; therefore, it is not permissible for another to pick it up and use it himself, but it is permissible with his authorization; this is the intention here. And because this is allowed on the basis of it being unreceived, it is permissible to cover it without touching it and consume it even on the second day, with no offense due to storing up, but it must be received first before consuming. For on that day alone is the picking up and consumption allowed for him, not beyond that; this, too, is the intention here.

108. Now, the method of what is beyond appropriation (abbohārika) is explained. While eating, teeth wear down, nails wear down, the color of the bowl fades—all this is abbohārika. When sugar cane etc. are split with a knife, impurities become apparent; this is called newly arisen (navasamuṭṭhita), and it should be received and consumed. If the knife is washed and then sugar cane etc. are split, and impurities are not apparent, only the smell of iron remains; that is abbohārika. The same principle applies when a knife is carried around; the same principle applies when something is split with it. For it is not carried around for the purpose of consumption. When grinding or pounding medicinal roots etc., the grinding stone, mortar, pestle, etc. wear down. If a traveling knife is heated and put into buttermilk or milk for medicinal purposes, and a bluish color appears, the decision should be made as described for the knife. But in the case of raw buttermilk etc., it should not be put in oneself; if one puts it in, one is not freed from making it oneself. If, while one is walking for alms food during a rainfall, dirty water from the body or robe falls into the bowl, it should be received. The same principle applies when eating under a tree etc. But if the rain is pure water during a week-long rain, and it falls from the open air, it is permissible.

109. When giving rice to a novice, it should be given without touching what is already in his bowl, or his bowl should be received. If one touches the rice in the unreceived bowl and then takes rice into one's own bowl, it constitutes taking what has been taken up (uggahitaka). If, intending to give, one says, "Bring your bowl, novice, take the rice," and the other refuses, saying, "Enough for me," and then one says, "This is relinquished by me for you," and he says, "I have no need of this," even if one relinquishes it a hundred times, as long as it is still in one's own hand, it is still considered received. But if one says, "Take it," while the bowl is on a stand without any attachment, it must be received again. If, with attachment, one places the bowl on a stand and says to the novice, "Take the cake or rice from here," and the novice washes his hands, even if he takes it a hundred times and puts it into his own bowl without touching what is already in his bowl, there is no need for further receiving. But if he takes it after touching what is already in his bowl, it is mixed with the novice's property and must be received again. Some say, "Even if what is being taken breaks off and falls there, it must be received again." That should be understood as being said when it is specified, "Take one lump of rice, take one cake, take so much of this lump of sugar." But here there is no specification; therefore, what falls into the novice's bowl is what negates the receiving. However, as long as what is in the hand is not renounced by the novice saying "Enough," or the bhikkhu does not forbid it, it is the bhikkhu's property; therefore, the receiving is not negated. If one puts rice into a pot for preparing rice-gruel for oneself or for the bhikkhus for some reason, one should say, "Novice, hold your hand over the pot," and put it into his hand. For what falls from his hand into the pot does not make the pot unallowable on the second day, because it has been relinquished. If one puts it in without doing so, the pot should be consumed like a pot that has been made non-flesh, that is, pure without animal products.

110. Donors have left a rice-gruel container, but a young novice is unable to make it received. A bhikkhu presents a bowl, and the novice places the neck of the container on the rim of the bowl and tips it; the rice-gruel in the bowl is already received. Or, the bhikkhu places his hand on the ground, and the novice tips it and pours it onto the hand; that is permissible. The same principle applies to basket of cakes, basket of rice, and load of sugar cane etc. If two or three novices give a load that is intended to be received, and one strong one lifts it up while two or three bhikkhus receive it, that is permissible. If an oil pot or molasses pot is attached to the leg of a bed or seat, it is permissible for the bhikkhu to sit on the bed or seat; it is not called uggahitaka.

If two oil pots are hung on a coat-hook or peg, the upper one is received, and the lower one is unreceived. It is permissible to take the upper one, and the lower one is received; if the upper one is unreceived, taking the upper one and then taking the other, the upper one becomes uggahitaka. If there is an unreceived oil dish on the lower seat, and one touches it with a broom while sweeping, it does not become uggahitaka. If one knowingly takes an unreceived item intending to take a received item and puts it back, it does not become uggahitaka. If one takes it outside and realizes it, it should be brought back and put in the same place; there is no offense. But if it was previously left open, it should not be covered. It should be left as it was. If one puts it outside, it should not be touched again.

111. If a conch shell arises in received oil etc., or thick powder arises in ginger etc., that is called the same origination; there is no need for further receiving. If someone climbs a palmyra or coconut tree and lowers a cluster of fruit with a rope and says from above, "Take it," it should not be taken. If another person standing on the ground takes the rope loop and lifts it up to give it, that is permissible. If a fruitful large branch is made allowable and received, the fruits are already received, and it is permissible to consume them as one pleases. If one stands inside a fence and cuts the fence to give sugar cane or timbarūsa fruit, it is permissible if it is within arm's reach. It is permissible for one to take what comes out after being taken away through a stick, but the commentaries do not show any offense for what comes out after being struck. However, we think, "That place has been struck, so it is like falling on its own," and that is consistent with someone standing and going away, like goods that have been rolled down from a customs point and fall outside. If someone causes something to cross over a fence or wall to give it, if the wall is not thick, and if someone standing inside the wall and someone standing outside the wall can reach it, it is permissible to take what has come up even a hundred arms' lengths.

If a bhikkhu is carrying a sick novice on his shoulder, and the novice sees fruits and takes them and gives them while sitting on the shoulder, that is permissible. If another carries a bhikkhu and gives to the bhikkhu sitting on the shoulder, that is also permissible. If a bhikkhu takes a fruitful branch for shade while walking, and the thought of eating the fruits arises, it is permissible to have them received and then eat them. If one makes something allowable and receives it to ward off flies, and one wishes to eat it, the original receiving is sufficient; there is no offense for eating it. If a bhikkhu places goods that are fit to be received in a cart for people and goes along the road, and the cart gets stuck in the mud, and a young person takes a wheel and lifts it up, that is permissible; it is not called uggahitaka. It is permissible to put something on a boat and propel the boat with an oar or pull it with the hand. The same principle applies to a raft. It is also permissible to have an unordained person carry a pot or container after placing it in it, and to cross over by carrying the unordained person on the arm. Even in the absence of that, it is permissible to have the unordained person carry it and to cross over by carrying him on the arm.

Lay followers give travel rice to traveling bhikkhus, and the novices are unable to take the rice from the bhikkhus to take their own rice. The bhikkhus take their rice, and when the novices' own rice is used up, they cook rice-gruel with the remaining rice and pour it into everyone's bowls, placing them in order. A wise novice takes his own bowl and gives it to the elder, and the elder's bowl to the second elder, and so on, rotating all the bowls. Everything has been consumed by the novice; that is permissible. Even if the novice is unwise and starts to drink the rice-gruel from his own bowl, it is permissible for the elders to ask for it in turn, saying, "Friend, give me your rice-gruel." Everything has been consumed by the novice; they are not touched by any fault due to uggahita or storing up. Here, there is no apparent difference between those carrying oil etc. for their parents and those carrying branches etc. for shade etc.; therefore, the reason should be investigated.

112. If a novice wants to cook rice but is unable to wash and drain the rice, a bhikkhu should take the rice and the pot, wash and drain the rice, and place the pot on the hearth. Fire should not be made. While it is cooking, the bhikkhu should open it and check if it is cooked. If it is undercooked, it is not proper to cover it for further cooking, but it is proper to cover it to prevent dust or ash from falling in. When it is cooked, it is proper to take it down and eat it; there is no need for a second taking. If the novice is capable of cooking but does not have time because he needs to go somewhere, the bhikkhu should take the pot with the rice and water, place it on the hearth, and say, "Light the fire and go." After that, everything should be done in the same manner as before. If a bhikkhu puts a clean pot on the hearth to boil water for rice gruel, it is proper. If the novice puts the rice into the hot water, from then on, the bhikkhu should not make a fire, and it is proper to take the cooked rice gruel and drink it. If a novice is cooking rice gruel, and a bhikkhu, being scrupulous about his hands, touches the pot while playing around, touches the lid, or breaks and scatters the rising foam, it is not proper for him to drink it, as it is called durupaciṇṇa (improperly prepared). But if he stirs it while lifting it with a ladle or a coconut shell spoon, it is not proper for anyone, as it is both sāmaṃpāka (self-cooked) and durupaciṇṇa. If he lifts it up, it is also uggahitaka (taken up).

113. A bhikkhu has gone for alms and placed the bowl on the stand. If another greedy bhikkhu, playing around, touches the bowl or touches the bowl lid, it is not proper for him to receive the food obtained from that bowl. If he lifts up the bowl and puts it down, it is not proper for anyone. If he moves it by grasping a branch or vine that has fruit growing on it, it is not proper for him to receive the fruit obtained from it, and he incurs a dukkata for durupaciṇṇa. It is stated in the Mahāpaccariya: "But it is proper to lean against a fruit tree or to tie a thorn there; it is not durupaciṇṇa." However, seeing mango fruits, etc., fallen in the forest, it is proper to pick them up and give them to a novice, thinking, "I will give them to the novice." Even seeing the leavings of a lion, etc., it is proper to pick them up and give them to the novice, whether having received them or not, thinking, "I will give them to the novice." But if he is able to purify his thought, it is also proper to eat what is obtained from it; he does not incur any fault either because of receiving raw meat or because of uggahitaka. If illness arises on the road while taking oil, etc., for his parents, it is proper to receive and use whatever he wants from it. But if it was received at the origin, there is no need for a second receiving. He brings rice for his parents, and they prepare rice gruel, etc., from it right there and give it to him; it is proper, there is no fault because of sannidhi (accumulation) or uggahita (taking up).

114. A bhikkhu heats water with a lid on it; it is proper to use it until it is used up. But if ash falls into it, it must be received. If ash falls into the oil while he is cooking oil with long tongs, it should be taken down and received without letting go of the tongs. If coals or firewood are also received and kept, the original receiving is sufficient. A bhikkhu is eating sugarcane; the novice says, "Give me some too"; if he is told, "Take it by cutting it from here," and he takes it, there is no need for a second receiving for the remainder. The same method applies to one eating a lump of jaggery. Indeed, what remains after cutting and taking from the declared opportunity is still considered unabandoned receiving. A bhikkhu, when melting jaggery, receives it and makes portions; bhikkhus and novices come and take one portion each with a single taking; what remains after taking is still considered received. If a greedy novice takes and then puts it back again, what remains after he has taken it is considered unreceived.

A bhikkhu receives a smoke stick and smokes it; his mouth and throat become as if smeared with manosilā (red arsenic); it is proper to enjoy it for the yāvakālika (limited time), there is no fault in associating with the yāvakālika and yāvajīvika (lifetime allowance). Smoke enters the ear and nose holes of one who is cooking a bowl or dye; it is proper to smell flowers or fruits due to illness because it is not customary. Food from the alms bowl strikes the palate and enters inside; it is proper because it is not the object (of the rule); but if it enters the mouth and is consumed at the wrong time, there is an offense. If the taste of meat stuck between the teeth enters, there is an offense. If the meat is fine and the taste is not noticeable, it is considered non-customary. Having eaten food in a waterless place near the proper time, the mouth should be rinsed after spitting out two or three balls of saliva, and then going to a place with water. If sprouts come out of ginger, etc., that have been received and kept, there is no need for a second receiving. When there is no salt, it is proper to make salt with seawater; salt water that has been received and kept becomes salt, or the salt becomes water, or the taste becomes molasses, or the molasses becomes taste; the original receiving is sufficient.

Hailstones are of the nature of water. They purify water with kataka nuts made by a personal attendant; that is not customary, it is proper with meat. Water purified with kapittha fruits, etc., which are of the nature of meat, is only proper before the meal. The water in ponds, etc., is thick; it is proper. But if it sticks to the mouth and hands, it is not proper, it should be received and then used. Water is thick in cultivated fields; it must be received. But if it flows and fills a river after entering ravines, etc., it is proper. There are kakudhasobbhādayo (various types of lotus ponds) with water covered with flowers fallen from trees. If the taste of the flowers is not noticeable, there is no need for receiving. If there is little water and the taste is noticeable, it must be received. The same method applies to water covered with black leaves in mountain ravines, etc.

Sareṇukāni flowers or savaṇṭakhīrāni or flowers are put into a water pot; it must be received, or the flowers must be received and then put in. If pāṭalimallikā are put in, and it lasts only for the fragrance, that is not customary. It is also proper with meat on the second day. If a novice takes water from flower-scented water kept by a bhikkhu and pours the remaining water back into it, it must be received. In lotus ponds, etc., it is proper to push aside the flower pollen that is spread out with a pot and take the water. If a toothpick is made allowable and then received and kept, if one wants to drink its juice, the original receiving is sufficient; if it is kept without receiving, it must be received. Even if the taste enters without one knowing, there is still an offense. Indeed, this training rule is unintentional.

115. What is proper and what is not proper among the great elements? Milk is proper, whether it is milk from allowable meat or milk from unallowable meat, there is no offense in drinking it. Tears, saliva, mucus, urine, excrement, phlegm, tooth grime, eye dirt, ear dirt, and salt that appears on the body are all proper. If any of these fall from its place and fall into the bowl or hand, it must be received, what is attached to the fingers is already considered received. While eating hot pāyāsa, if sweat accumulates on the fingers and remains in the pāyāsa, or while going for alms, if it drips from the hand to the bowl or from the rim of the mouth to the bottom of the bowl, there is no need for receiving, there is nothing that is not proper in the burnt-up great elements, but what is poorly burnt is not proper. But it is proper to crush even well-burnt human bones and apply them in a confection. The four great corruptions are proper to take and use oneself when there is no allowable maker. Here, even a difficult or incapable allowable maker remains in the absence of an allowable person. When there is no ash, ash should be taken after burning dry wood. When there is no dry wood, it is also proper to cut fresh wood from a tree and make it. However, these four kinds of great corruptions are called kālodissa (for a specific time), they are only proper at the moment of a snake bite.

Thus ends the collection of decisions on the Vinaya, beyond the Pali, entitled Vinayavinicchayasaṅgaha

The Discourse on the Decision of Receiving is complete.

21. Pavāraṇāvinicchayakathā

116. Rejection-Pavāraṇā: pavāraṇā that is synonymous with the rejection of food that has been brought, for anyone who is eating one of the five foods. And that occurs not merely by rejection alone, but rather by way of five factors. These are the five factors herein: eating, food, being in the vicinity of the giver's hand, bringing, rejection of what is brought. Therein, eating means prepared food, meaning that this person is in the act of eating. Food means food suitable for pavāraṇā, meaning food that is among rice and other things that must be rejected. Being in the vicinity of the giver's hand means standing in a space approximately one and a half hands away from the giver after receiving food suitable for pavāraṇā. Bringing means the bringing by the body of the giver who is standing within hand's reach. Rejection of what is brought means the rejection of what has been brought in this way, either by body or by speech. Thus, pavāraṇā occurs by way of these five factors. And this was said:

"By five ways, Upāli, is pavāraṇā known: eating is known, food is known, standing within hand's reach, bringing, rejection is known" (pari. 428).

117. Herein is the decision (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9): Among the "eating," etc., whatever is being eaten and whatever food is rejected when brought by someone standing within hand's reach, that should be understood as being one of these: rice, barley porridge, parched grain flour, fish, or meat. Therein, rice means that which is made from the grains of seven types of cereals: sāli, vīhi, barley, wheat, kaṅgu, varako, and kudrūsako. Therein, sāli means all types of sāli, including at least nīvāra. Vīhi means all types of vīhi. There is no difference in barley and wheat. Kaṅgu means all types of kaṅgu, whether white, red, or black. Varako means all types of white varako, including at least varakacoraka. Kudrūsako means all types of grass grains, whether black kudrūsako or varieties such as sāmāka, etc. Here, they say that nīvāra and varakacoraka conform to grains; whether they are grains or conform to grains, if they take the grains of these seven types mentioned above and cook, intending, "We will cook rice," or "We will cook rice gruel," or "We will cook one of the sour rice puddings," or whatever, if a lump appears in the place where it is taken by those eating hot or cold food at mealtime, it falls under the category of rice and generates pavāraṇā. If a lump does not appear, it falls under the category of rice gruel and does not generate pavāraṇā.

In the Mahāpaccariya it is said that "even rice for flowers generates pavāraṇā." Rice for flowers means rice grains that are steeped in soured water and cooked for the purpose of flower cakes. But if they dry those grains and eat them, it is proper, they do not fall under the category of parched grain flour, nor under the category of rice. However, rice cooked with those grains must be used for pavāraṇā. If they cook those grains in ghee, oil, etc., or make cakes, they do not use it for pavāraṇā. Nor do they use the flattened rice or parched grain rice, etc., made from them, for pavāraṇā.

Barley porridge means porridge made from barley. However, porridge made from other things, such as mung beans, etc., does not generate pavāraṇā.

Sattu means sattu made from rice and barley. Kaṅgu, varaka, kakudrūsaka, and sīsā grains are fried, lightly pounded to remove the husks, then pounded firmly again and ground into flour. Even if it becomes sticky and clumps together, it is still considered sattu. When rice grains, fried until hard, are pounded into flour, that flour is also considered sattu. However, if rice grains or rice flakes are fried until evenly cooked, they are not considered acceptable, nor are fried rice grains. But flour made from those rice grains is acceptable, and the husk of rice grains fried until hard is also acceptable. The husk of rice grains that are evenly fried or sun-dried is not acceptable. Fried rice or cooked sattu etc., made from them, are not acceptable, nor is any pure fried flour or any pure edible item. However, edible items filled with fish or meat, or sattu cakes, are acceptable. Fish and meat are plainly obvious.

But here is a distinction: If, while someone is drinking rice gruel, two pieces of fish or meat are given with just the residual rice gruel, in one container or separate containers, and if he refuses anything else that could be an occasion for invitation without eating those pieces, he does not commit an offense. If one is eaten and one remains in his hand or bowl, and he refuses something else, he commits an offense. If both are eaten and not even a sesame seed's worth remains in his mouth, even if he refuses something else, he does not commit an offense. If he is eating allowable meat and refuses allowable meat, he commits an offense. If he is eating allowable meat and refuses unallowable meat, he does not commit an offense. Why? Because it is not an object [of invitation]. For the monk, only when he refuses what is proper to eat does an invitation take place. But knowing this, he refuses because it is unallowable. Even without knowing, he refuses something that should be refused, so it is not an offense. But if he is eating unallowable meat and refuses allowable meat, he commits an offense. Why? Because it is an object [of invitation]. For what he has refused is the object of invitation, but what he is eating, even though it should be refused, does not lose its quality of being meat while it is being eaten, therefore he commits an offense. Or, if he is eating unallowable meat and refuses unallowable meat, in the same way as before, he does not commit an offense. Whether eating allowable or unallowable meat, if he refuses any of the five staple foods that are allowable, he commits an offense. He does not commit an offense if he refuses unallowable food arising from a blameworthy livelihood, medical practice that harms families, relaying messages, speaking about superior human qualities, or soliciting with flattery, or from fashioned silver etc., that has been rejected by the Buddha, or arising from improper seeking. Or, he does not commit an offense if he refuses allowable or unallowable food. Even while eating allowable or unallowable food, if he refuses allowable food, he commits an offense. He does not commit an offense if he refuses unallowable food. The reason should be understood everywhere in accordance with what has been stated.

118.Thus, having determined what is "food" etc., and what is "staple food," and when one incurs an invitation by refusing what has been brought within arm's reach, now, for the purpose of knowing how the offense is incurred, this analysis [is given]: Here, regarding staple food and food, if even a single morsel has been ingested, if any of the five staple foods are in the mouth, on the hand, or in the bowl—anywhere at all—and he refuses even one of the five staple foods, he commits an offense. If there is no food anywhere, only the smell of meat is apparent, he does not commit an offense. If there is no food in the mouth or on the hand, but there is food in the bowl, and he does not intend to eat from it in that sitting, but intends to enter the monastery to eat, or intends to give it to someone else, and in the meantime he refuses food, he does not commit an offense. Why? Because the state of being prepared food has been interrupted. It is stated in the Mahāpaccari that "Even if someone intends to go elsewhere to eat, and after swallowing some rice in his mouth, he takes the rest and goes, and refuses other food on the way, he does not commit an offense." Just as with the bowl, so too with the hand. Even if food is present in the mouth, if he does not intend to ingest it and at that moment refuses something else, he does not commit an offense. For the characteristic stated in one place should be understood everywhere. Moreover, this method has already been shown in the Kurundi. For it is stated there, "Rice has been swallowed in the mouth, rice is in the hand intending to give it as leftover food, rice is in the bowl intending to give it to a monk; if he refuses at that moment, he does not commit an offense."

Here, regarding within arm's reach, if the monk is sitting, it is from the back edge of the seat; if standing, it is from the heel; if lying down, it is from the edge of the side he is lying on. For the giver, whether sitting, standing, or lying down, after placing [the food], whichever limb is closer to the extended hand, the "arm's reach" should be understood as one and a half hatthas from the inner edge of that limb. The offense of invitation occurs only when refusing what has been brought within that range, not beyond.

Bringing forward means, standing within arm's reach, offering [the food] for the purpose of taking it. If, however, even if the monk is sitting nearby, without bringing forward a bowl placed in his hand or on his lap or on a support, says "Take the rice," there is no offense of invitation in refusing it. The same method applies even if he brings a rice pot and places it on the ground in front and says, "Take it." However, if he lifts it up slightly or moves it away and says, "Take it," there is an offense in refusing it. An elder monk, sitting on the elder's seat, sends a bowl to a junior monk sitting far away and says, "Take rice from here." Having taken it, the junior monk stands silently. The junior monk refuses, saying, "Enough for me." He does not commit an offense. Why? Because the elder is far away and the messenger has not brought it forward. But if the monk who took it comes back and says, "Take this rice," there is an offense in refusing it. If one person is serving, holding a rice pot in one hand and a ladle in the other, and then another person comes and says, "I will hold the pot, you give the rice," and only makes the gesture of taking it, but the server still holds it, then it is still considered to have been brought forward, so there is an offense for someone refusing when he is about to take it. If, however, it has only been touched by the server and the other person is holding it, then there is no offense for someone refusing when he is about to take it, but there is [an offense] with rice scooped out by the ladle. For the act of scooping with the ladle is the act of bringing forward. It is stated in the Mahāpaccari that "Even when two people are sharing the burden, he commits an offense by refusing." When rice is being given to a nearby monk, and another monk covers the bowl with his hand, there is no offense. Why? Because it has been refused when it was being brought to another.

Here, regarding rejection is made known, there is no offense of invitation for refusing what has been brought forward with speech. But it should be understood that for what has been brought forward by action, an offense occurs when one refuses it by any means, whether by action or speech. Here, rejection by action means moving a finger, hand, fly whisk, or the edge of the robe, or making a gesture with the eyebrow, or looking with anger. Rejection by speech means saying "Enough," or "I will not take it," or "Do not pour it," or "Go away." Thus, when it is rejected by any means, whether by action or speech, an offense occurs.

119.One, afraid of committing an offense of invitation with food being brought forward, moves his hand away, and repeatedly says to someone pouring rice into the bowl, "Pour it, pour it, pound it, pound it, fill it up!" What is the case here? Venerable Mahāsumata says, "Because it was said with the intention of not pouring, an offense occurs." But Venerable Mahāpaduma, saying "Is there ever an offense for someone saying 'Pour it, fill it up'?", says, "He does not commit an offense."

Another, noticing a monk bringing food forward, says, "Friend, will you take anything more from this? Shall I give you something?" There too, Venerable Mahāsumata says, "Because it was said with the intention of 'He will not come again,' an offense occurs." But Venerable Mahāpaduma, saying "Is there ever an offense for someone saying 'Will you take?'?", says, "He does not commit an offense."

One brings forward gravy mixed with meat and says, "Take the gravy." There is no offense in refusing upon hearing that. If he refuses when "Fish gravy and meat gravy" is said, an offense occurs. It also occurs when "Take this" is said. If the meat is separated and he says, "Take the meat gravy," "If even a sesame seed's worth of meat remains in it, there is an offense in refusing it. But if it has been strained, it is allowable," says Venerable Abhaya.

When an elder monk is being offered meat gravy, he says, "Wait a moment," and says, "Bring the plate, friend." What is the case here? Venerable Mahāsumata says, "The act of bringing forward has been interrupted, therefore an offense occurs." But Venerable Mahāpaduma, saying "Where is he going? What is the nature of his going? Is there ever an offense for someone even taking?", says, "He does not commit an offense."

They cook meat mixed with kaḷīra shoots and jackfruit, and taking it, they say, "Take the kaḷīra soup, take the jackfruit curry." Even in this way, he does not commit an offense. Why? Because it was named for what is not an occasion for invitation. If, however, they say "Fish soup and meat soup" or "Take this," he commits an offense. It is called a maṃsakarambaka. Even desiring to give it, if he says, "Take the karambaka," it is allowable, he does not commit an offense. But if "Meat karambaka" or "This" is said, he commits an offense. This method applies to all mixtures of fish and meat.

120.It is stated in the Mahāpaccari that "Indeed, when someone eating at an invitation refuses meat being brought forward, thinking 'It was done for a specific reason', he has committed an offense." The discussion of mixtures is well stated in the Kurundi. For it is stated there thus: A monk on alms round brings rice gruel mixed with rice and says, "Take the rice gruel." He does not commit an offense. If "Take the rice" is said, he commits an offense. Why? Because of the existence of what he asked for. The meaning here is this: If he says, "Take the mixture of rice gruel," and the rice gruel is more abundant or equal, he does not commit an offense. If the rice gruel is less and the rice is more abundant, he commits an offense. And since this is stated in all the commentaries, it cannot be rejected, but the reason here is difficult to see. If he says, "Take the mixture of rice," whether the rice is more abundant, equal, or less, he always commits an offense. If he says "Take the mixture" without specifying rice or rice gruel, if the rice is more abundant or equal, he commits an offense, but if it is less, he does not commit an offense, and this should not be compared with karambaka. For karambaka can be a mixture with meat or without meat, therefore there is no offense of invitation when karambaka is said, but this is purely a mixture with rice. The offense of invitation occurs in accordance with what has been stated here. If, with abundant gravy in the rice, gravy; with abundant milk, milk; and with abundant ghee in the pāyāsa, ghee is separately given, there is no offense in refusing it.

But whoever announces while going, he can eat while still going. Having reached mud or water, the excess should be made by standing still. If there is a river in between that is full, one should eat while going around a bush on the riverbank. But if there is a boat or a bridge, one should eat while going up on it and pacing back and forth, the going should not be interrupted. Having announced while sitting in a vehicle or on the back of an elephant, or in the lunar or solar mansions, one should eat while still going or sitting in them until noon. Whoever announces while standing, should partake while standing; whoever announces while sitting, should partake while sitting. The excess should be made by changing that posture. Whoever announces while squatting, he should eat while squatting. But a mat of straw or anything to sit on should be given to him underneath. Having announced while sitting on a seat, one can eat by turning to the four directions without moving the seat. Having announced while sitting on a bed, one cannot move from here to there. But if they lift him up together with the bed and take him elsewhere, it is allowable. Having announced while lying down, one should partake while lying down. While turning over, the place of the side on which one is lying should not be exceeded.

121.But what should be done by one who has announced? If, having announced in one posture, he eats in another posture, he should eat after having the excess made. But if he eats or consumes any allowable item included in the yāvakālika category without having the excess made, there is a pācittiya offense for each act of swallowing.

Anatiritta means not excess, not additional. Since that is either not done by the seven Vinaya procedures beginning with making allowable, or it is not excessive for the sick, therefore it is stated in the Padabhājana –

"‘Anatiritta’ means what is made unallowable, what is made unaccepted, what is made unproclaimed, what is made outside the hand's reach, what is made by one who has not eaten, what is made by one who has eaten, announced, and risen from the seat, what is not said, ‘Enough of all this,’ what is not more than what is for the sick; this is called ‘anatiritta’" (pāci. 239).

Akappiyakata means that fruit or root vegetables, etc., that are not made allowable by the five Samaṇa-allowances, and also what is unallowable meat or unallowable food; this is called unallowable. Even if that unallowable thing is made excess by saying, "Enough of all this," it should be understood as "akappiyakata." Appaṭiggahitakata means what is made excess by a bhikkhu without accepting it, in the aforementioned manner. Anuccāritakata means what is made by a bhikkhu who has come to make it allowable, without even slightly raising or removing it. Ahatthapāse kata means what is made by someone standing outside the hand's reach of the one who has come to make it allowable. Abhuttāvinā kata means what is made excess by one who has not eaten the amount of food sufficient for announcement, by saying "Enough of all this." Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kata this is self-explanatory. "‘Alametaṃ sabba’nti avutta" means not saying thus, after making a verbal distinction. Thus, whatever allowable excess is not made by these seven Vinaya procedures, and whatever is not more than what is for the sick, both of these should be understood as "anatiritta."

122.But atiritta should be understood in the manner of its opposite. Therefore it is said in the Padabhājana:

"‘Atiritta’ means what is made allowable, what is made accepted, what is made proclaimed, what is made within the hand's reach, what is made by one who has eaten, what is made by one who has eaten, announced, and not risen from the seat, what is said, ‘Enough of all this,’ what is more than what is for the sick; this is called ‘atiritta’" (pāci. 239).

bhuttāvinā kataṃ hotī means even if one eats one grain of rice or a piece of meat from the bowl of a bhikkhu who is of the same rank and seated nearby, it should be understood as "bhuttāvināva kataṃ hotī". Āsanā avuṭṭhitenā here, for the sake of non-confusion, is this judgment: Two bhikkhus are eating early in the morning and are announced to. One should sit right there, and the other should bring daily food or ticket food and pour half of it into the bowl of that bhikkhu, wash his hands, and have the remainder made allowable by that bhikkhu and then eat it. Why? Because whatever is stuck to his hands is unallowable. But if the bhikkhu who is sitting first takes it from his bowl with his own hand, there is no need to wash hands. But if after eating, having made it allowable, someone pours more curry or food into the bowl, the one who first made it allowable cannot do it again. The one who has not done it should do it, and what has not been done should be done. Yena akata means another bhikkhu, by whom it was not done first, should do it. Yañca akata means even by the one who made it allowable first, that which has not been done should be done. But it is not allowed to do it in the first bowl. For if it is being done there, it is being done together with what was done first, therefore it is intended that it is allowable to do it in another bowl. Having done it in this way, it is allowable for that bhikkhu to eat it together with what was done first.

When making it allowable, it should be done not only in the bowl, but also in a pot or a basket, placing it in front in whatever lowered container there is. If a hundred bhikkhus have been announced to, it is allowable for all to eat, and it is allowable even for those who have not been announced to. But it is not allowable for the one by whom it was made allowable. Even if a bhikkhu, having announced, has entered for alms and they seat him at an auspicious invitation where he must eat, it should be eaten only after having the excess made. If there is no other bhikkhu there, it should be sent to the assembly hall or the monastery to have it done. But when making it allowable, it should not be done while it is in the hands of one who is not fully ordained. If there is an unskillful bhikkhu in the assembly hall, one should go oneself, have it made allowable, bring it, and eat it.

Gilānātiritta here, not only what remains after a sick person has eaten is gilānātiritta, but whatever has been brought intending for a sick person, saying, "He will eat it today or whenever he wants," all of that should be understood as gilānātiritta. But for one consuming yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, or yāvajīvika items for the purpose of nourishment without having the excess made, there is a dukkata offense for each act of swallowing. But if the yāmakālika items, etc., are mixed with non-allowable items, there is a pācittiya offense itself for accepting and consuming them whether for nourishment or not for nourishment. But if they are unmixed, there is no offense when consuming them with a reason.

Thus ends the Pavāraṇāvinicchayakathā in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discussion of the Judgments on Invitation is Complete.

22. Pabbajjāvinicchayakathā

123.Pabbajjā Here, when ordaining a son of good family who is seeking ordination, those individuals who are rejected in the Pāḷi by "...bhikkhus, one should not ordain someone afflicted by five diseases," etc. (mahāva. 89), having avoided them, an individual free from the faults of ordination should be ordained. Here is the judgment on that (mahāva. aṭṭha. 88): One afflicted by these five diseases—leprosy, boils, ringworm, consumption, and epilepsy—should not be ordained. But one incurs a dukkata offense by ordaining, because it is said, "Whoever ordains, there is an offense of dukkata." Here, kuṭṭha whether it is red leprosy or black leprosy, and whatever other kinds there are, such as kiṭibha, daddū, kacchū, etc., all of it is leprosy, it is said. If even the amount of a nail-bed is present and is in a growing state, he should not be ordained. But if it is in a place covered by the lower and upper robes, the amount of a nail-bed is present and is in a non-growing state, it is allowable. "But even if it is in a non-growing state on the face or the back of the hands or feet, even if it is smaller than a nail-bed, it is definitely not allowable," it is said in the Kurundī. Even when having him cured and ordaining him, he should be ordained only when the natural color has appeared. One should not ordain even a body with a sprinkling of powder resembling a lizard's back.

Gaṇḍa whether it is a fatty boil or another, whatever boil that is present, even if it is the size of a kola seed and in a growing state, he should not be ordained. But if it is in a covered place, is the size of a kola seed, and is in a non-growing state, it is allowable. Even if it is in a non-growing state in an uncovered place such as the face, it is not allowable. Even when having him cured and ordaining him, he should be ordained after having the body made skin-like. Uṇṇigaṇḍā are like goiters or like fingers, and hang down here and there; these too are boils, with them being present, it is not allowable to ordain. In young age, there are milk pimples; in youth, there are rough pimples on the face, they disappear in old age; they are not counted as boils, with them being present, it is allowable to ordain. But there are other rough pimples on the body, and others are called padumakaṇṇikā, and others are called sāsapabījakā, they spread over the entire body being the size of mustard seeds; all of them are of the leprosy type, with them being present, he should not be ordained.

Kilāsa is leprosy that does not break or ooze, and is the color of a lotus or white lotus petal. The judgment on that leprosy, which makes the body mottled like cattle, should be understood in the manner stated. Sosa is the disease of consumption. With that being present, he should not be ordained. Apamāra is madness due to bile or madness due to a yaksha. There, one possessed by a former enemy spirit is difficult to treat, but even with a slight amount of epilepsy being present, he should not be ordained.

124.Even a king's man should not be ordained, because of the saying, "Bhikkhus, a king's man should not be ordained; whoever ordains, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 90). Here, whether he is a minister or a high-ranking minister or a servant or has attained some position or has not attained it, whoever is a paid soldier of the king, all are counted as king's men, he should not be ordained. But his sons, grandsons, and brothers who do not receive pay from the king, it is allowable to ordain them. But one who hands over to the king the fixed allowance or monthly or yearly expenses received from the king, or has his sons or brothers accept that position, and asks the king, "Now I am not a servant of the king," or the work for which the salary was taken has been done, or he has been permitted by the king saying, "Ordain him," it is also allowable to ordain him.

125.Even a robber, a notorious criminal, should not be ordained, because it is said, "Bhikkhus, a dhajabandha thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 91). Here, dhajabandha means one who wanders around as if carrying a flag, it is said that he is well-known in the world like Mūladeva and others. Therefore, whoever wanders around committing village destruction or highway robbery or breaking into houses, etc., in the city, and it is known that "So-and-so is doing this and that," he should not be ordained. But a prince who desires the kingdom and commits village destruction, etc., he should be ordained. For kings are pleased when he is ordained. But if they are not pleased, he should not be ordained. A thief who was formerly well-known to the public, having later abandoned thievery, undertakes the five precepts, if people know this, he should be ordained. But those thieves who commit theft invisibly, such as ambalabujā thieves or sandhicchedā thieves, or those who even later are not known as "This was done by so-and-so," it is also allowable to ordain them.

126. Furthermore, a kārabhedaka thief should not be ordained, because it is said, "Monks, a kārabhedaka thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 92). Here, kāra means a prison. But in this context, whether it is imprisonment in a dark cell, imprisonment in chains, imprisonment with ropes, imprisonment in a village, imprisonment in a market town, imprisonment in a city, guarding by men, imprisonment in a district, or imprisonment on an island, whoever breaks, cuts, unties, or opens any of these imprisonments, or flees without being seen, is designated as a kārabhedaka. Therefore, such a kārabhedaka thief should not be ordained even if he breaks free from imprisonment on an island and goes to another island. But one who is not a thief, merely bound by royal officials etc., because he was not doing manual labor, [thinking] "lest he should escape and not do it," even if he escapes by breaking his imprisonment, he should be ordained. Also, one who, having taken bribes from villages, market towns, etc., and not paying it, is put in prison, even if he escapes and returns, should not be ordained. Also, one who earns wealth by farming, etc., but someone, fabricating a story that "he found treasure," has him bound, it is not proper to ordain him there itself; but having escaped and gone [elsewhere], it is proper to ordain him in the place he has gone.

127.However, a likhitaka thief should not be ordained, because of the saying, "Monks, a likhitaka thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 93). Here, likhitaka means someone who, having committed theft or another serious offense against the king and fled, the king has written on a leaf or a book, "So-and-so, wherever he is seen, should be seized and killed," or "his hands, feet, etc., should be cut off," or "so much fine should be brought." This is called a likhitaka, and he should not be ordained.

128.One beaten with whips, having undergone the penalty, should also not be ordained, because of the saying, "Monks, one beaten with whips, having undergone the penalty, should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 94). Here, one who is beaten for not doing commands, errands, etc., is not considered to have undergone the penalty. But one who, having taken something as a bribe or otherwise and eaten it, being unable to repay it, is beaten with whips [with the idea], "let this itself be your penalty," this is one beaten with whips, having undergone the penalty. And whether he is beaten with whips or with an aḍḍhadaṇḍaka or another [instrument], as long as [the wound] is fresh, he should not be ordained; but when the wound has become natural, he should be ordained. But if he is struck with knees, elbows, coconut shells, stones, etc., and released, and knots appear on his body, he should not be ordained; he should be ordained only after making an opening [in the skin] and the knots have subsided.

129.Furthermore, one branded with a mark, having undergone the penalty, should not be ordained, because of the saying, "Monks, one branded with a mark, having undergone the penalty, should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 95). Here also, the state of having undergone the penalty should be understood in the same way as before. But one whose forehead or thighs, etc., are branded with hot iron, if he is a free man, he should not be ordained as long as [the wound] is fresh. If, however, the wounds are healed, with the skin evenly closed, and the mark is not visible, if it is in a covered place when he is wearing the three robes and has put on the upper robe, it is proper to ordain him; but if it is in an uncovered place, it is not proper.

130.An iṇāyika should also not be ordained, because of the saying, "Monks, an iṇāyika should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 96). Here, iṇāyika means one whose debt was taken by his fathers and grandfathers, or he himself has taken a debt, or something has been pledged and taken by his parents; he owes that debt to others, [hence] he is an iṇāyika. But if other relatives pledge something and take something, he is not an iṇāyika. They are not masters to pledge that, therefore it is proper to ordain him, but not the other. If, however, his relatives and blood relations take his debt as their own responsibility, saying, "We will pay, do not ordain him," or someone else, seeing his virtuous conduct, says, "Ordain him, I will pay the debt," it is proper to ordain him. In the absence of these, the monk should inform even the supporter of such a person, "A sentient being with a reason does not go forth with the encumbrance of debt." If he agrees, he should be ordained. Even if he has his own allowable goods, he should be ordained [saying], "I will give this." But if neither relatives nor others agree, nor does he have his own wealth, it is not proper to ordain him [thinking], "Having ordained him, I will wander for alms and release [him]." If he ordains him, there is a wrong-doing. Even if he has run away, he must be brought back and given [to the creditor]. If he does not give it, the entire debt is on his neck. There is no offense for ordaining him unknowingly, but one who sees it should bring [the debtor] back and give [him] to the creditors; there is no [debt on his] neck for one who does not see it.

If an iṇāyika goes to another country and, even when questioned, says, "I owe nothing to anyone," and goes forth, and the creditor, seeking him, goes there, and a young [monk], seeing him, runs away, and he approaches the elder and says, "Venerable sir, by whom was this one ordained? He ran away having taken so much wealth from me," the elder should say, "Layman, he was ordained by me saying 'I am debtless'; what do I do now? Look at my bowl and robe." This is the proper conduct there. There is no [debt on his] neck for one who has run away. If, however, he sees him in front of the elder himself and says, "This is my iṇāyika," he should be told, "You yourself know your iṇāyika." Even then there is no [debt on his] neck. Even if he says, "Having gone forth, where will he go now?", the elder should say, "You yourself know." Even then there is no [debt on his] neck if he runs away. If, however, the elder says, "Where will he go now? Let him stay here," and he runs away, there is [debt on his] neck. If he is a sentient being with a reason, possessing virtue, the elder should say, "He is such and such." If the creditor releases [him, saying] "Good," that is good; if he says, "Give half and half," it should be given. At another time he becomes very importunate, even if [the creditor] says, "Give everything," it should indeed be given. If, however, he is skilled in recitation and interrogation, etc., and is very helpful to the monks, the debt should be paid even by seeking alms.

131.A dāsa should also not be ordained, because of the saying, "Monks, a dāsa should not be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 97). Here, there are four kinds of dāsas: born in the house (antojāta), bought with wealth (dhanakkīta), brought by force (karamarānīta), and one who has voluntarily become a slave (sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagata). Here, antojāta means a slave by birth, the son of a female slave in the household. Dhanakkīta means a son bought from his parents or a slave from his owners by giving wealth and imposing the conduct of a slave. These two should also not be ordained. One ordaining [them] should ordain [them] only after making them non-slaves according to the custom there and there. Karamarānīta means bringing free humans from a foreign country by plundering or devastating [it], or the king orders a certain village within the country, having committed some offense, "Plunder [it]", and then they also bring human beings; there all the men are slaves, the women are female slaves. Such a karamarānīta slave, whether living in the presence of those by whom he was brought, or bound in a prison, or guarded by men, should not be ordained; but having escaped and gone [elsewhere], he should be ordained in the place he has gone. But he should definitely be ordained when the king, being pleased, says, "Release those brought by force," or when a general amnesty is granted.

Sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagato means one who has voluntarily become a slave himself for the sake of livelihood or protection, like kings' elephant trainers, horse trainers, cow trainers, buffalo trainers, goat trainers, etc. Such a dāsa should not be ordained. The sons of the king's vaṇṇadāsīs are like sons of ministers, and they also should not be ordained. Free women of unrestrained behavior associate with vaṇṇadāsīs, their sons may be ordained. If they themselves offer a document, it is not proper. The dāsas of bhaṭiputtagaṇa etc., should also not be ordained without their permission. In monasteries, there are ārāmikadāsas given by kings, and they also should not be ordained, but it is proper to ordain [them] after making them free. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, "They bring an antojāta or dhanakkīta and give [him] to the Saṅgha [saying], 'Let us give [him as] an ārāmika'; they are just like having molten lead poured on their heads; it is proper to ordain them." In the Kurundī, however, it is said, "They give [him] saying, 'We give [him as] an ārāmika,' using permissible language; whatever language he is given with, he should definitely not be ordained." Destitute people become kappiyakārakas in the monastery [thinking], "We will live depending on the Saṅgha"; these may be ordained. One whose parents are slaves, or only the mother is a female slave, the father is not a slave, he should not be ordained. But one whose mother is not a female slave, the father is a slave, he may be ordained. The relatives or supporters of a bhikkhu give a dāsa [saying], "Ordain him, he will do service for you," or he himself has a dāsa, he should definitely be ordained after making him free. The owners give a dāsa [saying], "Ordain him; if he delights [in it], he is not a slave. But if he becomes distraught, he will be our slave," this is called temporary, it is not proper to ordain him, so it is said in the Kurundī. There is a dāsa without an owner, he also should definitely be ordained after making him free. Having ordained or given full ordination unknowingly, and later learning [of it], it is indeed proper to make him free.

To explain this meaning, they tell this story: It seems a female household slave, having fled to Rohaṇa with someone, gave birth to a son, he went forth and at the time of full ordination, he became ashamed and doubtful. Then one day he asked his mother, "Laywoman, do you have no brothers or sisters? I don't see any relatives." "Dear, I am a female household slave in Anurādhapura; having fled here with your father, I live here." The virtuous bhikkhu, realizing "My going-forth is impure," becoming agitated, asked his mother the name and clan of that family and, having come to Anurādhapura, stood at the door of that family's house. Even when told "Please enter, venerable sir," he did not enter. They came and asked, "What is it, venerable sir?" "Is there a female slave of yours named so-and-so who has run away?" "Yes, venerable sir." "I am her son; if you permit me, I will receive the going-forth, you are my owners." They, delighted and pleased, made him free [saying], "Your going-forth is pure, venerable sir," and made him live in the Mahāvihāra, attending to him with the four requisites. The Elder, living dependent on that family, attained arahantship.

132.Furthermore, one with a hand cut off should not be ordained. Nor one with a foot cut off, nor one with a hand and foot cut off, nor one with an ear cut off, nor one with an ear and nose cut off, nor one with fingers cut off, nor one with a tendon cut off, nor one with a crippled hand, nor a hunchback, nor a dwarf, nor one with goiter, nor one branded with a mark, nor one beaten with whips, nor a likhitaka, nor one with elephantiasis, nor one with a virulent disease, nor one who corrupts the community, nor one-eyed, nor crippled of arm, nor lame, nor paralyzed, nor one with disordered behavior, nor one weakened by old age, nor blind, nor mute, nor deaf, nor blind and mute, nor blind and deaf, nor mute and deaf, nor blind, mute, and deaf should be ordained; whoever ordains [him], there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 119), therefore, those with a hand cut off, etc., should also not be ordained.

Hatthacchinno: "Having a hand cut off," means one whose one or two hands are cut off at the palm, wrist, or elbow, or anywhere else. Pādacchinno: "Having a foot cut off," means one whose one or two feet are cut off at the toes, ankles, or shin, or anywhere else. Hatthapādacchinno: "Having hands and feet cut off," means one whose two or three, or all four hands and feet are cut off in the manner described above. Kaṇṇacchinno: "Having an ear cut off," means one whose one or two ears are cut off at the base of the ear or the earlobe. But if the cartilage of the ear is cut and it is possible to rejoin it, he should have the ear rejoined and then be ordained. Nāsacchinno: "Having a nose cut off," means one whose nose is cut off at the bridge, the tip, or one of the nostrils, or anywhere else. But if it is possible to heal the nose, he should have it healed and then be ordained. Kaṇṇanāsacchinno: "Having ears and nose cut off," should be understood in both ways. Aṅgulicchinno: "Having a finger cut off," means one whose one or more fingers are cut off without showing even a nail remnant. But if even a thread or string-like remnant of nail is visible, it is suitable to ordain him. Aḷacchinno: "Having a toe cut off," means one whose one or more toes are cut off in the same manner as described for fingers. Kaṇḍaracchinno: "Having a tendon cut off," means one whose major tendons, called kaṇḍara, are cut in the front or back, so that if even one is cut, he walks on the tip of his foot, or walks on the base of his foot, and cannot set his foot down properly.

Phaṇahatthako: "Having fan-like hands," means one whose fingers are webbed like a bat's wings. If it is desired to ordain such a person, the spaces between the fingers should be cut open, all the inner skin removed, healed, and then he should be ordained. If someone has six fingers, if it is desired to ordain him, the extra finger should be cut off, healed, and then he should be ordained. Khujjo: "Hunchback," is one whose body is hunched due to a protrusion from the chest, back, or side. But if some part of the body is slightly bent, it is suitable to ordain him. For indeed, only a Great Being has a perfectly straight body; no other being is without some hunched feature. Vāmano: "Dwarf," is one who is a leg-dwarf, a waist-dwarf, or both. A leg-dwarf has a short lower body from the waist down, and a complete upper body. A waist-dwarf has a short upper body from the waist up, and a complete lower body. A double-dwarf has both bodies short, and due to their shortness, their form resembles a goblin, with a large belly like a pot; such a threefold person is not suitable to be ordained.

Galagaṇḍī: "Goiter," is one who has a swelling on the neck like a Kumbhaṇḍa demon. This is just a designation; however, if there is a goiter in any place, he should not be ordained. The decision in this matter should be understood in the same way as stated here: "Monks, one afflicted with the five diseases should not be ordained" (Mahāva. 89). What is to be said about Lakkhaṇāhatakasāhatalikhitakesu has already been stated below. Sīpadī: "Elephantiasis" means having a heavy foot. One whose foot is thick, with sores and rough, should not be ordained. But if it has not yet become rough, and it is possible to bind a poultice, immerse it in a water trough, fill it with water and sand so that the veins become visible, and the leg is like an oil tube, so that it can be made to shrink, it is suitable to ordain him after making his foot like this. If it grows again, even when conferring higher ordination, it should be done after treating it in this way. Pāparogī: "Wretched with disease," means one who is constantly ill with some disease, such as piles, fistulas, bilious or phlegmatic coughs, or asthma, which is difficult to cure, disgusting, and unpleasant; such a one should not be ordained.

133. Parisadūsako: "One who is repulsive to the assembly," is one who repulses the assembly because of his deformity; being excessively tall, so that the area of his navel is beyond the head-measurement of others; or excessively short, like a double-dwarf goblin; or excessively black, like a stump in a burnt field; or excessively white, the color of dadhi whey, like copper rubbed with alkali; or excessively emaciated, with sluggish flesh and blood, his body consisting of skin, sinews and bones; or excessively fat, with heavy flesh, a large belly, like a great ghost; or having an excessively large head, as if placing the back of the head in front; or having an excessively small head, with a head that is excessively small in proportion to the body; or having a lumpy head, with a head like a clump of palmyra fruit; or having a pointed head, with a head that is thin and tapering upwards; or having a tube-like head, with a head like a large bamboo joint; or having a broken head or a cracked head, with a head that is bent on any of the four sides; or having a festering head or a rotting head; or having a hair-whorl head, with hair growing here and there like sprouts of grain in a field eaten by crabs; or having a hairless head; or having thick, stiff hair, with hair like palmyra bristles; or having naturally gray hair or pale hair, with hair like hair that has been set on fire; or having a whorled head, with hair whorls on the body like those of cows, pointing upwards; or having eyebrows that are joined together with the head hair, with a forehead as if covered with a net.

Or having connected eyebrows, or having hairless eyebrows, or having monkey eyebrows; or having excessively large eyes, or having excessively small eyes; or having eyes like holes made by striking animal hide with an awl; or having uneven eyes, with one large eye and one small eye; or having uneven pupils, with one pupil pointing upwards and one downwards, thus having uneven eye-orbs; or being cross-eyed; or having deep-set eyes, with the pupils of his eyes appearing like stars in a deep well; or having protruding eyes, with the pupils of his eyes protruding like those of a crab; or having elephant ears, with large earlobes; or having mouse ears or lacquered ears, with small earlobes; or having ears that are just holes, with just ear holes without earlobes; or having unpierced ears. However, a person of Yona descent who is repulsive to the assembly is not so considered, for that is his natural disposition. Or having festering ears, with constantly foul-smelling ears; or having tumorous ears, with ears that are always discharging pus; or having pierced ears, with ears resembling the tips of goad-handles; or having excessively yellow eyes. However, it is suitable to ordain one with honey-yellow eyes. Or having lashless eyes; or having tearful eyes; or having festering eyes; or having eyes afflicted with eye disease.

Or having an excessively large nose; or having an excessively small nose; or having a flat nose; or having a crooked nose, not resting in the middle but standing tilted to one side; or having a long nose, with a nose that can be licked by the tongue like a dried gourd; or having a nose that is constantly running with mucus; or having a large mouth, whose mouth orifice is large like that of a grasshopper, but whose mouth is very small like a gourd; or having a split mouth; or having a crooked mouth; or having large lips, with lips like the rims of bellows; or having thin lips, with lips like drum skins, unable to cover the teeth; or having a large lower lip; or having a thin upper lip; or having a thin lower lip; or having a large upper lip; or having cut lips; or having goat-like mouth; or having owl-like mouth; or having conch-shell-like mouth, with lips that are white on the outside and excessively red on the inside; or having a foul carrion-like mouth; or having large teeth, with teeth like castor seeds; or having demon teeth, with teeth protruding outwards either below or above; but if it is possible to cover them with the lips, and they are only visible when speaking, not when not speaking, it is suitable to ordain him. Or having rotten teeth; or having no teeth; or having excessively small teeth; but if he has fine teeth between the teeth, like rice grains, it is suitable to ordain him.

Or having a large jaw, with a jaw like that of an ox; or having a long jaw; or having a flat jaw; or having a jaw that is retracted inwards, as if excessively short; or having a split jaw; or having a crooked jaw; or having no mustache; having a face like a nun; having a long neck, with a neck like that of a heron; having a short neck, with a neck as if retracted inwards; having a split neck; having a broken shoulder; having no arms; having one arm; having excessively short arms; having excessively long arms; having a broken chest; having a broken back; having a scabby body; having an itchy body; having a ringwormed body; having a lizard-like body, from whose body, like that of a lizard, powder falls off. All this has been stated in detail with reference to disfigurement; the decision in this matter should be understood in the manner stated for the five diseases.

Having broken hips; or having large buttocks, with the buttock flesh excessively protruding like raised mounds; or having large thighs; or having projecting hip bones; or having large knees; or having knees that knock together; having long shins, with shins like sticks; being deformed; or being knock-kneed; or having prominent calf muscles, being of two kinds, having large calf muscles hanging down or raised up; having large shins; or having thick calf muscles; or having large feet; or having large heels; or having the instep of the foot protruding, with the shin raised from the middle of the foot; having crooked feet, being of two kinds, having feet turned inwards or outwards; having knotted toes, with toes like ginger shoots; having dark nails, with black, rotten nails; all these are repulsive to the assembly. A person repulsive to the assembly in this way should not be ordained.

134. Kāṇo: "One-eyed," whether he is blind due to a deteriorated condition or the eye is afflicted by cataracts, etc., if he does not see with one or both eyes, he should not be ordained. However, in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, a one-eyed person is called "one-eyed," and a two-eyed person is included among the blind. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a person born blind is called "blind." Therefore, both are suitable by way of definition. Kuṇī: "Deformed," is one with a deformed hand, a deformed foot, or deformed fingers, in whom some deformity is apparent in these hands, etc. Khañjo: "Lame," is one with bent knees, or broken shins, or one who walks with the middle of his foot bent, thus being flat-footed; or one who walks with the tip of his foot bent, thus being flat-footed; or one who walks on the tip of his foot; or one who walks on his heel; or one who walks on the outer edge of his foot; or one who walks on the inner edge of his foot; or one who, due to broken ankles, walks on the entire back of his foot. All these are lame and should not be ordained.

Pakkhahato: "Paralyzed," is one whose one hand or one foot or half of the body does not function properly. Chinniriyāpatho: "Of impaired conduct," means one who is like a eunuch. Jarādubbalo: "Weakened by old age," is one who is weakened by old age and unable to perform even his own tasks such as dyeing robes. But if an old man is strong and able to take care of himself, he should be ordained. Andho: "Blind," means one who is born blind. Mūgo: "Mute," is one whose speech does not function; and even if it does function, he is unable to utter the Refuges completely; such a stammerer is also not suitable to be ordained. But one who is able to utter the Refuges completely is suitable to be ordained. Badhiro: "Deaf," is one who does not hear at all. But one who hears loud noises is suitable to be ordained. Andhamūgādayo: "The blind, mute," etc., are stated in terms of both faults. Those whose ordination is prohibited, their higher ordination is also prohibited. If the Sangha confers higher ordination on them, all are fully ordained, but the Sangha members who perform the act, and the preceptor and teacher, are not freed from the offense.

135. Paṇḍako: "Eunuch," ubhatobyañjanako: "hermaphrodite," theyyasaṃvāsako: "one who lives in communion with monks, having stolen his way into the Sangha," titthiyapakkantako: "one who has gone over to a heretical sect," tiracchānagato: "an animal," mātughātako: "a matricide," pitughātako: "a patricide," arahantaghātako: "a murderer of an Arahant," lohiuppādako: "one who has shed the blood of a Buddha," saṅghabhedako: "one who has created a schism in the Sangha," bhikkhunīdūsako: "one who has violated a bhikkhuni," these eleven types of individuals are ineligible because of the statement beginning with "Monks, a eunuch who is not fully ordained should not be given higher ordination; one who is ordained should be expelled" (Mahāva. 109). Neither ordination nor higher ordination is appropriate for them; therefore, they should not be ordained, nor should they be given higher ordination. One who knowingly ordains or gives higher ordination incurs a dukkata offense. Even if they are ordained or given higher ordination unknowingly, they should be expelled by destroying their mark once they are known.

Paṇḍaka means five types of paṇḍakas: āsittapaṇḍaka, usūyapaṇḍaka, opakkamikapaṇḍaka, pakkhapaṇḍaka, and napuṃsakapaṇḍaka. Among these, one whose burning sensation subsides by having impure substances poured into his mouth after taking the sexual organ of another, this is called āsittapaṇḍaka. One whose burning sensation subsides when envy arises upon seeing the misconduct of others, this is called usūyapaṇḍaka. One whose reproductive abilities have been removed through surgical means, this is called opakkamikapaṇḍaka. Furthermore, one who, due to the effects of unwholesome karma, is a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight, but whose burning sensation subsides during the bright fortnight, this is called pakkhapaṇḍaka. One who is born without sexual characteristics from the moment of conception, this is called napuṃsakapaṇḍaka. Among these, ordination is not prohibited for the āsittapaṇḍaka and the usūyapaṇḍaka, but it is prohibited for the other three. In the Kurundī, it is said, "Even among these, ordination is prohibited for the pakkhapaṇḍaka only during the fortnight when he is a paṇḍaka."

136.Ubhatobyañjanaka (having both sets of sexual characteristics) means one who possesses both sets of sexual characteristics due to actions leading to the manifestation of female characteristics and actions leading to the manifestation of male characteristics (mahāva. aṭṭha. 116). This is of two types: female ubhatobyañjanaka and male ubhatobyañjanaka. Among these, in the female ubhatobyañjanaka, the female characteristics are evident, while the male characteristics are concealed. In the male ubhatobyañjanaka, the male characteristics are evident, while the female characteristics are concealed. In the female ubhatobyañjanaka, when acting as a male among females, the female characteristics are concealed, and the male characteristics become evident. In the male ubhatobyañjanaka, when assuming the female role among males, the male characteristics are concealed, and the female characteristics become evident. The female ubhatobyañjanaka can conceive and can cause others to conceive, while the male ubhatobyañjanaka cannot conceive but can cause others to conceive; this is how they are distinguished. Neither ordination nor higher ordination is allowed for either of these two types of ubhatobyañjanaka.

137.Theyyasaṃvāsaka (one who lives in false association) means three types of theyyasaṃvāsakas: liṅgatthenaka, saṃvāsatthenaka, and ubhayatthenaka. Among these, one who, having ordained himself and gone to a monastery, does not count his years as a bhikkhu, does not properly perform the customary salutations according to seniority, does not push others away from seats, and does not participate in the Observance Day and Invitation ceremonies, this is called liṅgatthenaka because he is only stealing the appearance (liṅga). But one who, having been ordained as a novice by bhikkhus, goes to a foreign country and falsely says, "I am ten years old" or "I am twenty years old," counts his years as a bhikkhu, properly performs the customary salutations according to seniority, pushes others away from seats, and participates in the Observance Day and Invitation ceremonies, this is called saṃvāsatthenaka because he is only stealing the association (saṃvāsa). Indeed, all such differences in conduct, such as counting years as a bhikkhu, should be understood as "association" in this context. The same applies to one who, having renounced the training, behaves in the same way again, thinking, "No one knows me." But one who, having ordained himself and gone to a monastery, counts his years as a bhikkhu, properly performs the customary salutations according to seniority, pushes others away from seats, and participates in the Observance Day and Invitation ceremonies, this is called ubhayatthenaka because he is stealing both the appearance (liṅga) and the association (saṃvāsa). All three types of theyyasaṃvāsakas should not be given higher ordination if they are not already ordained, should be expelled if they are already ordained, and should not be ordained even if they request ordination again.

138.Here, for the sake of clarity, this miscellaneous information should be understood:

"Due to royal danger, famine, wilderness, disease, or fear of enemies;
Or to obtain robes, one here adopts the appearance.

"He does not partake in the association, until he is of pure mind;
Only then is he not called a Theyyasaṃvāsaka." (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110);

Herein is the detailed explanation: In this case, a king is angry with someone, and that person, thinking, "This will be my safety," takes on the appearance [of a bhikkhu] himself and flees. Seeing this, they inform the king, and the king, thinking, "If he is ordained, nothing can be done to him," calms his anger towards him. If he, thinking, "My fear of the king has subsided," returns to lay life without informing the Saṅgha and then comes seeking ordination, he should be ordained after removing the appearance [of a bhikkhu]. However, if, feeling remorse, thinking, "I obtained life by relying on the Teaching; now I shall ordain," comes with that very appearance, does not properly perform the duties of a newcomer, and, whether asked or unasked by the bhikkhus, reveals his true situation and requests ordination, he should be ordained after removing the appearance. But if he properly performs the duties, shows the conduct of an ordained person, and follows all the previously mentioned procedures, including counting his years [as a bhikkhu], he should not be ordained.

Here, in this case, someone, unable to survive during a famine, takes on the appearance himself and eats all the food of the various sects. When the famine has passed, he returns to lay life without informing the Saṅgha. Everything is the same as before.

Another wishes to cross a great wilderness, and a caravan is traveling with ordained people. He, thinking, "The caravan will take me if I appear as a bhikkhu," takes on the appearance himself and crosses the wilderness with the caravan. Reaching a safe place, he returns to lay life without informing the Saṅgha. Everything is the same as before.

Another, when fear of disease arises, unable to survive, takes on the appearance himself and eats all the food of the various sects. When the fear of disease has subsided, he returns to lay life without informing the Saṅgha. Everything is the same as before.

Another has an enemy who is angry and seeks to kill him. He, thinking, "This will be my safety," takes on the appearance himself and flees. The enemy, searching for him, hears that he has "ordained and fled" and, thinking, "If he is ordained, nothing can be done to him," calms his anger towards him. He, thinking, "My fear of the enemy has subsided," returns to lay life without informing the Saṅgha. Everything is the same as before.

Another goes to his relatives' home, renounces the training, and becomes a layman. Thinking, "These robes will be lost here; even if I take them and go to the monastery, they will arrest me as a thief on the way; I should make them wearable," he puts on the robes. Seeing him coming from afar, the novices and young monks go out to meet him and show him respect. He does not accept it but reveals his true situation. If the bhikkhus, thinking, "We will not let you go now," wish to ordain him by force, he should be ordained again after removing the robes. But if, thinking, "These inferior ones do not know my former state," he acknowledges that very bhikkhu state and follows all the previously mentioned procedures, including counting his years [as a bhikkhu], he should not be ordained.

Another, a great novice, having left the Order and being overwhelmed by not doing work, again thinks, "Now I will be a novice; even the elder does not know my having left the Order," takes his bowl and robes and goes to the monastery. He does not inform the bhikkhus of this matter but acknowledges the novice state. He is a theyyasaṃvāsaka and does not obtain ordination. Even if, at the time of taking the appearance, he thinks, "I will not tell anyone," and goes to the monastery and tells, he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka from the moment of taking [the appearance]. But if, at the time of taking [the appearance], the thought arises in him, "I will tell," and having gone to the monastery, when asked, "Where did you go, friend?" deceives them by thinking, "These do not know me now," and does not tell, with the intention of concealing it, he is also a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if, even at the time of taking [the appearance], he thinks, "I will tell," and having gone to the monastery, he tells, he obtains ordination again.

Another, a young novice or a great but inexperienced one, having left the Order in the same way as before and not wanting to do work such as tending calves and cows at home, his relatives clothe him in those very robes, put a plate or bowl in his hand, and drive him out of the house, saying, "Go, be a samaṇa!" He goes to the monastery. The bhikkhus do not know that "this one has left the Order and ordained himself again," nor does he himself know that "one who ordains in this way is called a theyyasaṃvāsaka." If they ordain him when he is fully qualified, he is properly ordained. But if, while he is still unordained, he hears, while a judgment on a matter of monastic law is being made, that "one who ordains in this way is called a theyyasaṃvāsaka," he should tell the bhikkhus that "I did this." In this way, he obtains ordination again. But if, thinking, "No one knows me now," he does not tell, from the moment of concealing it, he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka.

In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "This is a theyyasaṃvāsaka," but that should not be accepted.

A bhikkhu, eager for the robes, having put on white clothing and engaged in sexual intercourse, puts on the robes again and follows the procedures such as counting his years [as a bhikkhu]. He is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka; he only obtains ordination. But if, having put aside the responsibility of the robes, put on white clothing, engaged in sexual intercourse, and then put on the robes again, he follows the procedures such as counting his years [as a bhikkhu], he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka. A novice, remaining in his appearance [as a novice], does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka even if he commits an act that is unbecoming of a samaṇa, such as sexual intercourse. Even if, eager for the robes, he removes the robes and engages in sexual intercourse and then puts on the robes again, he is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if, having put aside the responsibility of the robes and becoming not a samaṇa by engaging in sexual intercourse or wearing white clothes, he puts on the robes, he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka.

If someone, desiring the state of a layman, wears the robes in a rolled-up fashion or in some other manner of wearing lay clothes to see "whether the lay appearance suits me or not" for the purpose of examining, he is only protecting [his status]. But if, having approved that "it suits," he again approves the appearance [of a bhikkhu], he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka. The same method applies to wearing white clothes for the purpose of examining and approving. But if he puts on white clothes over the robes he is wearing and examines or approves, he is only protecting [his status]. The same method applies to a bhikkhuni. If she, desiring the state of a laywoman, wears the robes in a manner of wearing lay clothes to see "whether the lay appearance suits me or not" for the purpose of examining, she is only protecting [her status]. If she approves that "it suits," she is not protecting [her status]. The same method applies to wearing white clothes for the purpose of examining and approving. But if she puts on white clothes over the robes she is wearing and examines or approves, she is only protecting [her status].

If an elderly ordained person does not count the years, nor learn the scriptures, and goes to one side, and having stretched out his bowl at the great refectory and taken a lump of food with a ladle, takes a piece of meat like a hawk, he is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if he counts his years as a bhikkhu and takes, he is a theyyasaṃvāsaka. If a novice himself counts false years according to the order of novices, he is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. If a bhikkhu counts false years according to the order of bhikkhus, he should be punished according to the value of the goods.

139. Titthiyapakkantako: "One who has gone over to the Titthiyas" means one who has gone over and entered into the Titthiyas; such a one should not be given the going forth. Herein is the judgment: A bhikkhu who has received the full ordination, thinking, "I will become a Titthiya," goes to their residence with his robes. For each step, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). The moment he adopts their symbols, he becomes one who has gone over to the Titthiyas. Even one who, on his own, thinking, "I will become a Titthiya," puts on garments made of kusa grass and bark, becomes one who has gone over to the Titthiyas. But one who, naked while bathing, looks at himself and thinks, "The life of an Ājīvaka suits me, I will become an Ājīvaka," without discarding his brown robes, goes naked to the residence of the Ājīvakas; for each step, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). If, however, along the way, moral shame and fear arise in him, he is freed by confessing the offenses of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). Even having gone to their residence, if he is advised by them, or if he himself sees, "The going forth of these people is exceedingly difficult," and turns back, he is also freed. But if, having asked, "What is superior in your going forth?" and being told, "Pulling out hair and beard, etc.," he has even one hair pulled out, or adopts practices such as sitting on the heels, or wears peacock feathers, or takes up their symbols, or embraces the view that "This going forth is the best," he is not freed, he becomes one who has gone over to the Titthiyas. If, however, thinking, "Does the Titthiya going forth suit me, or does it not?" for the purpose of investigation, he puts on garments of kusa grass and bark, or ties up his hair in a knot, or takes up a mendicant's water pot, as long as he does not accept their doctrine, he is safe; the moment he accepts it, he becomes one who has gone over to the Titthiyas. But one with robes intact, while putting on garments of kusa grass and bark, or taking up Titthiya symbols due to fear of the king, etc., not having their doctrine, does not become one who has gone over to the Titthiyas. In the Kurundi it is stated: "And this one who has gone over to the Titthiyas is so called when spoken of by a bhikkhu who has received the full ordination; therefore, even if a novice goes to a Titthiya monastery with his robes, he can receive the going forth and the full ordination again." But the former, one who dwells in association with a thief, is so called when spoken of by one who has not received the full ordination; therefore, one who has received the full ordination, even if counting counterfeit years of seniority, does not become a non-ascetic. One who is zealous for the symbols, having committed an offense entailing expulsion (pārājika), even while counting years of bhikkhuship, etc., does not become one who dwells in association with a thief.

140. Tiracchānagato: "Belonging to the animal kingdom" means whether it be a nāga, or one of the supaṇṇa-youths, etc., or any other, even including Sakka, the king of the gods, whoever is of a non-human birth, all of them in this context should be understood as "belonging to the animal kingdom." Such a one should neither be given the full ordination nor the going forth, and one who is ordained must be expelled.

141. Mātughātakā etc.: Herein, one by whom a female human being, his mother, the one who bore him, is intentionally deprived of life with his own hand, also being of human origin, such a one, due to the immediate result of matricide, is a mātughātaka, a "mother-killer". For him, going forth and full ordination are prohibited. But one by whom a female human being, though not the one who bore him, such as a foster mother or a stepmother, or even the one who bore him, though not a female human being, is killed, his going forth is not prevented, nor does he incur an immediate result. One by whom a female human being, his mother, is killed, while he himself is an animal, he also does not incur an immediate result, but his going forth is prohibited because he belongs to the animal kingdom. The same method applies to pitughātaka, "father-killer." Even if he is the son of a prostitute, and does not know, "This is my father," if the one by whose arising he was born is killed by him, he is called a "father-killer" indeed, and he incurs an immediate result.

Arahantaghātako, "arahant-killer," should be understood only in reference to a human arahant. Indeed, by intentionally depriving of life a human being, even a non-ordained one, who is a khīṇāsava, whether a boy or a girl, he becomes an arahant-killer, and he incurs an immediate result, and his going forth is prohibited. But by killing a non-human arahant, or a human being who is any other noble individual, he does not incur an immediate result, and his going forth is not prohibited, but the deed is weighty. An animal, even by killing a human arahant, does not incur an immediate result, but the deed is weighty; this is the judgment here.

lohituppādako, "one who causes blood to flow". For him, going forth and full ordination are prohibited. But one who, like Jīvaka, cuts open with a knife for the purpose of relieving illness, removing pus, blood, and flesh, and making it sound, generates much merit.

saṅghabhedako, "one who creates a schism in the Sangha". For him, going forth and full ordination are prohibited.

bhikkhunīdūsako, "one who violates a bhikkhunī". For him, going forth and full ordination are prohibited. But one who causes the loss of morality through physical contact, for him, going forth and full ordination are not prohibited. Even one who violates a bhikkhunī against her will, by force, having made her wear white clothes, is still a violator of a bhikkhunī, but one who violates a bhikkhunī who is willing, by force having made her wear white clothes, is not a violator of a bhikkhunī. Why? Because she is no longer a bhikkhunī the moment she accepts the state of a layperson. One who violates one whose morality is already ruined, or behaves improperly towards female trainees or novices, is not a violator of a bhikkhunī, and he can receive going forth and full ordination. Thus, these eleven incapable individuals should be understood.

142. For one under twenty years of age, full ordination is prohibited, but not going forth; therefore, one who is fully twenty years old, counting from the moment of conception, should be given full ordination. Even one who is twenty years old including the gestation period is counted as fully twenty years old. As the Blessed One said:

"Monks, reckoning from the first thought that arises in the mother's womb, the first consciousness that appears, that is his birth. I allow, monks, that one who is twenty years old including the gestation period may be given full ordination" (mahāva. 124).

There (pāci. aṭṭha. 404), one who lived in the mother's womb for twelve months and was born on the Great Pavāraṇā day, from that point onwards, until the Great Pavāraṇā day in his nineteenth year, having passed that, should be given full ordination on the first day of the bright fortnight. In this way, decrease and increase should be understood. But the ancient elders give full ordination to a novice who is in his nineteenth year on the day after the Going-Forth Full Moon, on the first day of the bright fortnight. Why? In one year there are six fourteenth-day Uposatha days; thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings intercalate a month in every third year; thus, in eighteen years, six months are gained. Then, subtracting the four months lost due to the Uposatha days, two months remain; taking those two months, the twenty years are complete. Therefore, being without doubt, they give full ordination on the first day of the bright fortnight, having passed the Going-Forth Full Moon day.

Here, "one under twenty years of age" is said in reference to one who will be twenty years old after Pavāraṇā. Therefore, one who lived in the mother's womb for twelve months is twenty-one years old. One who lived for seven months is twenty years and seven months old. But one born after six months does not live. However, there is no offense for one who gives full ordination to one under twenty years of age, under the perception that he is "fully twenty years old," but the individual is not fully ordained. If he gives full ordination to another after ten years, and the quorum is completed after dismissing him, he is fully ordained. And for him, as long as he does not know, there is no obstacle to heaven or obstacle to liberation, but having known, he must be fully ordained again.

143. Even if he is free from these defects preventing going forth, he should not be given the going forth without the consent of his parents, because of the statement, "Monks, a son should not be given the going forth without the permission of his parents" (mahāva. 105). There (mahāva. aṭṭha. 105), mātāpitūhi "by his parents," is said referring to the one who bore him. If there are two, both should be asked. If the father is dead, or the mother, the one who is alive should be asked; even those who have gone forth should be asked. The one asking should go himself to ask, or send another. He should send him thus: "Go, ask your parents and come back." If he says, "I am permitted," he should be given the going forth, trusting him. If the father himself has gone forth and wishes to give his son the going forth, he should give it having asked the mother. Or if the mother wishes to give her daughter the going forth, she should give it having asked the father. If the father, having no affection for his children, runs away, and the mother gives her son to the bhikkhus saying, "Let him go forth," and when asked, "Where is his father?" she says, "He has run away to play dice," it is permissible to give him the going forth. If the mother has run away with some man, but the father says, "Let him go forth," the same method applies here too. If the father is abroad, and the mother permits her son, "Let him go forth," and when asked, "Where is his father?" she says, "What is your concern with his father? I will take responsibility," it is permissible to give him the going forth, so it is stated in the Kurundi.

If the parents are dead, and the child is raised in the care of aunts, etc., when he is about to be given the going forth, the relatives make a quarrel or are annoyed; therefore, to prevent disputes, he should be given the going forth having asked them. But there is no offense for one who gives the going forth without asking. Those who take and raise a child in his early years are called foster parents; the same method applies to them too. If the son lives relying on himself, and not on his parents, even if he is a king, he should be given the going forth having asked them. Having been permitted by his parents, he goes forth and then becomes unsettled; even if he goes forth and becomes unsettled a hundred times, he should be given the going forth again and again, having asked them each time he returns. If they say thus, "This one has become unsettled and come home, he does not do our work, having gone forth he does not fulfill your duties; there is no need to ask him, you may give him the going forth each time he comes," having been released in this way, it is permissible to give him the going forth again even without asking.

One who, even in his early years, is given thus, "This one is given to you, whenever you wish, you may give him the going forth," he too should be given the going forth again each time he comes, without asking. But one who, even in his early years, is permitted thus, "Venerable Sir, let this one go forth," and later, when he has grown up, they do not permit it, he should not be given the going forth without asking. One, having quarreled with his parents, comes saying, "Give me the going forth," and when told, "Go, ask and come back," he says, "I will not go; if you do not give me the going forth, I will burn down the monastery, or strike you with a knife, or cause harm to your relatives or supporters by cutting down trees, etc., or I will fall from a tree and die, or enter a den of thieves, or go to another country," he should be given the going forth for his own protection. If, however, his parents come and say, "Why did you give our son the going forth?" having informed them of the matter, they should be told, "We gave him the going forth for his protection; may you be seen together with your son." But it is permissible to give the going forth to one who has climbed a tree thinking, "I will fall," and is about to drop his hands and feet.

In the Kurundi, however, it is stated: "If it is far away and the road is a great wilderness, it is permissible to give the going forth thinking, 'I will go and ask.'" If, however, the parents have many sons, and they say thus, "Venerable Sir, whichever of these children you wish, you may give him the going forth," having investigated the children, whichever one he wishes, that one should be given the going forth. Even if he is permitted by the entire family or village, "Venerable Sir, whichever one you wish in this family or village, you may give him the going forth," whichever one he wishes, that one should be given the going forth.

144. Thus (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 34), if free from the fault of ordination and permitted by parents, and if the one who is ordaining sees that the hair has not been cut, and there are other monks within the boundary, he should ask permission for the hair-cutting. Herein, this is the procedure for asking permission (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 98): Having assembled the monks within the boundary, bringing the candidate for ordination there, one should say, "Bhante, I ask the Sangha for permission for the hair-cutting of this boy," three times, or twice, or once. Here, it is allowable to say, "I ask permission for the hair-cutting of this boy," or "I ask permission for the making of this samaṇa," or "This one wishes to become a samaṇa," or "This one wishes to be ordained." If it is a place with a sufficient number of monks, if it is known that ten, twenty, or thirty monks reside there, having gone to their standing place or sitting place, permission should be asked in the same manner as before. Even without the candidate for ordination, by sending young monks or novices, it is allowable to ask permission in the manner beginning, "Bhante, there is a candidate for ordination, we ask permission for his hair-cutting." If some monks, having entered a lodging or thicket, etc., are sleeping or doing samaṇa practice, and those asking permission, even searching, do not see them, and are of the conviction that "we have asked permission from all," ordination is considered a light matter, therefore the ordained is well-ordained, and there is no offense for the ordainer.

But if the monastery is large, a residence of thousands of monks, it is difficult to assemble all the monks, let alone ask permission in order, then he should ordain him standing at a boundary marker or having gone to a river, the sea, or similar. But one who has a newly shaven head, or is deranged, or is one of the nigaṇṭhas, etc., or has two-finger-lengths of hair, or less than two-finger-lengths of hair, there is no need for the act of hair-cutting, therefore it is allowable to ordain such a one without asking permission for hair-cutting. But one who has more than two-finger-lengths of hair, even one who has at least a single tuft of hair, should be ordained only after asking permission for hair-cutting.

145. And having thus asked permission, the one ordaining should ordain only with a complete bowl and robes. If he does not have them, it is allowable to ordain with a borrowed bowl and robes, it is allowable to ordain having confidently taken them in a place with a sufficient number of monks. But if (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 118) he has come bringing an unbaked bowl and cloths suitable for robes, as long as the bowl is baking and the robes are being made, it is allowable to give him unbesmirched alms food while he resides in the monastery, it is allowable to eat in dishes. Before the meal, it is allowable to give a portion of non-vegetarian food equal to the portion of a novice, but entitlement to lodging, ticket food, designated food, invitation, etc., are not allowable. After the meal also, a portion of medicines such as oil, rice, honey, molasses, etc., equal to the portion of a novice, is allowable. If he is sick, it is allowable to make medicine for him, all the acts of attendance as for a novice. But it is not allowable to confer the higher ordination with a borrowed bowl and robes for one seeking higher ordination. It was said, "Monks, one should not confer the higher ordination with a borrowed bowl and robes; whoever should confer it, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (Mahāva. 118). Therefore, he should be conferred the higher ordination only with a complete bowl and robes. If he does not have them, and the preceptor and teacher wish to give them to him, or other monks, having given away their bowl and robes without expectation, a bowl and robes suitable for dedication should be given. But there is an offense only for the one who confers the higher ordination with a borrowed bowl or robes, but the act does not become invalid.

146. When ordaining with a complete bowl and robes (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 34), if there is an opportunity, he should ordain himself. If he is busy with recitation, questioning, etc., and does not get an opportunity, a young monk should be told, "Ordain this one." Even if a young monk, without being told, ordains intending it for the preceptor, it is allowable. If there is no young monk, even a novice should be told, "Having taken this one to the boundary marker, ordain him, cover him with the brown robes, and come." But the refuges should be given by oneself. Thus, he is ordained by a monk. For a man cannot be ordained by anyone other than a monk, a woman by anyone other than a nun; but a novice or female novice can, on command, give the brown robes, the cutting of the hair, done by anyone, is well done.

But if he is of good appearance, known to be a son from a family with possessions and reputation, having made an opportunity, he should ordain him himself, and should not dismiss him saying, "Having taken a handful of clay, bathe and come." For those wishing to be ordained have a strong enthusiasm at first, but afterwards, seeing the brown robes and the razor for cutting the hair, they are frightened, they flee right there; therefore, having taken him to the bathing place himself, if he is not too young, he should be told, "Bathe"; but his hair should be washed by himself having taken clay. But a young boy should be made to enter the water himself and bathe rubbing with cow dung and clay. If he has scabies or sores, just as a mother does not loathe her son, so too, without loathing, he should be made to bathe thoroughly rubbing him from the hands and feet and from the head. Why? For by such assistance, sons from good families have strong affection and intense respect for preceptors and teachers and for the Teaching, become of irreversible nature, having dispelled arisen discontent, they attain the state of an elder, they are grateful and know what has been done for them.

But during the time of bathing or during the time of shaving the hair and beard, he should not be told, "You are known and of good reputation, now we will not be troubled by relying on you for requisites," nor should other conversations leading to disappointment be spoken, but rather he should be told, "Friend, pay close attention, establish mindfulness," and the five-fold skin meditation subject should be explained to him. And explaining, he should explain making evident the state of impurity, loathsomeness, repulsiveness, lifelessness, and soullessness according to color, shape, smell, location, and space. For if he is one whose Saṅkhāra has been previously softened, one whose Bhavana has been cultivated, like a boil that is ripe needing the prick of a thorn, like a lotus that has matured needing the rising of the sun, then as soon as the meditation subject has been begun and brought to mind, knowledge arises like Indra's thunderbolt pulverizing the mountain of defilements on a mountain, he attains Arahantship at the edge of the razor. For whatever Arahants have attained Arahantship at the edge of a razor, all of them having received such instruction, relying on the method given by a good friend, the teacher, not without reliance. Therefore, from the beginning such talk should be spoken to him.

But when the hairs have been shaved off, having smeared the head and body with turmeric powder or scented powder, having removed the householder's scent, the brown robes should be made to be received three times, or twice, or once. Then, without giving them into his hand, the teacher or preceptor covers him himself, it is allowable. If he commands another young monk or novice or lay follower, "Friend, taking these brown robes, cover this one," or he commands him, "Taking these, cover him," all that is allowable, all that is given by that monk. But whatever lower robe or upper robe he puts on or wears without command, that should be removed and given again. For only a brown robe given by a monk with his own hand or by command is allowable, one not given is not allowable. Even if it belongs to him himself, what need to say about one based on the preceptor.

147. But having thus covered him with the given brown robes, having made him arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, having made him pay homage at the feet of the monks who have gathered there, then having made him sit in the squatting position for the sake of taking refuge, having made him hold out his joined palms, he should be told, "Speak thus," he should be told, "Speak what I say." Then the refuges should be given to him by the preceptor or teacher in the manner beginning "I go to the Buddha for refuge," in the order as stated, not in reverse order. For if he gives even one word or one letter in reverse order, or having given "I go to the Buddha for refuge" three times, then gives each of the others three times each, the refuges are not given.

In the Andhaka Commentary: "Having made him pronounce his name, 'I, Bhante, Buddharakkhita, for as long as life lasts, go to the Buddha for refuge' is said," that is not in even one commentary, nor is it said in the Pali, it is merely their preference, therefore it should not be taken. For the refuge is not invalid for one not speaking thus. And by this much, he is established in the state of a novice.

148. But if he is intelligent, of a wise nature, then in that very place the precepts should be recited to him. How? As they were recited by the Blessed One. For it was said:

"I allow, monks, ten precepts for novices, and for novices to train in them. Abstaining from killing living beings, abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from unchastity, abstaining from false speech, abstaining from liquor, wine, and intoxicants which are the basis for negligence, abstaining from untimely meals, abstaining from dancing, singing, music, and seeing unseemly shows, abstaining from wearing garlands, scents, unguents, abstaining from high and luxurious beds, abstaining from receiving gold and silver" (Mahāva. 106).

In the Andhaka Commentary: But "I, Bhante, of such a name, for as long as life lasts, undertake the precept of abstaining from killing living beings," thus, like the giving of refuge, the giving of precepts is also said, that is neither in the Pali nor in the commentaries, therefore they should be recited only according to the Pali. For ordination is accomplished merely by going for refuge, but the precepts should be known only for the sake of fulfilling the precepts, therefore it is allowable to explain the meaning in any language whatsoever for one who is unable to learn them in the way they come in the Pali. As long as he does not know the precepts that he himself should train in, is not skilled in the places for wearing the outer robe, bowl, and robes, in the sitting posture, etc., and in the procedure for drinks, foods, etc., he should not be sent to the dining hall or the place for ticket distribution or other such places, he should be kept nearby, he should be treated like a young child, all that is allowable and unallowable for him should be explained, he should be trained in the preliminary practices regarding wearing the lower and upper robes, etc. By him also:

"I allow, monks, to expel a novice endowed with ten factors. He kills living beings, he takes what is not given, he engages in unchastity, he speaks falsely, he drinks intoxicants, he speaks disparagingly of the Buddha, he speaks disparagingly of the Dhamma, he speaks disparagingly of the Sangha, he is of wrong view, he is a defiler of nuns" (Mahāva. 108) –

Having avoided these ten factors of expulsion as far as possible, one should train well in the ten kinds of morality, fulfilling the preliminary practices.

149.Furthermore, whoever (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 108) commits even one of the ten destructive acts beginning with the taking of life, should be destroyed by the destruction of the liṅga. For among the three kinds of destruction, it is only the destruction of the liṅga that is intended here. And just as there are specific offenses for monks, such as taking life, so it is not the same for novices. For a novice, even having killed an ant or a kipillika, or having broken a maṅgulaṇḍaka, reaches the state of being destroyed. Immediately, his going for refuge, his acceptance by the preceptor, and his taking of a dwelling cease. He does not receive the gains of the Sangha. Only the liṅga remains. If he is full of faults and does not remain restrained in the future, he should be expelled. But if, having suddenly become remorseful, he thinks, "I have done wrong," and wishes to remain restrained again, there is no need for the act of destroying the liṅga. Just as for one newly robed, refuges should be given, and a preceptor should be given. However, the precepts are fulfilled merely by going for refuge. For the going for refuge of novices is similar to the ordination Kammavācā of monks. Therefore, just as monks have the fourfold purification of virtue, so too, by this, he has undertaken the ten precepts. Even so, for the purpose of strengthening and establishing him in future restraint, they should be given again. If the refuges are taken at the first opportunity, he will obtain a dwelling for the rainy season at the second opportunity. If they are taken at the second opportunity, the gain should be given after informing the Sangha. In the case of stealing, even with an object worth a blade of grass; in the case of unchastity, with misconduct in any of the three paths; in the case of lying, if he speaks falsely even with the intention of jesting, he is no longer a samaṇa, he incurs the state of being destroyed. In the case of intoxication, however, a monk incurs a pācittiya even if he unknowingly drinks intoxicants from the beginning of the seed. A novice only incurs a breach of virtue if he knowingly drinks intoxicants, not unknowingly. But if he breaks the other five precepts, he should not be destroyed, but a penalty should be imposed. However, even if the precept is given again, it is valid whether it has been given before or not. But he should definitely be given (the precepts) after afflicting him with a penalty, to establish him in future restraint.

It is stated in the Kurundiya. However, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is stated, "If, when being told this, he abandons that view, he should be made to do a penance after imposing a penalty. If he does not abandon it, but persists in holding it, he should be destroyed by the destruction of the liṅga." That is fitting. For this destruction alone is intended here. The same method applies to one with wrong view. For if one holding either the eternalist or annihilationist view, when being advised by teachers, etc., abandons it, he should be made to do a penance after imposing a penalty. Only if he does not abandon it, should he be destroyed. Although one who violates a bhikkhuni is included here in the term "unchastity," it is permissible to ordain one who has been unchaste, after giving him the refuges, if he desires to remain restrained in the future. To show that one who violates a bhikkhuni does not obtain even ordination if he desires to remain restrained in the future, let alone higher ordination, this separate tenth factor, "one who violates a bhikkhuni," should be understood as having been stated.

150."I allow, monks, imposing a penalty on a novice who possesses five factors: He strives for the disadvantage of the monks, he strives for the harm of the monks, he strives for the non-dwelling of the monks, he insults and reviles the monks, he causes the monks to be divided among themselves" (Mahāva. 107). "According to the statement, these are five factors, and in the training rules, the last five, beginning with eating at the wrong time, are ten objects of penalty. What penalty should be imposed here?" "I allow, monks, to make a barrier where he dwells or where he goes away" (Mahāva. 107). According to the statement, a barrier should be made where he dwells or enters, saying, "Do not enter here" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 107). Both his own enclosure and his lodging with its bowl and seat are stated by this. Therefore, the entire monastery should not be made a barrier, and one incurs a dukkaṭa if he does so, because it is stated, "Monks, the entire monastery should not be made a barrier; whoever should do so, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." And food obtained at the entrance should not be made a barrier, and one incurs a dukkaṭa if he does so, because it is stated, "Monks, food obtained at the entrance should not be made a barrier; whoever should do so, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." Therefore, there is a dukkaṭa in all efforts even when saying, "Do not eat or consume today," or when putting away the bowl and robe, thinking, "I will even prevent food." However, having imposed a penalty on a novice who is misbehaving and difficult to control, it is permissible to say, "You will obtain this if this much has been brought in as a penalty," after showing him rice-gruel or rice or a bowl or a robe. For the Blessed One has stated only a barrier as the penalty. However, it has been stated by the elders who compiled the Dhamma that "the fetching of water, firewood, sand, etc., should also be done in accordance with the offense." Therefore, that too should be done, and that should be done with compassion, thinking "he will desist, he will abstain," not with an evil intention that proceeds in the manner of "he will perish, he will be destroyed." And it is not permissible to make him lie down on hot stones or to make him place stones, bricks, etc., on his head, or to force him into the water, thinking, "I will impose a penalty."

A penalty should not be imposed without asking the preceptor. "Monks, a barrier should not be made without asking the preceptor; whoever should do so, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (Mahāva. 108). Here, however, if that preceptor does not impose a penalty when told three times, "Your novice has committed this offense; impose a penalty on him," it is permissible to do it oneself. Even if the preceptor says from the beginning, "If there are faults in my novices, you may impose a penalty," it is indeed permissible to do so. Just as for novices, so too it is permissible to impose a penalty on those who live with one and those who share the same dwelling. However, the assembly of others should not be enticed; one incurs a dukkaṭa if he entices, because it is stated, "Monks, the assembly of another should not be enticed; whoever should entice, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (Mahāva. 108). Therefore, even if they are novices or fully ordained, having gathered them together for the purpose of personal service, saying, "We will give you a bowl, we will give you a robe," it is not permissible to break up and take hold of those who belong to another assembly, even if they are immoral monks. However, it is permissible to speak of the fault, saying, "Having come to bathe, you have done something like smearing yourself with excrement by living dependent on immorality." If he himself, knowing this, asks for a preceptor or dependence, it is permissible to give it.

Thus ends the Pāḷimuttaka Vinaya Vinicchaya Saṅgaha

The Discourse on the Asceticism Judgement is complete.

23. Discourse on Dependence Judgement

151.Here, with regard to dependence, by whom should this dependence be given, and by whom should it not be given? To whom should it be given, and to whom should it not be given? How is it taken, and how does it cease? By whom should one live in dependence, and by whom should one not live in dependence? Here, first, regarding by whom should it be given, and by whom should it not be given, according to the statement, "I allow, monks, a monk who is competent, capable, and of ten years' standing or more to give higher ordination and to give dependence" (Mahāva. 76, 82), it should be given by one who is competent, capable, and of ten years' standing or more for ordination; it should not be given by another. If he gives it, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is stated, "One who is learning should learn the fourth or fifth nipāta." A reciter of the Jātakas should learn the Jātaka together with its commentary; less than that is not permissible. "The Dhammapada too, together with its contents, should be learned," it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. Making a collection from here and there, about the Mūlapaṇṇāsaka is permissible; it is rejected in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā that "it is not permissible"; in the others, there is no consideration. It is not stated that anything should be learned in the Abhidhamma. But one who is proficient in the Vinaya Piṭaka and the Abhidhamma Piṭaka together with their commentaries, but who does not have a discourse of the kind stated in the Suttanta, is not able to establish an assembly. But one by whom a discourse of the stated measure has been learned from the Suttanta and the Vinaya, this one is a learned person who establishes an assembly. A teacher who is free to go in any direction is able to establish an assembly; this one is intended here as "competent" in this matter.

But one who is able to perform services such as attending to a pupil or a co-resident when he is ill, this one is intended here as "capable". But what was said -

"Monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of virtue, he is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of concentration, he is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of wisdom, he is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of liberation, he is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He himself is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of virtue, nor does he establish another in the unexcelled aggregate of virtue. He himself is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of concentration, nor does he establish another in the unexcelled aggregate of concentration. He himself is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of wisdom, nor does he establish another in the unexcelled aggregate of wisdom. He himself is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of liberation, nor does he establish another in the unexcelled aggregate of liberation. He himself is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation, nor does he establish another in the unexcelled aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He is without faith, he is without shame, he is without fear of wrongdoing, he is lazy, he is of confused mindfulness. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He is deficient in virtue with regard to higher virtue, he is deficient in conduct with regard to higher conduct, he is deficient in view with regard to higher view, he is unlearned, he is unwise. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He is not able to attend to or have attended to a pupil or a co-resident when he is ill, to dispel or have dispelled his discontent, he does not know an offense, he does not know emergence from an offense. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk who possesses five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He is not able to train a pupil or a co-resident in the higher training of conduct, to guide him in the training that is the beginning of the holy life, to train him in the Abhidhamma, to train him in the higher Vinaya, to discern from the Dhamma an arisen wrong view. Monks, a monk who possesses these five qualities should not give higher ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice."

"Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu possessing five qualities should not confer the Going Forth, should not give dependence, should not have a novice attend on him. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a serious offense, and both Pātimokkhas are not well-learned by him in detail, not well-analyzed, not well-recited, not well-determined, according to the Sutta and according to the letter. Monks, a bhikkhu possessing these five qualities should not confer the Going Forth, should not give dependence, should not have a novice attend on him.

"Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu possessing five qualities should not confer the Going Forth, should not give dependence, should not have a novice attend on him. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a serious offense, and he is less than ten years old. Monks, a bhikkhu possessing these five qualities should not confer the Going Forth, should not give dependence, should not have a novice attend on him," etc. (mahāva. 84). Even that—

"I allow, monks, that a bhikkhu who is competent and capable may confer the Going Forth or give dependence to one who is ten years old or more than ten years old" (mahāva. 76, 82)—is stated to show the expansion of the characteristics of a preceptor and teacher, which were only briefly mentioned.

Therein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 84), some are rejected as unsuitable, and some as related to offenses. Thus, in the three sets of five beginning with "not with unexcelled aggregates of virtue" and "not unexcelled himself" and "faithless," the rejection is made due to unsuitability, not due to offenses. For the community of one who, not possessing unexcelled aggregates of virtue, etc., and unable to establish others therein, being endowed with the faults of faithlessness, etc., neglects the assembly, diminishes in virtue, etc., that assembly does not increase in virtue, etc.; therefore, "he should not confer the Going Forth," etc., is stated as unsuitable, not as related to offenses. For the state of being a preceptor or teacher is not permitted by the Blessed One only to a khīṇāsava. If it were permitted only to him, he would not say, "if displeasure should arise in the preceptor," etc. But because the assembly of a khīṇāsava does not diminish in virtue, etc., "a bhikkhu possessing five qualities should confer the Going Forth," etc., is stated.

Defiled in virtue (adhisīle sīlavipanno): one who has committed a Pārājika or Saṅghādisesa offense is called "defiled in virtue." One who has committed the other five groups of offenses is called defiled in conduct (ajjhācāre ācāravipanno). One who, abandoning right view, is endowed with a clinging view is called defiled in view (atidiṭṭhiyā diṭṭhivipanno). Unlearned (appassuto): because he lacks as much learning as is desirable for one who maintains a community. Unwise (duppañño): because he does not know what should be known, such as offenses, etc. In this set of five, the first three terms are stated as unsuitable, the last two as related to offenses.

He does not know an offense (āpattiṃ na jānāti): when it is said, "this was done by me," he does not know, "this offense was committed by this person." He does not know emergence (vuṭṭhānaṃ na jānātī): he does not know, "emergence from an offense occurs thus, either by way of that leading to emergence or that leading to confession." In this set of five, the first two terms are stated as unsuitable, the last three as related to offenses.

In regard to training in proper conduct (ābhisamācārikāya) means he is not capable of instructing in the Khandhaka duties. In regard to the beginning of the holy life (ādibrahmacariyakāyā) means he is not capable of instructing in the Sekkhapaññatti. In regard to the Abhidhamma means he is not capable of instructing in the analysis of name and form. In regard to the Abhivinaya means he is not capable of instructing in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Not capable of instructing (vinetuṃ na paṭibalo) means, in all cases, he is not able to train. To distinguish according to the Dhamma (dhammato vivecetuṃ) means to dismiss according to the Dhamma, according to reason. In this set of five, all terms relate to offenses.

In detail (vitthārena) means together with both Vibhaṅgas. Not well-learned (na svāgatānī) means not well-acquired. Well-analyzed (suvibhattānī) means well-analyzed, free from the faults of confused wording and intermingling of terms. Well-recited (suppavattīnī) means fluent, memorized, and well-determined. According to the Sutta (suttaso) means well-determined according to the Suttas that should be brought forth from the Khandhaka and Parivāra. According to the letter (anubyañjanaso) means well-determined with completeness of letters and words, unbroken, and with letters that are not reversed. By this, the Aṭṭhakathā is indicated, for this determination comes from the Aṭṭhakathā. In this set of five also, all terms relate to offenses. The same method applies to the set of five ending with being less than ten years old. Thus, the first three sets of five, three terms in the fourth, and two terms in the fifth—all four sets of five are stated as unsuitable. Two terms in the fourth set of five, three in the fifth, and all three sets of five—the sixth, seventh, and eighth—are stated as related to offenses.

On the bright side, however, eight sets of five are stated in the opposite way, beginning with "a bhikkhu possessing five qualities should confer the Going Forth, should give dependence, should have a novice attend on him. He is endowed with unexcelled aggregates of virtue," etc. (mahāva. 84). Therein, there is no offense in all cases.

152. To whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given? Here, it should be given to one who is conscientious. It should not be given to one who is shameless, because it is said, "dependence should not be given to the shameless, monks; whoever should give it, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 120). Even while dwelling in dependence, a shameless one should not dwell in dependence, for it was said, "the shameless should not dwell in dependence, monks; whoever should dwell, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 120). Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 120), to the shameless (alajjīna) is a sāmīvacana in the sense of usage, it means the shameless person should not dwell in dependence. Therefore, one who has gone to a new place, even when being told, "come, bhikkhu, take dependence," should investigate the conscientious nature of the one giving dependence for four or five days before taking dependence. For it was said, "I allow, monks, to wait for four or five days until I know if the bhikkhu is communal" (mahāva. 120). If he wants to take it on the very day he arrives after hearing from the bhikkhus that "the elder is conscientious," but the elder, after investigating his conduct for a few days, says, "wait a while, you will know while dwelling," then it is allowable. But for one who has naturally gone to a place for taking dependence, it should be taken that very day; there is no postponement even for one day. If the teacher does not have an opportunity in the first watch of the night, and without getting an opportunity, he sleeps thinking, "I will take it at dawn," and does not even know when dawn has broken, there is no offense. But if he sleeps without intending to take it, there is a dukkata at the rising of the dawn. One who has gone to a place never visited before and wants to go after dwelling for two or three days should dwell without dependence. But one who intends, "I will dwell for a week," should take dependence. If the elder says, "what is the use of dependence for one who will dwell for a week?" he has obtained permission from the time he is refused.

However, because of the saying, "I allow, monks, a bhikkhu who is traveling on a long journey, not finding dependence, to dwell without dependence," if one traveling on a long journey does not find a giver of dependence who is also traveling on a long journey with him, then, not finding dependence, he may dwell without dependence for many days. If he enters some dwelling where he has previously taken dependence and dwelt, he should take dependence even when dwelling for one night. There is no offense while resting on the road or seeking a company while dwelling for a few days. But during the rains, one should dwell in fixed residence and take dependence. However, for one traveling by boat, there is no offense even if the rains come and he does not find dependence. If he becomes ill on the road, it is allowable to dwell without dependence if he does not find dependence.

A nurse of the sick, when requested by the sick one, is also allowed to dwell without dependence. For it was said, "I allow, monks, a sick bhikkhu who does not find dependence to dwell without dependence. I allow, monks, a nurse of the sick bhikkhu who does not find dependence to dwell without dependence when requested" (mahāva. 121). But if the sick one, even when being told, "ask me," does not ask out of pride, he must leave.

However, because of the saying, "I allow, monks, an araññika bhikkhu, considering a comfortable dwelling, not finding dependence, to dwell without dependence, thinking, 'when a suitable giver of dependence comes, then I will dwell in dependence on him'," one who, while dwelling somewhere, has comfort in terms of gaining samatha and vipassanā, should dwell without dependence if he does not find dependence considering such a comfortable dwelling. But this permission is not obtained by a sotāpanna, a sakadāgāmi, an anāgāmi, or an arahant, nor by one who has attained stable samādhi or vipassanā; there is no question for a foolish worldling who has abandoned his meditation subject. But one whose samatha or vipassanā is fresh obtains this permission, and invitation and acceptance are also allowed for him. Therefore, even if this person has departed after inviting the teacher, he is allowed to dwell without dependence until the Āsāḷhī full moon, intending, "when a suitable giver of dependence comes, I will dwell in dependence on him." If the teacher does not come in the month of Āsāḷhī, he should go where dependence is available.

153. How is it taken? Here, when taking a preceptor, one should drape the upper robe over one shoulder, salute at the feet, sit in the squatting position, hold the añjali, and say three times, "Bhante, be my preceptor." When the saddhivihārika has said this, if the preceptor indicates approval with his body, speech, or both body and speech, by saying "sāhu," "lahu," "opāyika," "patirūpa," or "bring it about with reverence," the preceptor is taken. This is the taking of a preceptor here, namely, the preceptor's declaration of any one of these five phrases by speech or the indication of the meaning by body. Some, however, say it refers to acceptance with "sādhu," but that is not authoritative. For the preceptor is taken merely by requesting and giving, acceptance is not a factor here. The saddhivihārika should not only know "the preceptor is taken by me with this phrase," but should also know, "from today, the elder is my burden, and I am the elder's burden" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 64). For it was said—

"A preceptor, monks, should establish in the saddhivihārika a mind like that of a son, and the saddhivihārika should establish in the preceptor a mind like that of a father. Thus, living together with mutual respect, consideration, and communal conduct, they will attain growth, increase, and abundance in this Dhamma-Vinaya" (mahāva. 65).

The same ruling applies to taking dependence from a teacher. Here, however, is the difference: when taking dependence from a teacher, one should sit in the squatting position and say three times, "Bhante, be my teacher; I will dwell in dependence on the venerable one" (mahāva. 77); the rest is as stated above.

154. How is it relinquished? Here, the relinquishment of dependence should be understood as being of five kinds from a preceptor and six kinds from a teacher. For it was said—

"There are these five kinds of relinquishment of dependence from a preceptor, monks. The preceptor has departed, or has become deranged, or has died, or has gone over to another community, or by command is the fifth. These, monks, are the five kinds of relinquishment of dependence from a preceptor.

There are these six kinds of relinquishment of dependence from a teacher, monks. The teacher has departed, or has become deranged, or has died, or has gone over to another community, or by command is the fifth, or he has come to an understanding with a preceptor. These, monks, are the six kinds of relinquishment of dependence from a teacher" (mahāva. 83).

Pakkanto means gone to another direction. Moreover, if there is a nissaya-giver in that monastery to whom one has previously received nissaya, or who shares common meals and usage, one should take nissaya from him; there is no allowance even for a single day. If there is no such person, but there is another modest and amiable monk, knowing his amiability, nissaya should be requested from him on that very day. If he gives it, that is good. But if he asks, "Will your upajjhaya be returning soon?", and if the upajjhaya has said so, one should say, "Yes, venerable sir." If he says, "Then wait for the return of your upajjhaya," that is permissible. But if one does not know his inherent amiability, after observing the conduct of that monk for four or five days, having made an opportunity, nissaya should be taken. If there is no nissaya-giver in the monastery, and the upajjhaya has gone saying, "I will return in a few days, do not be anxious," allowance is granted until his return. Or even if the people there keep him for longer than the appointed time, for five or ten days, a message should be sent to the monastery, "Let the young ones not be anxious, I will return on such and such a day;" in this way also allowance is granted. But if, on the way back, he is troubled by a flood or by thieves, etc., and the elder sends a messenger or seeks companions, if the young ones hear this news, allowance is granted until his return. But if he sends word, "I will stay here," there is no allowance. One should go where nissaya is available. But if he has become deranged, has died, or has joined another community, there is no allowance even for a single day; one should go where nissaya is available.

Āṇatti means renouncing dependence (nissaya). Therefore, one who has been dismissed from nissaya by the statement "I renounce you," or "Do not come here again," or "Take away your bowl and robes," or "I am not to be attended by you," either by this Pali wording or by other wording such as "Do not ask me about entering the village," should ask forgiveness from the upajjhaya. If he does not forgive from the beginning, one should bring the daṇḍakamma and ask forgiveness three times by oneself. If he does not forgive, a senior thera should be brought into that monastery, and forgiveness should be asked. If he does not forgive, monks from a neighboring monastery should be brought, and forgiveness should be asked. If even then he does not forgive, one should live near those who share the same sabhāga as the upajjhaya, thinking, "Perhaps he might forgive, knowing that I am living near those who share his sabhāga." If even then he does not forgive, one should live there itself. If it is not possible to live there due to famine or other such faults, it is permissible to come to that very monastery and take nissaya from another. This is the decision in regard to dismissal.

Ācariyo pakkanto vā hotī means here that some ācariya depart with permission, and some without permission, and the same is true of the pupil. Herein, if a pupil asks the ācariya, "Venerable Sir, I wish to go to such and such a place for some reason," and when asked by the ācariya, "When will you go?", he says, "I will leave in the evening or at night or after getting up," and the ācariya agrees, saying "Good," nissaya ceases at that very moment. But if, when it is said, "Venerable Sir, I wish to go to such and such a place," the ācariya says, "Go for alms in such and such a village, and then I will decide," and he agrees, saying "Good," if he then goes, it is well (ended). But if he does not go, nissaya does not cease. Or if, when it is said, "I will go," the ācariya says, "Do not go yet, we will decide after consulting tonight," and after consulting, he goes, it is well (ended). If he does not go, nissaya does not cease. But for one who departs without asking the ācariya, nissaya ceases when the boundary of attendance is crossed; it does not cease for one who returns from within the boundary of attendance. But if the ācariya asks the pupil, "Friend, I will go to such and such a place," and when asked by the pupil, "When?", he says, "In the evening or at night," and the pupil agrees, saying "Good," nissaya ceases at that very moment. If the ācariya says, "I will go for alms tomorrow and then go," and the other agrees, saying "Good," nissaya does not cease for one day; on the next day, it ceases. But if, having said, "I will go for alms in such and such a village and then decide whether I will go or not," he does not go, nissaya does not cease. Or if, when it is said, "I will go," and when asked by the pupil, "Do not go yet, decide after consulting tonight," even after consulting, he does not go, nissaya does not cease. If both the ācariya and the pupil go outside the boundary for some reason, and then, if the ācariya, having the intention to go, goes without asking and returns within two leḍḍupāta distances, nissaya does not cease. If he crosses two leḍḍupāta distances and returns, it ceases. If the ācariya and upajjhaya cross two leḍḍupāta distances and reside in another monastery, nissaya ceases. If the ācariya becomes deranged, dies, or joins another community, it ceases at that very moment.

Regarding dismissal, if the ācariya, wishing to release (the pupil), dismisses him from dependence (nissaya), and the pupil, though the ācariya dismisses him, is affectionate, thinking, "Though the ācariya dismisses me, he is kind at heart," nissaya does not cease. Even if the ācariya is affectionate, but the pupil is unaffectionate, rejecting the obligation, thinking, "I will no longer live in dependence on him," even then it does not cease. But if both are affectionate, it certainly does not cease; it ceases when both reject the obligation. One who has been dismissed should bring the daṇḍakamma and ask forgiveness three times. If he does not forgive, one should act in the manner stated for the upajjhaya. For an ācariya who dismisses a pupil or co-resident who is fulfilling the duties prescribed and possesses the five qualities such as excessive affection, there is a duukkaṭa offense; for one who does not dismiss the other, there is also a duukkaṭa offense. For it was said:

"Monks, one who is behaving properly should not be dismissed; whoever dismisses (such a one), there is an offense of wrong-doing. And, monks, one who is not behaving properly should be dismissed; whoever does not dismiss (such a one), there is an offense of wrong-doing (mahāva. 80).

"Monks, an ācariya who does not dismiss a pupil possessing five qualities is blameworthy; one who dismisses (such a one) is not blameworthy. There is not excessive affection, not excessive confidence, not excessive shame, not excessive respect, not excessive cultivation in the ācariya. Monks, an ācariya who does not dismiss a pupil possessing these five qualities is blameworthy; one who dismisses (such a one) is not blameworthy (mahāva. 81).

"Monks, an upajjhaya who does not dismiss a co-resident possessing five qualities is blameworthy; one who dismisses (such a one) is not blameworthy. There is not excessive affection, not excessive confidence, not excessive shame, not excessive respect, not excessive cultivation in the upajjhaya. Monks, an upajjhaya who does not dismiss a co-resident possessing these five qualities is blameworthy; one who dismisses (such a one) is not blameworthy," etc. (mahāva. 68).

nādhimattaṃ pemaṃ hotī means there is no excessive affection based on household life for the upajjhaya. Nādhimattā bhāvanā hotī means there is no excessive development of mettā, loving-kindness.

Upajjhāyena vā samodhānagato Herein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 83), association should be understood in terms of seeing or hearing. If a co-resident living in dependence on an ācariya sees the upajjhaya worshipping at a cetiya in the same monastery or going for alms in the same village, nissaya ceases. If the upajjhaya sees (him) but the co-resident does not see (him), it does not cease. If one sees the upajjhaya on the road or going through the air and, being far away, recognizes (him) as "a monk" but does not recognize (him) as "the upajjhaya," it does not cease. If one recognizes (him), it ceases. The upajjhaya lives on the upper floor and the co-resident lives on the lower floor, and without seeing him, one drinks rice-gruel and departs, or without seeing him seated in the assembly hall, one eats alone in a secluded place and departs, or even without seeing him seated in the dhamma-hearing pavilion, one hears the dhamma and departs, nissaya does not cease. Thus, association should be understood in terms of seeing. Regarding association in terms of hearing, if one hears the sound of the upajjhaya speaking the dhamma or expressing approval in the monastery or in the inner chamber and recognizes it as "the sound of my upajjhaya," nissaya ceases; if one does not recognize it, it does not cease. This is the decision regarding association.

155. With whom should one live in dependence (nissaya), and with whom should one not live in dependence? Herein, because of the statement, "I allow, monks, a monk who is capable and discerning to live in dependence for five years; an undiscerning one, for life" (mahāva. 103), one who is undiscerning should live in dependence for life. If he does not find an elder ācariya, even if he is sixty or seventy years old in seniority of ordination, he should sit in the squatting position before even a younger discerning one, raise his joined hands, and say three times, "May the venerable one be my ācariya; I will live in dependence on the venerable one," and certainly take nissaya. One who is asking for permission to enter a village should also sit in the squatting position, raise his joined hands, and say, "I ask permission to enter the village, ācariya." This method applies to all permissions.

One kathāmagga similar to Andhakavinda(a. ni. 5.114) Mahārāhulovāda(ma. ni. 2.113 ādayo)Ambaṭṭha(daī. ni. 1.254 ādayo), three anumodana for the purpose of anumodana at saṅghabhatta, auspicious and inauspicious occasions, the distinction between actions and non-actions for the purpose of knowing the uposatha and pavāraṇā, and one kammaṭṭhāna ending in arahatta through either serenity or insight meditation for the purpose of practicing the monastic duties, so much should be learned. With this much, he becomes learned, capable in all directions, and is able to live independently wherever he may be. But what was said –

"Monks, a monk possessing five qualities should not live without dependence. He is not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of virtue, not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of concentration... not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of wisdom... not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of liberation... not endowed with the unexcelled aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation. Monks, a monk possessing these five qualities should not live without dependence.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk possessing five qualities should not live without dependence. He is faithless, shameless, reckless, lazy, and forgetful. Monks, a monk possessing these five qualities should not live without dependence.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk possessing five qualities should not live without dependence. He is corrupt in virtue in regard to higher virtue, corrupt in conduct in regard to habits, corrupt in view in regard to wrong views, unlearned, and unwise. Monks, a monk possessing these five qualities should not live without dependence.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk possessing five qualities should not live without dependence. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a serious offense, and both pātimokkhas are not well-learned by him, not well-analyzed, not well-recited, not well-decided, according to the letter and according to the interpretation. Monks, a monk possessing these five qualities should not live without dependence.

"Furthermore, monks, a monk possessing five qualities should not live without dependence. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a serious offense, and is less than five years since ordination. Monks, a monk possessing these five qualities should not live without dependence" (mahāva. 103). Here also, it should be seen that the rejection is made due to unsuitability and due to the nature of the offense, as in the previous method.

Permission should not be given to foolish, undiscerning pupils and co-residents who are going to another direction. If they give (permission), the ācariyas and upajjhayas commit a duukkaṭa offense. And if they go without permission, they also commit a duukkaṭa offense. For it was said –

"Here, monks, many monks are foolish, unskilled, and intend to travel. They, monks, should ask the preceptor and teacher, 'Where will you go? With whom will you go?' If, monks, those foolish, unskilled ones point out other foolish, unskilled individuals, they should not be permitted by the preceptor and teacher. If they permit, there is an offense of dukkata. If, monks, those foolish, unskilled ones go without being permitted by the preceptor and teacher, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 163).

Thus ends the Nissayavinicchaya in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha

The Discourse on Determining Dependence is complete.

24. Sīmāvinicchayakathā

156. Sīmā: Here, (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) sīmā is of two kinds: a baddhasīmā (bound boundary) and an abaddhasīmā (unbound boundary). Of these, a sīmā that has overcome the eleven faulty boundaries, is endowed with the three kinds of accomplishment, and is properly agreed upon by connecting one mark to another, is called a baddhasīmā. From the statement that actions performed within boundaries are flawed in these eleven ways: too small, too large, with broken marks, with shadow marks, without marks, agreed upon while standing outside the boundary, agreed upon in a river, agreed upon in the ocean, agreed upon in a natural lake, agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another, agreed upon by encroaching one boundary upon another—these are called faulty boundaries.

Too small means where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Too large means that which exceeds three yojanas even by the tip of a hair when agreed upon. Broken marks means marks not properly joined. It is proper to mark a mark in the eastern direction, then successively in the southern, western, and northern directions, and then mark again in the eastern direction to connect with the previously marked spot; thus, it becomes an unbroken mark. But if, having brought it successively, one marks a mark in the northern direction and stops there, it becomes a broken mark. Another broken mark means a boundary agreed upon by making one mark amidst a non-markable tree with heartwood, a stump, a heap of dust, or a heap of sand. Shadow mark means agreeing upon any shadow, such as the shadow of a mountain, as a mark. Without marks means agreeing upon it without marking any marks at all. Agreed upon while standing outside the boundary means agreeing upon it while standing outside the marks after marking the marks. Agreed upon in a river, in the ocean, in a natural lake means agreeing upon it in these rivers, etc. Indeed, even if it is agreed upon thus, it is not valid, according to the statement, "All rivers, monks, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries" (mahāva. 147). Agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another (mahāva. aṭṭha. 148) means agreeing upon it by overlapping one's own boundary with another's. If, for instance, in an old monastery, there are two trees in the eastern direction, a mango and a jambu, with their branches intertwined, and on the western side of the mango is the jambu, and the monastery boundary is bound by including the jambu and marking the mango, then later, when a monastery is built in the eastern direction of that monastery, the monks, when binding the boundary, include the mango and mark the jambu, the boundary overlaps with another boundary. Therefore, if the boundary of the first-made monastery is invalid, the vicinity of the boundary should be set aside. If it is valid, a boundary interval of one hand-span should be set aside at the western edge. In the Kurundi, it is said, "Even a vidatthi (four-finger breadth) is acceptable," and in the Mahāpaccari, it is said, "Even four aṅgulas are acceptable." Even one tree can be a mark for two boundaries. But as it grows, it causes confusion of boundaries; therefore, it should not be done. Agreed upon by encroaching one boundary upon another means agreeing upon it by encroaching one's own boundary upon another's. If they define their boundary by including entirely or partially the established boundary of others, it is called encroaching one boundary upon another. However, it is permissible for monks to define their boundary even by encroaching upon the boundary of nuns. The same principle applies to nuns in the boundary of monks. For they are not quorum-completers for each other's actions, nor do they make the kammavāca separately. Thus, having overcome these eleven faulty boundaries, the boundary should be defined.

157. Endowed with the three kinds of accomplishment means endowed with the accomplishment of marks, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the kammavācā. Of these, endowed with the accomplishment of marks means, having properly marked the markable things that are available in each direction among the eight marks mentioned, such as a mountain mark, a stone mark, a forest mark, a tree mark, a path mark, an anthill mark, a river mark, a water mark, in the manner, "What is the mark in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the mark," etc.

In the Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā, however, it is said that "the mark should be marked by one who binds the boundary circle three times."

158. Now, the markable things, such as mountains, etc., should be understood: mountain is of three kinds—a pure earth mountain, a pure stone mountain, and one mixed with both. All three kinds are acceptable, but a heap of sand is not acceptable. And any of the others smaller than the size of an elephant is not acceptable, but from the size of an elephant onward, even up to the size of Mount Sineru, is acceptable. If there are four mountains in the four directions or three mountains in three directions, it is acceptable to define the boundary with four or three mountain marks, but it is not acceptable to define it with two marks or one mark. The same principle applies to stone marks and the other marks mentioned after this. Therefore, one who makes a mountain mark should be asked, "Is it continuous or not continuous?" If it is continuous, it should not be used. For even if one marks in four or eight directions, it is considered that only one mark has been marked. Therefore, that mountain which, being in the shape of a wheel, stands encircling even the monastery, having marked it in one direction, one should make it external in the other directions and mark other marks inside. If they wish to make a third or half of the mountain inside the boundary, without marking the mountain, one should mark another mark—such as a tree or an anthill—growing on that very mountain beyond the area they wish to make inside. If they wish to make the entire mountain, measuring one or two yojanas, inside, one should mark marks—such as trees or anthills—growing on the ground beyond the mountain.

In the stone mark, even an iron ball is counted as a stone; therefore, any kind of stone is acceptable. But regarding size, one the size of an elephant has gone into the count of a mountain; therefore, that is not acceptable, but one the size of a large bull or a large buffalo is acceptable. By the lower limit, one measuring thirty-two palas of ball-mass is acceptable; anything smaller than that, even a large brick, is not acceptable, nor is a heap of non-markable stones. A heap of sand or gravel is already out of the question. A flat stone level with the ground, like a threshing floor, or a stone that rises from the ground like a stump—even that is acceptable if it is of the proper size. Even a very large flat stone is still counted as a stone; therefore, if they wish to make one part of a large flat stone inside the boundary, without marking it, another stone should be marked on top of it. If they build a monastery on top of a flat stone and the flat stone goes through the middle of the monastery, such a flat stone is not acceptable. For if they mark it, the monastery will be on top of the mark, and the mark will be outside the boundary, and the monastery will also fall outside the boundary. A flat stone standing encircling the monastery should be marked in one place but not in another.

In the forest mark, a grass forest or a tree forest of trees with heartless wood, such as palm or coconut trees, is not acceptable, but a forest of trees with heartwood, such as teak or sal trees, or a mixture of trees with and without heartwood, is acceptable; and that, by the lower limit, even four or five trees is acceptable, anything less than that is not acceptable, but anything more, even a hundred yojanas, is acceptable. If they build a monastery in the middle of a forest, the forest should not be marked. Even if they wish to make one part inside the boundary, without marking the forest, they should mark trees, stones, etc., there. A forest standing encircling the monastery should be marked in one place but not in another.

In the tree mark, a tree with heartless wood, such as a palm or coconut tree, is not acceptable, but a living tree with heartwood, even as small as eight aṅgulas in girth at the base, about the size of a needle shaft, is acceptable. Anything less than that is not acceptable, but anything more, even a well-established nigrodha tree measuring twelve yojanas, is acceptable. A seed planted and grown among bamboo, reeds, or sarā grass, even if it is of the proper size, is not acceptable; but having removed that, even if one plants that stump in the ground and makes a surrounding enclosure and pours water, it is acceptable to mark it. The emergence of new roots and branches is not a valid reason; however, this is reasonable if it is planted after cutting the trunk. And the one who marks it can say "tree," or "teak tree," or "sal tree." However, a well-established nigrodha-like tree that is continuous, having marked it in one place, it is not acceptable to mark it in another.

In the path mark, forest fields, rivers, ponds, paths, etc., are not acceptable, but a walking path or a cart path is acceptable. That which, penetrating, goes between two or three villages, or that which deviates from the walking path or cart path and then descends onto the cart path again, or those walking paths and cart paths that are winding are not acceptable; only those that are frequented by pedestrian caravans and cart caravans are acceptable. If two paths emerge and later become one like a cart axle, having marked it once at the place where they diverge or at the place where they connect, it should not be marked again. This is a continuous mark. If four paths, encircling the monastery, go in the four directions, having marked one in the middle, it is not acceptable to mark another. This is a continuous mark. However, it is acceptable to mark the part beyond where it penetrates the corner. However, a path that penetrates through the middle of the monastery should not be marked; if it is marked, the monastery will be on top of the mark. If they make the outermost wheel track of a cart path the mark, the path will be outside the boundary; if they make the outer wheel track the mark, the outer wheel track will be outside the boundary, and the remainder will fall inside the boundary. One marking a path can mark it by any of the ten names, such as "maggo, pantho, patho, pajjo," etc. A path that encircles the monastery in the shape of a moat, having marked it in one place, it is not acceptable to mark it in another.

In the anthill mark, by the lower limit, an anthill that has arisen that day, eight aṅgulas high, the size of a cow's horn, is acceptable; anything less than that is not acceptable. Anything more, even one like the Himalayas, is acceptable, but one standing encircling the monastery, being continuous, having marked it in one place, it is not acceptable to mark it in another.

Regarding River Boundaries: In the time of righteous kings, if the rains cease for half a month, ten days, or five days, and the river's flow stops when the clouds have dissipated even slightly, it is not considered a river boundary. However, if during a time of good rainfall, the flow does not cease throughout the four months of the rainy season, and if a bhikkhuni, coming to the designated spot whether fordable or not, covers herself with the three robes in the manner prescribed, pulls up her antaravāsaka (lower garment), and even one or two finger-widths of the antaravāsaka get wet, this river serves as a boundary marker. For a bhikkhuni, this same river is used for crossing to perform Uposatha and other Sangha acts, and for recognizing the river boundary. But a river that runs around a monastery like a road, in the shape of a cart track or a ditch, should not be designated in one place and then designated again in another. If the river cuts through the four directions of the monastery, the same rule applies to all four segments. However, if the rivers do not mingle, all four can be designated. If someone, like making a fence, obstructs the river's flow by driving stakes into the ground near the trees and using creepers and straw, and the water overflows and continues to flow over the barrier, it can be used as a boundary marker. But if a bridge is built so that the water no longer flows, the river cannot be used as a boundary marker where it does not flow; the river can be a boundary marker where it flows, and the water can be a marker where it does not flow. If a river does not flow during a time of drought or in the hot season due to lack of water, it is valid. If a small stream is diverted from a large river, becoming like a minor river, producing three crops, and flows constantly, even though it flows, it cannot be used as a boundary marker. But if a stream, although initially diverted from a large river, eventually breaks away from the diverted channel on its own and flows independently, and becomes a river filled with crocodiles and other creatures, navigable by boats and the like, it can be used as a boundary marker.

Regarding Water Boundaries: In a waterless place, filling a boat or pots with water to designate a water boundary is not valid; only water naturally present in the ground is valid. This refers to non-flowing water that is still, such as that found in pits, ponds, tanks, natural lakes, or salt marshes; flowing water, such as that in rivers, streams, or irrigation channels, is not valid. In the Andhaka Commentary, it is said, "Water that is scooped up from deep pits should not be used as a boundary marker." This statement is poorly made and is merely a personal opinion. Still water, even a pig's footprint, or a pool used for play by village children—even if a pit is dug in the ground and filled with water carried in baskets, if it remains until the end of the Kammavācā (declaration), whether little or much—is valid. At that place, a pile of stones, sand, dust, or a stone pillar or wooden pillar should be set up to mark the boundary. It is permissible for a bhikkhu to make or have this made, but not within the boundary of a gift. A Sīmā for common dwelling does not cause distress to anyone, but only facilitates the Vinaya acts of the bhikkhus; therefore, it is permissible here.

With these eight boundary markers, whether separate or combined, it is permissible to establish a sīmā. Such a sīmā, once established, is not bound by one or two markers, but is bound by three or more of the markers described, even up to a hundred. It can be in the shape of three converging paths, or with four, it can be square, or in the shape of a converging path, half-moon, mudiṅga drum, etc.; with more than that, it can be in various shapes. When the markers have been designated and approved in the manner described, it should be known as "endowed with the success of the markers."

159.Endowed with the Success of the Assembly means that, in the final analysis, all the bhikkhus dwelling in that village area, within the established sīmā or the natural boundaries of rivers and oceans, without leaving, having gathered with four bhikkhus, either within arm's reach or having brought the chanda (consent), are approved.

160.Endowed with the Success of the Kammavācā means:

"Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha should establish a sīmā with these designated markers for common dwelling and a single Uposatha. This is the announcement (ñatti)."

"Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. The markers have been designated all around. The Sangha is establishing a sīmā with these markers for common dwelling and a single Uposatha. Let any venerable one who approves of the establishment of a sīmā with these markers for common dwelling and a single Uposatha remain silent. Let any who do not approve speak."

"The sīmā has been established by the Sangha with these markers for common dwelling and a single Uposatha. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it." (mahāva. 139)

Thus, it is established by the pure ñattidutiyakammavācā (motion with one formal statement). At the conclusion of the Kammavācā, the sīmā is within the markers, and the markers are outside the sīmā.

161.For a sīmā thus established, an avippavāsasammuti (agreement of non-separation) should be made for the sake of ease in being apart with the three robes and for the firmness of the act. This should be done as follows:

"Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. Regarding the sīmā established by the Sangha for common dwelling and a single Uposatha, if the Sangha is ready, the Sangha should approve that sīmā as not being separated by the three robes, excluding the village and the vicinity of the village. This is the announcement (ñatti)."

"Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. Regarding the sīmā established by the Sangha for common dwelling and a single Uposatha, the Sangha is approving that sīmā as not being separated by the three robes, excluding the village and the vicinity of the village. Let any venerable one who approves of the approval of this sīmā as not being separated by the three robes, excluding the village and the vicinity of the village, remain silent. Let any who do not approve speak."

"The Sangha has approved that sīmā as not being separated by the three robes, excluding the village and the vicinity of the village. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it." (mahāva. 143)

The vicinity of the village means the enclosure of what is enclosed, and the space for enclosure of what is not enclosed. A bhikkhu who has the three robes committed to his care within these villages and their vicinity does not obtain exemption. This sīmā of non-separation does not cover the village and its vicinity, as it is stated, "excluding the village and the vicinity of the village," but the sīmā for common dwelling does cover them. The sīmā for common dwelling naturally extends, while the sīmā for non-separation extends only where the sīmā for common dwelling is. It does not have separate markers designated; if there is a village at the time of the avippavāsa approval, the sīmā does not cover it. If a village is established later within the approved sīmā, it is still considered part of the sīmā. Just as a village established later is considered part of the sīmā, so too is an area later added to a village established earlier. If houses are built at the time of the sīmā approval, and there is an intention to inhabit them, but the people have not yet moved in, or if they have abandoned an ancient village, leaving only the houses, this is not considered a village, and the sīmā covers it. However, if even one family has moved in or is about to move in, it is considered a village, and the sīmā does not cover it. This is the summary of the matter.

162.The detailed explanation (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) is that one wishing to establish a sīmā should inquire from the bhikkhus in the neighboring monasteries about the boundaries of each monastery. For monasteries with established sīmās, the sīmantarika (boundary interval) should be observed; for monasteries without established sīmās, the upacāra (vicinity) should be observed. If they wish to establish a sīmā in one village area during the time when bhikkhus are traveling in various directions, they should send word to the bhikkhus in the monasteries with established sīmās, saying, "We will establish a sīmā today; please do not leave the limits of your sīmā." The bhikkhus in monasteries without established sīmās should be assembled together, and the chanda (consent) of those who are entitled to it should be obtained. Mahāsumatthera said, "If they wish to include other village areas, the bhikkhus residing in those villages should also come, and the chanda of those who do not come should be obtained." But Mahāpadumatthera said, "Different village areas are like separate sīmās that have been established individually; purity of chanda does not extend from there; however, bhikkhus within the boundary markers should come." Then he added, "Coming or not coming is permissible at the time of approving the sīmā for common dwelling, but at the time of approving the sīmā for non-separation, those within the boundary markers should come, and the chanda of those who do not come should be obtained."

When the assembled bhikkhus have obtained the chanda of those who are entitled to it, they should place ārāmikas (monastery attendants) and samaṇuddesas (novices) at various points, such as along roads, at river crossings, village gates, etc., both to quickly guide the visiting bhikkhus and to mark the outer boundary. Then, after making a signal with a drum or a conch shell, the sīmā should be established with the Kammavācā beginning with the statement "Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho" (Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me), as previously described. At the conclusion of the Kammavācā, the sīmā is established, excluding the markers, with the earth serving as its foundation and extending to the water's edge.

163.When establishing this sīmā for common dwelling, a khaṇḍasīmā (provisional sīmā) should be established first to facilitate Sangha acts such as ordination. Those establishing it should know the proper procedure. If they are establishing it in a monastery that has already been built, with all its features such as the Bodhi tree, shrine, and refectory already established, it should be established in a secluded location at the edge of the monastery, not in the center where many gather. If they are establishing it in a monastery that has not yet been built, they should consider the location of all the features such as the Bodhi tree and shrine, and establish it in such a way that it is in a secluded location at the edge of the monastery, among the features that have been established. If the sīmā can accommodate twenty-one bhikkhus within its lower limit, it is valid; less than that is not valid. It is valid even if it can accommodate a thousand bhikkhus or more. When establishing it, stones serving as boundary markers should be placed around the sīmamāḷaka (sīmā enclosure). A mahāsīmā (great sīmā) should not be established while standing within a khaṇḍasīmā, nor should a khaṇḍasīmā be established while standing within a mahāsīmā; a khaṇḍasīmā should only be established while standing within a khaṇḍasīmā.

In the Kurundi, it is said, "Even a sīmā of four aṅgulas (inches) is valid," as stated in the Mahāpaccari. If the monastery is large, two, three, or even more khaṇḍasīmās should be established.

Having thus established the khaṇḍasīmā, at the time of the mahāsīmā approval, they should leave the khaṇḍasīmā, stand within the mahāsīmā, and designate the sīmantarikapāsāṇas (boundary interval stones) all around, moving around it. Then, without letting go of arm's reach, they should approve the sīmā for common dwelling with the Kammavācā, and for the firmness of that act, the Kammavācā for non-separation should also be performed. In this way, those who come saying, "We will abolish the sīmā," will not be able to abolish it. If they designate the markers for the khaṇḍasīmā, then designate the markers for the sīmantarikā, and then designate the markers for the mahāsīmā, thus designating the markers in three places, they can establish whichever sīmā they wish first. Even so, it should be established starting from the khaṇḍasīmā in the manner previously described. Among the sīmās thus established, the bhikkhus standing within the khaṇḍasīmā do not disturb those performing the act in the mahāsīmā, nor do those standing within the mahāsīmā disturb those performing the act in the khaṇḍasīmā; however, those standing within the sīmantarikā do not disturb either. But those standing within the sīmantarikā do disturb those performing the act while standing within the village area, because the sīmantarikā belongs to the village area.

When marking boundary stones, one should not make a line or engrave a mark on the surface of the stone or dig a mortar in the rock as a sign. Boundary markers should be placed upon marked stones, and the signs should be inscribed. At the conclusion of the kammavācā, the boundary descends, having made the earth the container and water the limit. Boundary stones do not remain in place, therefore a line should be established all around, or stones should be pierced at the four corners, and saying, "This is the boundary limit," letters should be carved. Some spiteful people set fire, saying, "We will burn the boundary"; the stones themselves burn, not the boundary.

Even with a hut, without marking the wall, after including a space for twenty-one monks, boundary marker stones should be placed and the boundary should be designated. The inner wall itself becomes the boundary. If there is no space for twenty-one monks inside the inner wall, it should be designated by placing boundary marker stones at the front. If even this is not sufficient, it should be designated by placing markers even at the nibbodaka disposal site. However, when it has been designated in this way, the entire hut is within the boundary.

Even with a cave with four walls, without marking the wall, only stones should be marked. If there is no space inside, boundary markers should be placed in the front as well; thus, the boundary is both inside and outside the cave.

Even with an upper story building, without marking the wall, the boundary should be designated by placing stones inside. If this is not sufficient, it should be designated by placing stones in the front as well. When it has been designated in this way, it applies to the upper story building itself, it does not extend to the ground floor. But if in a building constructed on many pillars, above beams, the wall on the lower floor is such that the markers are inside, and thus it has risen up and stands with a single connection to the beams and trees, it extends to the ground floor as well; but a boundary established on the upper floor of a single-pillar building, if there is space on the top of the pillar for twenty-one monks, it extends to the ground floor. If they secure the boundary by placing stones on projections such as corbels projecting from the building wall, the building wall is inside the boundary. Whether it extends to the ground floor or not should be understood in the manner stated above.

Even when marking on the ground floor of a building, neither the wall nor tree trunks should be marked, but it is permissible to mark stone pillars attached to the wall. A boundary marked in this way is inside the surrounding pillars of the ground floor building. But if the wall of the ground floor building is connected to the upper floor, it ascends to the upper building as well. If they make markers outside the building at the nibbodaka disposal site, the whole building is within the boundary.

On a mountain top, if there is a level area suitable for a space for twenty-one monks, a boundary is established there like on a flat rock, and the boundary extends down to the lower part of the mountain with the same delimitation. Even on a mountain at the foot of a palm tree, a boundary established above extends down below. But one that has the shape of a canopy, where there is space for twenty-one monks above, but not below, a boundary established above does not extend down below. Thus, whether it is shaped like a mudiṅga drum or shaped like a paṇava drum, one in which there is no boundary measure either below or in the middle, a boundary established above does not extend down below. But one that has two peaks standing close together, where even one peak is not sufficient for the boundary measure, the space between the peaks should be built up or filled in and made into one continuous area, and the boundary should be designated above. If there is a mountain resembling a cobra's hood, since there is a boundary measure on top, a boundary is established. If there is an open space beneath it, the boundary does not extend down. But if there is a hollow rock of boundary measure in the middle, it extends down, and that stone itself is within the boundary. Furthermore, if a cave wall below strikes the tip of the peak, it extends down, and both above and below are the boundary. But if below, beyond the limit of the upper boundary, there is a cave inside, the boundary does not extend outside. Furthermore, if below, within the limit of the upper boundary, there is a cave outside, the boundary does not extend inside. Furthermore, if the upper boundary limit is small, and the large cave below stands exceeding the boundary limit, the boundary is only above, it does not extend below. If, however, the cave is small, the entire western boundary limit, and the large boundary above stands covering it, the boundary extends down. But if the cave is very small, it is not of boundary measure, the boundary is only above, it does not extend below. If half of it breaks off and falls, even if it is of boundary measure, what has fallen outside is not a boundary. But if it has not fallen, if it is of boundary measure, it is indeed a boundary.

A boundary that is in fragments is low-lying, if they fill it in and make it high-lying, it is still a boundary. If they build a house in the boundary, it is entirely within the boundary. If they dig a pond in the boundary, it is still a boundary. If a flood overflows the boundary area, it is permissible to perform the kamma after building a retaining wall on the boundary terrace. If there is an underground river below the boundary, a monk with psychic powers sits there. If that river was there first and the boundary was established later, it does not invalidate the kamma. But if the boundary was established first and the river flowed later, it invalidates the kamma; however, one standing on the surface of the ground below invalidates it.

If there is a banyan tree on the boundary terrace, and its branch or offshoot extending from it strikes the ground of the great boundary, or trees and other things originating there, the great boundary should be purified and the kamma performed, or those branches and offshoots should be cut off and placed outside. If the branches, etc., stand without striking, the monks who have climbed up should be brought within arm's reach. In the same way, if a branch or offshoot of a tree growing within the great boundary is established on the boundary terrace in the manner stated above, the boundary should be purified and the kamma performed in the manner stated above, or those branches and offshoots should be cut off and placed outside. If, while a kamma is being performed on the terrace, a monk enters inside the terrace and sits on a branch standing in the air, or his feet are on the ground, or his lower and upper robes touch the ground, it is not permissible to perform the kamma. But it is permissible to perform the kamma after having his feet and lower and upper robes lifted up, and this characteristic should be understood in the earlier method as well. However, this is the difference: there, it is not permissible to perform the kamma after having them lifted up; he must be brought within arm's reach. If a mountain rises up from inside the boundary, a monk standing there should be brought within arm's reach. This same method applies even if he has entered inside the mountain by means of psychic power. For the boundary being established does not extend to a place without measure; whatever has arisen within the established boundary, wherever it has gone with a single connection, goes to the same extent as the boundary.

165.When designating a boundary that is at most three yojanas, the one designating should stand in the middle and designate it so that it is one and a half yojanas in each of the four directions. But if, standing in the middle, they make it three yojanas from each direction, it is six yojanas, and this is not permissible. When designating a square or a triangle, it should be designated so that it is three yojanas from corner to corner. For if, by any limit whatsoever, even the tip of a hair exceeds three yojanas, he incurs an offense, and the boundary is not a boundary.

164.Because of the statement, "Monks, a boundary across a river should not be designated; whoever should designate one incurs an offense of wrong-doing," (Mahāva. 140) a boundary across a river should not be designated. But where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge right at the facing ford, it is permissible to designate a boundary across a river of this kind. For it was said, "I allow, monks, a boundary across a river of this kind to be designated where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge." If there is no permanent boat or permanent bridge at the facing ford, but there is one a little higher up or lower down, this is also permissible. However, the Elder Karavikatissa said, "It is permissible even within the distance of a gāvuta."

When designating this boundary across a river, one should stand on one bank and mark a sign on the riverbank upstream, and beginning from there, encircling oneself, at the limit of however much encirclement one desires, one should mark a sign on the riverbank downstream as well. Then, on the opposite bank, in a place facing it, one should mark a sign on the riverbank. Beginning from there, according to however much encirclement one desires, as far as the sign on the riverbank upstream facing the first marked sign, one should mark up to there and then bring it back and connect it with the first marked sign. Then, having placed the monks within all the signs within arm's reach, the boundary should be designated with the kammavācā. Those standing in the river who have not come do not invalidate the kamma; having placed the river within the signs at the conclusion of the designation, the near bank and the far bank become one boundary, but the river does not go to the same extent as the established boundary. For that is a separate river boundary.

If there is an island in the middle of the river, for one wishing to make it inside the boundary, in the manner stated earlier, one should mark signs on the bank where one is standing, and one should mark a sign on the near side and the far side of the island. Then, on the far bank, in a place facing the sign on the near bank of the river, one should mark a sign, and beginning from there, in the manner stated earlier, as far as the sign upstream facing the first marked sign, one should mark up to there. Then, having marked a sign on the far side and the near side of the island, one should bring it back and connect it with the first marked sign. Then, having placed all the monks on the two banks and on the islands within arm's reach, the boundary should be designated with the kammavācā. Those standing in the river who have not come do not invalidate the kamma; having placed the river within the signs at the conclusion of the designation, the two banks and the island become one boundary, but the river is still just the river boundary.

But if the island is higher or lower, larger than the limit of the monastery boundary, then one should mark a sign on the near side of the island directly facing the sign of the monastery boundary limit, and beginning from there, encircling the top of the island, one should again mark a sign on the near side of the island facing the sign on the far side. After that, in the manner stated earlier, beginning with the facing sign on the far bank, one should mark signs on the far bank and signs on the far side and near side of the island, and the connection of the signs should be made with the first marked sign. A boundary designated after marking in this way is shaped like a mountain. But if the island is higher above and lower below, larger than the monastery boundary limit, in the manner stated earlier, both the peaks of the island should be encircled, and the connection of the signs should be made by one marking the signs. A boundary designated after marking in this way is shaped like a mudiṅga drum. If the island is small, inside the monastery boundary limit, signs should be marked on the island in the very first method. A boundary designated after marking in this way is shaped like a paṇava drum. Thus, the establishment of the boundary should be understood.

165.When is a boundary established in this way not a boundary? When the Saṅgha revokes the boundary, then it is not a boundary. How should it be revoked? "Monks, when designating a boundary, first the boundary of common residence should be designated, then the non-separation with the three robes should be designated. Monks, when revoking a boundary, first the non-separation with the three robes should be revoked, then the boundary of common residence should be revoked," (Mahāva. 145) therefore, first the non-separation should be revoked, then the boundary should be revoked. How? The competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

"Venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me. That non-separation with the three robes which has been agreed upon by the Saṅgha, if it seems right to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should revoke that non-separation with the three robes. This is the motion."

"Venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me. The Saṅgha revokes that non-separation with the three robes which has been agreed upon by the Saṅgha. Whoever approves of the revocation of this non-separation with the three robes, let him be silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak."

"That non-separation with the three robes has been revoked by the Saṅgha. It is approved by the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it." (Mahāva. 145)

Thus, first the non-separation should be revoked.

"Bhante, may the Sangha listen to me. That boundary which has been agreed upon by the Sangha, of common dwelling and one Uposatha; if it is proper for the Sangha, the Sangha should remove that boundary, of common dwelling and one Uposatha. This is the announcement.

"Bhante, may the Sangha listen to me. That boundary which has been agreed upon by the Sangha, of common dwelling and one Uposatha, the Sangha removes that boundary, of common dwelling and one Uposatha. Whichever venerable one approves of the removal of this boundary, of common dwelling and one Uposatha, let him be silent. Whichever one does not approve, let him speak.

"The Sangha has removed that boundary, of common dwelling and one Uposatha. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it in mind" (mahāva. 146) –

In this way, a boundary should be removed.

However, a bhikkhu who is removing it should know the proper conduct. Herein is the proper conduct (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144): Standing within a khaṇḍasīmā, an avippavāsasīmā should not be removed; likewise, standing within an avippavāsasīmā, a khaṇḍasīmā should not be removed either. But standing within a khaṇḍasīmā, only a khaṇḍasīmā should be removed, likewise, standing within the other, the other. A boundary is removed for two reasons: either to make a small one by nature larger for the purpose of expanding the monastery, or to make a large one by nature smaller for the purpose of giving monastery space to others. Therein, if they know both the khaṇḍasīmā and the avippavāsasīmā, they will be able to both remove and establish it. However, those who know the khaṇḍasīmā but do not know the avippavāsasīmā will also be able to both remove and establish it. Those who do not know the khaṇḍasīmā but only know the avippavāsasīmā, standing in places free from obstructions such as the cetiya courtyard, the Bodhi-tree courtyard, or the Uposatha hall, may perhaps be able to remove it, but they will certainly not be able to re-establish it. If they were to establish it, they would create a sīmāsambheda and turn a monastery into a non-monastery; therefore, it should not be removed. Those who do not know either, they will not be able to either remove or establish it. This boundary becomes invalid either by a kammavācā or by the disappearance of the Sāsana, and it is not possible to recite the kammavācā by those who do not know the boundary; therefore, it should not be removed, but only after knowing it well should it be both removed and established. This, so far, is the judgment on an established boundary.

166.Unestablished boundaries, however, are of three kinds: a village boundary (gāmasīmā), a seven-abbhantara boundary (sattabbhantarasīmā), and a water-casting boundary (udakukkhepasīmā). Therein, as far as a single village field extends, this is called a village boundary; by the mention of "village" here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), a city (nagara) and a market town (nigama) are also included. Therein, in as much area as the village headmen (gāmabhojakā) receive tribute, that area, whether it is small or large, goes by the designation of village boundary. The same method applies to city and market town boundaries. Also, if in a single village field, the king, having demarcated a certain area, gives it to someone saying, "Let this be a separate village," that also is indeed a separate village boundary. Therefore, that one and the other natural village, city, and market town boundaries are similar to established boundaries, except that they do not obtain the dispensation of separation from the three robes.

Seven-abbhantara boundary. Therein, agāmaka means forest; it is found in places such as the Vajjhi forest and so on, or in the middle of the ocean, or on islands where fishermen do not go. Samantā sattabbhantarā means that those standing in the middle have fourteen abbhantara in all directions with a clearance of seven abbhantara. Therein, one abbhantara is a measurement of twenty-eight cubits. And this boundary increases according to the size of the assembly (parisā); therefore, the demarcation of the abbhantara should be made all around, starting from the edge of the assembly. But if two Sanghas perform the Uposatha separately, another abbhantara should be placed between the two seven-abbhantara for the purpose of upacāra.

167.That which was said, "All rivers, monks, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries" (mahāva. 147), thus rejecting the state of being a fixed boundary for rivers and so on, and then again, "In a river, monks, or in an ocean, or in a natural lake, as far as a man of moderate strength can cast water all around, this is a common dwelling and one Uposatha therein" (mahāva. 147), this is called a water-casting boundary. Therein, a river is as defined in the river designation, and an ocean is indeed obvious. But that pool (sobbho) which has not been made by anyone digging it, but which is naturally formed (sayaṃjāto), filled with water that has come from all around, where water remains during the rainy season as described for a river, this is called a natural lake (jātassaro). Also, that pool which has been dug by water breaking through a river or an ocean and flowing out, and which obtains this characteristic, this also is indeed a natural lake. In these rivers and so on, the place demarcated all around by the casting of water by a man of strong, moderate strength, this is called a water-casting boundary.

But how should the casting of water be done? Just as skilled gamblers throw a wooden ball, so water or sand should be taken in the hand and thrown with all strength by a man of strong, moderate strength. Where the water or sand thus thrown falls, this is one water-casting, one standing inside of that, forsaking a hand-span, corrupts the act. As long as the assembly grows, so long the boundary grows; the water-casting itself is the measure from the edge of the assembly all around. But this is obtained only inside these rivers and so on, not outside. Therefore, in a river or natural lake, as much area as the water covers during the natural rainy season of four months, and in an ocean, the area where the natural waves recede and settle, from there onwards is suitable ground (kappiyabhūmi); it is proper to perform the Uposatha and other acts standing there. Even if the rivers and natural lakes are dry during a time of drought or in the summer, that same is suitable ground. But if they dig a well or make a pond in a dry natural lake, that place becomes village land. That which has been said to be "suitable ground," the water-casting boundary does not go outside of that, it goes inside; therefore, the demarcation of the water-casting all around should be made from the edge of the assembly inside of those. This is the summary here.

This, however, is the detailed explanation – if the river is not too long, the Sangha sits everywhere from the source to the mouth; there is no need for an act with a water-casting boundary, the entire river suffices for these bhikkhus. That which was said by Mahāsumatthera, "Even in a river flowing for a yojana, it is proper to perform the act half a yojana above, forsaking it, and half a yojana below," that was rejected by Mahāpadumatthera himself. For the Blessed One said, "If a bhikkhuni, crossing over anywhere, covering the three maṇḍala, wets her antaravāsaka" (pāci. 692), this was said to be the measure of a river, not a yojana or half a yojana. Therefore, it is proper to perform Sangha acts from the source of a river that has the characteristics previously mentioned according to this sutta. But if many bhikkhus perform the act separately here, another water-casting should be placed by all for the sake of the boundary interval between the demarcation of their own and others' water-casting; more than that is indeed proper, but less than that is not proper, it was said. The same method applies to natural lakes and oceans.

When going to a river saying, "We will perform the act," if the river is full, completely level, the act should be performed inside the river itself, having put on a bathing cloth. If they are not able, it should be performed standing on a boat. It is not proper to perform it on a moving boat. Why? Because only the extent of the water-casting is the boundary. The boat quickly passes over that; thus, the announcement would be for one boundary, and the anusāvana would be for another. Therefore, the boat should be stopped with an oar, or suspended from a rock, or tied to a tree growing inside the river, and the act should be performed. It is proper to perform it by those standing on a bound raft inside the river or on a tree growing inside the river. But if a branch of the tree or a shoot coming out from it is established outside the river bank, in the monastery boundary or village boundary, the act should be performed after clearing the boundary or cutting off the branch. It is not proper to tie the boat to a branch or shoot of a tree growing outside the river bank that has entered inside the river and to perform the act; by those doing so, the boundary should be cleared, or its state of being established outside should be destroyed by cutting it off. It is indeed not proper to drive a stake on the river bank and tie the boat there. If they are building a bridge in the river, if the bridge and the bridge supports are only inside the river, it is proper to perform the act by those standing on the bridge. But if the bridge or the bridge supports are established on the outer bank, it is not proper to perform the act; it should be performed after clearing the boundary. But if the bridge supports are inside, but the bridge is standing in the air above both banks, it is proper.

If there is a rock or an island inside the river, as much area as the water covers during the natural rainy season of four months in the manner previously mentioned, that goes by the designation of river itself. A place covered by the flood during a time of excessive rain should not be taken into account. That indeed goes by the designation of village boundary. When taking soil out of the river, they make a barrier in the river; if the water goes after covering or piercing through it, it is proper to perform the act everywhere in the place of flow. But if it cuts off the stream by a barrier or by building a wall, the water does not flow; it is not proper to perform the act in a place where it does not flow, and it is not proper to perform it even on the barrier itself. If a certain area of the barrier is covered by water, like the previously mentioned rock or island, it is proper. That indeed goes by the designation of river itself. If they destroy the river and make a pond, with the dam built below, water comes and fills the pond and stands, it is not proper to perform the act here; above, in the place of flow, and below, from the place where the discarded water, having covered the river, flows, it is proper. Even in a dry river in the winter or summer, when the gods do not rain, it is proper, but not with soil taken out of the river. If that, in the course of time, breaks and becomes a river, it is proper. If a certain river, having risen, overflows the village or market town boundary and flows, it is indeed a river; it is proper to perform the act. But if it overflows the monastery boundary, it goes by the designation of monastery boundary itself.

When performing an act in the ocean also, it is not proper to perform it in a place where rising water or a natural wave comes and covers with force. But in the place where natural waves recede and settle, from the edge of the water onwards, that is called the ocean inside; the act should be performed by those standing there. If the force of the waves bothers, it should be performed standing on a boat or a raft. The judgments on those should be understood in the same way as said for a river. In the ocean, there is a flat rock, sometimes the waves come and cover it, sometimes they do not cover it; it is not proper to perform the act there. That indeed goes by the designation of village boundary itself. But if it is covered by natural water even when waves have come and have not come, it is proper. If there is an island or a mountain, if that is far away, on a path where fishermen do not go, it goes by the designation of forest boundary itself. But inside the limit of their going, it goes by the designation of village boundary; it is not proper to perform the act there without clearing the village boundary. If the ocean overflows a village boundary or a market town boundary and stands, it is indeed the ocean; it is proper to perform the act there. But if it overflows the monastery boundary, it goes by the designation of monastery boundary itself.

When performing a jātassara act, if, in the manner previously described, there is no water during the rainy season or when the rains have ceased, to drink or to wash hands and feet, it dries up; this is not a jātassara, it merely counts as village territory, and an act should not be performed there. But where water remains during the rainy season as described above, this indeed is a jātassara. As much area as the water covers during the four months of the rains, it is permissible to perform an act there. If the water is deep, it is also permissible to build a platform and perform the act while standing on it, or on a platform built on a tree within the jātassara. In these matters of raised rocks and islands, the judgment is similar to that given for a river. However, if a sufficient jātassara during a time of normal rainfall dries up or becomes waterless during a time of drought or in the hot or cold seasons, it is permissible to perform a Saṅgha act there. The statement in the Andhaka Commentary that "every jātassara that is dry and without water is simply considered village territory" should not be accepted. If, however, a well or pond, etc., is dug there for water, that place is no longer a jātassara and counts as village boundary. The same principle applies if a plot is made for growing bottle gourds or gourds, etc. But if it is filled in and made level, or if a bank is built on one side and the whole area is made into a large pond, the entire area is no longer a jātassara and counts as village boundary. A salt marsh also counts as a jātassara. It is permissible to perform an act in a place where there is water for four months during the rainy season. This is the judgment concerning an unbound boundary.

Thus ends the chapter on Boundary Judgments in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discourse on the Judgment of Boundaries is complete.

25. Discourse on the Judgment of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā

168.Here, in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, according to the division of days (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), there are three kinds of Uposatha: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sāmaggīuposatha. Among these, in the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons of the cold, hot, and rainy seasons, there are two fourteenths and the rest are fifteenths, thus there are twenty-four Uposathas in one year. This is the natural procedure. When a suitable condition arises, it is permissible to observe Uposatha on another fourteenth as well. For those who have completed the rains in the earlier period, there is the full-moon day of the first Kattika. If they are disturbed by quarrelsome individuals and postpone the Pavāraṇā, then the fourteenth day of the dark half of the month of Kattika or the full-moon day of the later Kattika is also a Pavāraṇā day for those who have completed the rains in the later period, and the full-moon day of the later Kattika is also such a day. This too is the natural procedure. When a suitable condition arises, it is permissible to observe Pavāraṇā on the earlier fourteenth of the two Kattika full-moon days. But when, according to the method that comes in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (Mahāva. 451 ff.), the Saṅgha of bhikkhus is divided and that bhikkhu is expelled, the Saṅgha then restores harmony for the pacification of that matter, then the Uposatha should be observed immediately. Because of the statement "the Pātimokkha should be recited," setting aside the fourteenth and fifteenth, any day whatsoever is called an Uposatha day. For those who have completed the rains, within the month of Kattika, this very day is called the sāmaggīpavāraṇā day. Thus, Uposatha should be observed on these three days. When observing, if it is a fourteenth, one should say, "Today is the fourteenth Uposatha." If it is a sāmaggīuposatha, one should say, "Today is the sāmaggī Uposatha." But on the fifteenth, one should say, "Today is the fifteenth Uposatha," according to the method that comes in the Pāḷi.

169.Uposatha in the Saṅgha (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), Uposatha in a group, Uposatha by an individual—thus, there are also three kinds of Uposatha spoken of according to the basis of action. But according to the manner of performance, there are also three kinds of Uposatha: suttuddeso, pārisuddhiuposatho, and adhiṭṭhānuposatho. Among these, suttuddeso is the recitation of the Pātimokkha in the manner spoken of, beginning with "May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs." Of the other two kinds of Uposatha, pārisuddhiuposatho is twofold, according to declaring purity to others and to each other. Therein, that which is done to others is also twofold, according to doing it to those who have made Pavāraṇā and those who have not. Therein, for those who have made Pavāraṇā at the great Pavāraṇā, whether one has gone or not to the last one or has broken the rains residence, but for those who have made Pavāraṇā during the four-month period, whether one has gone or not or has broken the rains residence, having given agreement in action, one should say three times, "I am pure, venerable sirs; please remember me as pure," and then it should be done. But setting aside the Pavāraṇā day, at another time, when the Pātimokkha has been recited in the residence, if some or all of the assembly has not yet arisen, those others who arrive who are equal or somewhat less in seniority should declare their purity to them in the manner spoken of above.

pārisuddhiuposatho.

adhiṭṭhānuposatho—thus, three kinds of Uposatha should be understood according to the manner of performance. Thus far, nine kinds of Uposatha have been indicated. Among these, when an Uposatha possessing three characteristics—the fifteenth according to the division of days, the Saṅgha Uposatha according to the basis of action, and suttuddeso according to the manner of performance—is proceeding, if one does not observe Uposatha and, on that Uposatha day, goes elsewhere for dwelling, whether to an abode or a non-abode, with a non-bhikkhu or with bhikkhus of different association, except by agreement of the Saṅgha or because of danger, there is a dukkata offense.

170.In a Saṅgha assembled for the purpose of observing Uposatha, one who has gone outside and observed Uposatha should go to the place of assembly and, without giving agreement in action, give his consent. Even one who is sick or preoccupied should give both purity and consent. How? To one bhikkhu, the meaning of "I give consent; get my consent; announce my consent" should be made known by body, speech, or both; thus, consent is given. One who has not observed Uposatha, whether sick or preoccupied, should give purity. How? To one bhikkhu, the meaning of "I give purity; get my purity; announce my purity" should be made known by body, speech, or both; thus, purity is given. But one giving it should also give consent. This was said by the Blessed One: "I allow, bhikkhus, that one giving purity on that Uposatha day may also give consent, as there are duties for the Saṅgha" (Mahāva. 165). Therein, giving purity accomplishes the observing of Uposatha for the Saṅgha and for oneself, but not the remaining duties of the Saṅgha; giving consent accomplishes the observing of Uposatha and the remaining duties for the Saṅgha, but the Uposatha is not observed for oneself; therefore, one giving purity should also give consent. However, it is permissible for one person to bring to many the previously mentioned purity and consent or this consent and purity. But if he sees another bhikkhu on the way and gives the consent and purity of himself and of those whose consent or purity he has taken, it comes only to that person. The rest is called "catenaed purity and consent," and it does not come; therefore, it should be announced by going to the place of assembly oneself. But if one intentionally does not announce it, one incurs a dukkata offense; however, the consent and purity have come as soon as one has come within arm's reach.

171.It is not permissible for a probationer (pārivāsiya) to perform any Saṅgha act by giving consent. Therein (Pāci. aṭṭha. 1167), there are four kinds of probation: probation of the assembly, probation of the night, probation of consent, and probation of intention. Among these, probation of the assembly is when the bhikkhus have assembled for some duty, and then a cloud arises, or an announcement is made, or people come crowding in, and the bhikkhus rise up without dismissing their consent, saying, "We are not in an open space; we will go elsewhere." This is probation of the assembly. Although it is probation of the assembly, it is permissible to perform the act, since the consent has not been dismissed.

probation of the night.

probation of consent and probation of intention. In this probation, it is not permissible to perform the act without bringing the consent and purity.

172.If some bhikkhu is sick and unable to give consent and purity, he should be brought into the midst of the Saṅgha on a bed or seat. If the bhikkhus attending on the sick one think, "If we move the sick one from his place, either his illness will worsen, or he will die," that bhikkhu should not be moved from his place; the Saṅgha should go there and observe Uposatha. If there are many such sick ones, the Saṅgha should stand in order and do it within arm's reach of all. If they are far away and the Saṅgha is unable, the Uposatha should not be observed that day. But the Uposatha should certainly not be observed by a factional Saṅgha; if one does so, there is a dukkata offense.

An Uposatha act factional by unlawfulness (adhammena vaggaṃ) occurs. If, however, even four assemble and perform the purity Uposatha, or three or two recite the Pātimokkha, it is called united by unlawfulness (adhammena samaggaṃ). If, among four people, after bringing the purity of one, three recite the Pātimokkha; or among three people, after bringing the purity of one, two perform the purity Uposatha, it is called factional by lawfulness (dhammena vaggaṃ). But if four living together in one place all assemble and recite the Pātimokkha, three perform the purity Uposatha, two perform the purity Uposatha with each other, it is called united by lawfulness (dhammena samaggaṃ).

173.In Pavāraṇā acts (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 212), however, if in one monastery where five bhikkhus dwell, after bringing the Pavāraṇā of one, four make the group announcement and perform Pavāraṇā; or if among four or three dwelling, after bringing the Pavāraṇā of one, three or two make the Saṅgha announcement and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is a Pavāraṇā act factional by unlawfulness (adhammena vaggaṃ). If, however, all five people assemble together and make the group announcement and perform Pavāraṇā; or if four, three, or two dwelling together assemble and make the Saṅgha announcement and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is a Pavāraṇā act united by unlawfulness (adhammena samaggaṃ). If, among five people, after bringing the Pavāraṇā of one, four make the Saṅgha announcement and perform Pavāraṇā; or among four or three, after bringing the Pavāraṇā of one, three or two make the group announcement and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is a Pavāraṇā act factional by lawfulness (dhammena vaggaṃ). But if all five people assemble together and make the Saṅgha announcement and perform Pavāraṇā; or if four or three assemble together and make the group announcement and perform Pavāraṇā, two perform Pavāraṇā with each other, and one dwelling alone makes the determination Pavāraṇā, all this is called a Pavāraṇā act united by lawfulness (dhammena samaggaṃ).

Here, if it is the fourteenth, one should determine, "Today is my Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth," and if it is the fifteenth, "Today is my Pavāraṇā on the fifteenth." But by one giving Pavāraṇā, this meaning should be made known through body or speech or both body and speech, that "I give Pavāraṇā, take my Pavāraṇā, invite on my behalf." When Pavāraṇā has been given in this way (mahāva. aṭṭha. 213), the one requesting Pavāraṇā should approach the Saṅgha and invite in this way: "The bhikkhu Tissa invites the Saṅgha in regard to what has been seen, heard, or suspected; may the Saṅgha speak to him out of compassion; seeing (a fault), he will make amends. For the second time, venerable sir…pe… for the third time, venerable sir, the bhikkhu Tissa invites the Saṅgha…pe… he will make amends." But if he is older, it should be said, "The venerable Tissa, venerable sir." For in this way, Pavāraṇā has been invited on his behalf. But by one giving Pavāraṇā, consent should also be given; the giving of consent should be understood in the same way as stated below. Here also, the giving of consent is for the purpose of residual acts. Therefore, if while giving Pavāraṇā, he gives consent, then Pavāraṇā having been brought in the way stated and Pavāraṇā having been invited by that bhikkhu and by the Saṅgha, it is indeed well invited. But if he only gives Pavāraṇā, not consent, and when that Pavāraṇā has been announced and Pavāraṇā has been invited by the Saṅgha, then the Pavāraṇā is well invited for all, but another act is corrupted. If he only gives consent, not Pavāraṇā, the Pavāraṇā of the Saṅgha and the residual acts are not corrupted, but Pavāraṇā has not been invited by that bhikkhu, but on the day of Pavāraṇā, even by one who has determined Pavāraṇā outside the boundary and has come (inside the boundary), consent should be given; by that, the act of Pavāraṇā of the Saṅgha is not corrupted.

Here, if five bhikkhus have entered Vassa in the former, and five have entered in the latter, and when Pavāraṇā has been invited by the former ones after establishing the motion, the Pārisuddhi Uposatha should be done by the latter ones in their presence; two motions should not be established at one Uposatha ground. Even if four, three, two, or one have entered in the latter, this is the same method. Then if there are four in the former, and four, three, two, or one in the latter, this is the same method. Then if there are three in the former, and three, two, or one in the latter, this is the same method. And this is the characteristic here.

If, by those who entered Vassa in the former period, those who entered Vassa in the latter period are fewer or equal in number and they complete the quorum for the Saṅgha's Pavāraṇā, the motion should be established according to the Saṅgha's Pavāraṇā. But if there is one in the latter period, and they are four with him, it is not proper to establish the Saṅgha's motion for four to invite Pavāraṇā. But by the motion of the quorum, he completes the quorum; therefore, having established the motion according to the quorum, Pavāraṇā should be invited by the former ones, and the Pārisuddhi Uposatha should be done by the other one in their presence. If there are two in the former period, and two or one in the latter, this is the same method. If there is one in the former period, and one in the latter, Pavāraṇā should be invited by one in the presence of the one, and the Pārisuddhi Uposatha should be done by the one. If by those who entered Vassa in the former period, those who entered Vassa later are more than one, the Pāṭimokkha should be recited first, and then Pavāraṇā should be invited by the fewer ones in their presence.

But in the Kattikā Cātumāsinī Pavāraṇā, if by those who first entered Vassa, when Pavāraṇā has been invited with the Mahāpavāraṇā, those who entered later are more or equal in number, the Pavāraṇā motion should be established and Pavāraṇā should be invited. When Pavāraṇā has been invited by them, the Pārisuddhi Uposatha should be done later by the others. Then if many have invited Pavāraṇā in the Mahāpavāraṇā, and those who entered Vassa later are few or one, after the Pāṭimokkha has been recited, Pavāraṇā should be invited by him in their presence. But should this Pāṭimokkha be recited in its entirety, or even a part of it? Even a part of it is proper to recite. For this was said by the Blessed One –

"These, bhikkhus, are five recitations of the Pāṭimokkha. Having recited the Nidāna, the remainder should be announced by recitation; this is the first recitation of the Pāṭimokkha. Having recited the Nidāna, having recited the four Pārājikas, the remainder should be announced by recitation; this is the second recitation of the Pāṭimokkha. Having recited the Nidāna, having recited the four Pārājikas, having recited the thirteen Saṅghādisesas, the remainder should be announced by recitation; this is the third recitation of the Pāṭimokkha. Having recited the Nidāna, having recited the four Pārājikas, having recited the thirteen Saṅghādisesas, having recited the two Aniyatas, the remainder should be announced by recitation; this is the fourth recitation of the Pāṭimokkha. The fifth is in detail" (māhāva. 150).

having recited the Nidāna, the remainder should be announced by recitation: having recited this Nidāna, that "May the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs…pe… for openness is ease for him," "The Nidāna has been recited, venerable sirs. There I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this matter? For the second time I ask…pe… thus I hold it. The four Pārājika Dhammas have been heard by the venerable sirs…pe… should be learned without arguing," in this way the remainder should be announced by recitation. The remaining four recitations of the Pāṭimokkha should be understood by this method.

174. "I allow, bhikkhus, the recitation of the Pāṭimokkha in brief when there is an interruption. Bhikkhus, the Pāṭimokkha should not be recited in brief when there is no interruption; whoever should recite, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 150). Therefore, without an interruption, the Pāṭimokkha should not be recited in brief. These are the interruptions: interruption by a king, interruption by thieves, interruption by fire, interruption by water, interruption by humans, interruption by non-humans, interruption by wild beasts, interruption by reptiles, interruption by life, interruption by the holy life.

Interruption by a king. Thieves are coming, this is interruption by thieves. A forest fire is coming, or a fire arises in the dwelling, this is interruption by fire. Or a cloud arises, or a flood is coming, this is interruption by water. Many humans are coming, this is interruption by humans. A Yakkha seizes a bhikkhu, this is interruption by non-humans. Tigers and other fierce animals are coming, this is interruption by wild beasts. Snakes and other reptiles bite a bhikkhu, this is interruption by reptiles. A bhikkhu is ill or dies, or enemies seize him wanting to kill him, this is interruption by life. Humans seize one or many bhikkhus wanting to make them fall away from the holy life, this is interruption by the holy life. In such interruptions, the Pāṭimokkha should be recited in brief, or the first recitation should be recited. Or two, three, or four at the beginning. Here, in the second and other recitations, in whichever recitation the interruption occurs before it is completed, that should also be announced by recitation. But in the recitation of the Nidāna, there is nothing called announcing by recitation when it is unfinished.

In the act of Pavāraṇā also, when there is an interruption, it is proper to invite Pavāraṇā with a two-sentence declaration, a one-sentence declaration, or with those of the same Vassa age. Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 234), even by one establishing the motion, it should be said, "If it is proper for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with a two-sentence declaration." In a one-sentence declaration, "May the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with a one-sentence declaration," and in the same Vassa age, "May the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with those of the same Vassa age" should be said. And here, even many of the same Vassa age are able to invite Pavāraṇā together. But when this all-inclusive motion has been established, "May the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs, today is the Pavāraṇā on the fifteenth; if it is proper for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā," it is proper to invite Pavāraṇā with a three-sentence declaration, a two-sentence declaration, and a one-sentence declaration, but it is not proper with those of the same Vassa age. But when it is said, "May the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with a three-sentence declaration," only a three-sentence declaration is proper, nothing else is proper. When it is said, "May the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with a two-sentence declaration," a two-sentence declaration and a three-sentence declaration are proper, but a one-sentence declaration and those of the same Vassa age are not proper. But when it is said, "May the Saṅgha invite Pavāraṇā with a one-sentence declaration," a one-sentence declaration, a two-sentence declaration, and a three-sentence declaration are proper, but only those of the same Vassa age are not proper. When it is said "those of the same Vassa age," everything is proper.

175. But by whom should the Pāṭimokkha be recited? "I allow, bhikkhus, the Pāṭimokkha by one senior in seniority" (mahāva. 154), therefore the Pāṭimokkha should be recited by a Thera, "I allow, bhikkhus, the Pāṭimokkha to be dependent on that bhikkhu who is capable and competent there" (mahāva. 155), therefore by a more junior one. And here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 155), although the Pāṭimokkha is allowed even for a more junior one who is capable, yet here this is the meaning: if the Thera does not remember five, four, or three recitations of the Pāṭimokkha, but has two unbroken, very clear ones that are recited fluently, the Pāṭimokkha is dependent on the Thera. But if he is not able to make even this clear, it is dependent on the capable bhikkhu, therefore he himself should recite it, or another should be requested. "Bhikkhus, the Pāṭimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested; whoever should recite, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 154), therefore the Pāṭimokkha should not be recited by one who has not been requested. Not only the Pāṭimokkha, but the Dhamma also should not be spoken, "Bhikkhus, the Dhamma should not be spoken in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested; whoever should speak, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 150).

And here, the request is dependent on the one authorized by the Saṅgha to request the Dhamma or dependent on the Thera authorized by the Saṅgha, therefore when there is no one who requests the Dhamma, having asked the Saṅgha Thera or having been asked by him, he is allowed to speak. And even by the Saṅgha Thera, if there are many Dhamma speakers in the monastery, he should be addressed in order of rotation. The Dhamma should be spoken by three methods: when he has been told, "Speak the Dhamma, give the gift of the Dhamma." But when he has been told "Recite," he is only allowed to recite; when he has been told "Speak," only to speak; when he has been told "Speak in a sing-song voice," only in a sing-song voice. And the Saṅgha Thera also, sitting on a higher seat, is not allowed to ask. If he is both preceptor and pupil, and the preceptor, sitting on a higher seat, says to him, "Speak," the recitation should be determined and spoken. And if there are junior bhikkhus here, it should be spoken, "I speak to them." If in the monastery the Saṅgha Thera only has those under his authority speak, and does not request other sweet-voiced speakers, he should be told by others, "Venerable sir, let us have so-and-so speak." If he says, "Have them speak," or is silent, it is proper to have them speak. But if he refuses, it should not be had them speak. If, however, the hearing of the Dhamma by the Saṅgha Thera has already begun in the future, there is no need to stop when he comes again and do the duty of asking permission. But by one who recites after stopping it, it should be spoken having asked permission or spoken without stopping it. Even when he comes again while he is speaking, this is the same method.

In a talk that is being listened to also, the Saṅgha Thera himself is the owner, therefore he himself should speak or another bhikkhu should be told, "Speak," but not by one sitting on a higher seat, but it is proper to say "Speak" to humans. Humans ask a bhikkhu whom they know, he should also speak having asked the Thera. If when the Saṅgha Thera has been asked, "Venerable sir, these ones are asking a question," he says "Speak," or is silent, it is proper to speak. In approval and so on inside a house also, this is the same method. If the Saṅgha Thera allows, "Even without asking me, you may speak in the monastery or inside a house," permission has been obtained, it is proper to speak everywhere. Even by one who is reciting, the Thera should indeed be asked. When one is reciting having asked permission and another comes, there is no need to ask permission again. If even when it has been stopped saying, "I will rest," one comes, it should be asked permission again when beginning. For one who is reciting when the Saṅgha Thera has not yet come, this is the same method. When one Saṅgha Thera has allowed, "Even without asking me, recite as you like," it is proper to recite as one likes, but when another has come, it should be recited having asked him.

If in a monastery all the bhikkhus are foolish, inept, and do not know how to recite the Pātimokkha, what should be done there? Those bhikkhus should promptly send one bhikkhu from a neighboring monastery, saying, "Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha in brief or in detail and return." If they can obtain this, that is skillful. If they cannot obtain it, then all those bhikkhus should go every fortnight to a monastery where there are such bhikkhus, for the purpose of holding the Uposatha. If they do not go, there is an offense of dukkata. This is only during the seasons of autumn and spring; during the rainy season, one should not enter the rains without a Pātimokkha reciter for the first half (of the vassā). If he departs, becomes deranged, or dies after they have entered the rains, it is permissible to dwell for the latter half only if there is another (reciter); if there is not, they should go elsewhere. If they do not go, there is an offense of dukkata. But if the reciter for the latter half departs, becomes deranged, or dies, they should dwell (there) for two months.

Where those foolish, inept bhikkhus dwell, if a bhikkhu arrives who is learned, with acquired knowledge, a preserver of the Dhamma, a preserver of the Vinaya, a master of the Mātikā, wise, capable, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, that bhikkhu should be welcomed, supported, pleased, and attended to with powder, clay, tooth sticks, and water for the mouth. If they do not welcome him, support him, please him, and attend to him with powder, clay, tooth sticks, and water for the mouth, there is an offense of dukkata for all. Here, neither the elders nor the younger monks are exempt; all should attend to him in turn. An offense occurs for one who does not attend during his turn. He should not, however, be made to give up things like sweeping the Mahātheras' enclosure or giving tooth sticks. Even in such a case, the Mahātheras should come for attendance in the evening and morning. Knowing of their arrival, he should go to attend to the Mahātheras earlier. If he has attendant bhikkhus who live with him, he should say, "I have attendants; you should dwell without anxiety." If he does not have bhikkhus who live with him, one or two who are accomplished in duties in that same monastery say, "We will do what needs to be done for the Thera; the rest may dwell at ease," there is no offense for anyone.

176. From the statement beginning "If anyone has an offense, he should reveal it" (mahāva. 134), one who has an offense should not perform the Uposatha. Therefore, one who remembers an offense on the day of the Uposatha should declare it. And when declaring it, having approached one bhikkhu, having arranged the upper robe over one shoulder, having knelt down, having raised the joined palms, he should say thus: "I, friend, have committed such-and-such an offense; I confess it." If he is newer (in the training), he should say, "I, venerable sir." When saying "I confess it," even if it is said, "I confess it at your feet, I confess it at your feet," according to one's own appropriate manner, it is well said. The receiver, too, should say, "Do you see, venerable sir, that offense? Do you see, friend, that offense?" according to his own appropriate manner. Then the confessor should say, "Yes, friend, I see; yes, venerable sir, I see." Then the receiver should say, "In the future, venerable sir, you should restrain yourself; in the future, friend, you should restrain yourself." When this is said, the confessor should say, "Good, very good, friend, I will restrain myself; good, very good, venerable sir, I will restrain myself." If he is doubtful about an offense, having approached one bhikkhu, having arranged the upper robe over one shoulder, having knelt down, having raised the joined palms, he should say thus: "I, friend, am doubtful about such-and-such an offense; when I become free from doubt, then I will deal with that offense," and having said this, the Uposatha should be performed, the Pātimokkha should be listened to; but an obstruction to the Uposatha should not be made because of that. "Bhikkhus, a shared offense should not be declared; whoever should declare it, there is an offense of dukkata. Bhikkhus, a shared offense should not be received; whoever should receive it, there is an offense of dukkata" (mahāva. 169). Therefore, when two people incur an offense through a shared basis, such as eating at the wrong time, such an offense with a shared basis of the thing should neither be declared nor received. However, it is permissible for one who has incurred an offense because of eating at the wrong time to declare an offense of the same class to one who has incurred (an offense) because of eating non-surplus food.

If, however, the entire Sangha incurs a minor offense through a shared basis, such as eating at the wrong time, what should be done there? Those bhikkhus should promptly send one bhikkhu from a neighboring monastery, (saying,) "Go, friend, deal with that offense and come back; we will deal with the offense in your presence." If they can obtain this, that is skillful. If they cannot obtain it, the capable bhikkhu should inform the Sangha: "Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me, this entire Sangha has incurred a shared offense; when it sees another bhikkhu who is pure and without offense, then it will deal with that offense in his presence" (mahāva. 171), and having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. If, however, he is doubtful, (he should say,) "Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me, this entire Sangha is doubtful about a shared offense; when it becomes free from doubt, then it will deal with that offense" (mahāva. 171), and having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. If here someone, thinking "It is fitting to declare that shared offense," declares it in the presence of one person, it is indeed well declared. However, due to the declaration, the declarer, and due to the receiving, the receiver, both incur an offense of dukkata; that is of differing basis, therefore it should be declared to one another. To that extent, they are without offense; shared offenses should be declared or announced in the presence of those (who are pure). If they perform the Uposatha without doing so, they incur the dukkata that is prescribed for performing the Uposatha with offenses, according to the method beginning with "May the venerable ones announce purity."

If a bhikkhu remembers an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, that bhikkhu should say thus to a neighboring bhikkhu: "I, friend, have incurred such-and-such an offense; having left here, I will deal with that offense." And the neighboring bhikkhu should be addressed only if he shares the same offense. For if it is said to one who does not share the same offense, there can be quarrels, disputes, and divisions in the Sangha. Therefore, without saying it to him, having made a resolution, "Having left here, I will deal with it," the Uposatha should be performed. If, however, someone is doubtful about an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, he, too, should say thus to a neighboring bhikkhu who shares the same offense: "I, friend, am doubtful about such-and-such an offense; when I become free from doubt, then I will deal with that offense." And having said this, the Uposatha should be performed, the Pātimokkha should be listened to; but an obstruction to the Uposatha should not be made because of that.

177. From the statement beginning "I allow, bhikkhus, the sweeping of the Uposatha hall" (mahāva. 159) –

"A broom, a lamp, and water, and a seat; these are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha." (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168) –

Having done the four kinds of preliminary duties that are mentioned in this way, the Uposatha should be performed. By whom should that be done? From the statement beginning "I allow, bhikkhus, a senior bhikkhu to instruct a new bhikkhu; bhikkhus, one who is instructed by a senior bhikkhu and is not ill should not fail to sweep; whoever should not sweep, there is an offense of dukkata," it should be done by one who is instructed by a senior bhikkhu. And when instructing, one who is doing some work, or is always busy, or one who is bearing a burden, or one of the reciters, Dhamma speakers, etc., should not be instructed for the purpose of sweeping the Uposatha hall; the remaining ones, however, should be instructed in turn. If one who is instructed cannot obtain even a temporary broom, having made a branch broken off (from a tree) allowable, it should be swept with. If he cannot obtain even that, it is considered as obtained allowable.

For the purpose of arranging seats, if there are no seats in the Uposatha hall, having brought (seats) from the Sangha's residence, they should be arranged and then brought back. If there are no seats, even a mat made of reed or bark is permissible to arrange. If there are no mats, branches should be broken off (from trees) and made allowable and then arranged. For one who cannot obtain a maker of what is allowable, it is considered as obtained allowable.

For the purpose of providing a lamp, one who is instructing should say, "In such-and-such a place there is oil, a wick, or a potsherd; take that and do it." If there are no oil, etc., they should be sought. If he cannot obtain (them) after seeking, it is considered as obtained allowable. Moreover, a fire should be lit even in a potsherd.

"Seeking consent and purity, announcement of the season, counting the bhikkhus, and exhortation; these are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha." (mahāva. 168) –

The four kinds of preliminary duties mentioned in this way should be done after the preliminary activities. Indeed, the Uposatha should not be performed without doing that.

178. Because of the statement, "If it is the Sangha's time, the Sangha may perform the Uposatha" (mahāva. 143), when it is the Sangha's time for the Uposatha, it should be done then. And being the time is comprised of these four factors. Therefore, the teachers of the commentary said –

"The Uposatha, and the bhikkhus who are eligible for the act,
And there are no shared offenses;
And there are no individuals to be excluded in it,
Is called the (right) time." (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168);

Uposatho: one of the three Uposatha days. When that is present, this act of Uposatha of the Sangha is called the (right) time, not when it is absent. As it was said, "And, bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day" (mahāva. 183).

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā: as many bhikkhus as are eligible, fit, and appropriate for that act of Uposatha, definitively four in good standing, and who are standing within arm's reach, not departing from a single boundary. Indeed, only when those four bhikkhus are standing within arm's reach, not departing from a single boundary, is that act of Uposatha of the Sangha called the (right) time, not otherwise. As it was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, the recitation of the Pātimokkha by four" (mahāva. 168).

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantī: here, when the entire Sangha incurs a minor offense through a shared basis, such as eating at the wrong time, such an offense with a shared material basis is called shared. Even when these shared offenses are not present, it is indeed the (right) time even when (shared offenses) are present.

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontī: from the statement, "Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly with householders" (mahāva. 154), and the householder, and the bhikkhuni stated according to the method beginning with "Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where bhikkhunis are sitting" (mahāva. 183), the sikkhamānā, the sāmaṇera, the sāmaṇerī, one who has renounced the training, one who has fallen into the final offense, one who has been suspended for not seeing an offense, one who has been suspended for not atoning for an offense, one who has been suspended for not relinquishing a wrong view, a paṇḍaka, one who lives in communion with a thief, one who has gone over to the heretics, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, one who has killed an arahant, one who has violated a bhikkhuni, one who has caused a schism in the Sangha, one who has shed blood, and one who is of dual gender, these twenty-one individuals are called those to be excluded. They should be excluded by keeping them outside arm's reach. Indeed, when there are these three kinds of suspended individuals, the Sangha incurs a pācittiya if it performs the Uposatha; in the remaining cases, (it incurs) a dukkata. Here, tiracchānagato means one whose ordination is prohibited. Heretics are included with householders. These, too, should be excluded. Thus, it should be understood that being the (right) time is comprised of these four factors. And all of this should be connected and shown also in the Pavāraṇā act. "Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha reciter should not intentionally fail to make (the assembly) hear; whoever should fail to make (the assembly) hear, there is an offense of dukkata. I allow, bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha reciter to strive 'How can (the assembly) hear?' There is no offense for one who is striving" (mahāva. 154). Therefore, the Pātimokkha reciter should strive to make the assembly hear.

Thus ends the section on Uposatha and Pavāraṇā in the Pāḷimuttaka Vinaya Vinicchayasaṅgaha.

The Discourse on the Judgments of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā is Complete.

26. Discourse on the Judgments of Entering the Rainy Season

179. Vassūpanāyikā: Here, there are two vassūpanāyikā: the earlier and the later. Among them (as in Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 184, etc.), the earlier should be observed on the first day after the Āsāḷhīpuṇṇamā (Āsāḷha full moon), and the later should be observed on the first day after the full moon following the Āsāḷhīpuṇṇamā. The one who is observing should sweep the monastery, prepare drinking and eating water, complete all duties such as paying homage to the cetiya, and then enter the rains residence (vassa) after declaring, "In this monastery, I will dwell for these three months of the rains," once, twice, or three times. Even if there is an inclination to stay "here," if one does not observe the rains residence due to absence of mind, the lodging that has been taken is well-taken, one is not considered to have broken the rains, and one can still invite (pavāretuṃ). Indeed, even without uttering words, merely intending to dwell (ālayakaraṇamattena) is enough to be considered as having entered the rains residence. Here, ālaya means simply the thought, "Here I will dwell for the rains."

"Monks, by one who does not intend to enter the rains residence on the day for entering the rains residence, a dwelling should not be intentionally overstepped; whoever would overstep it, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa)" (mahāva. 186). Because of this statement, if one who does not intend to enter the rains residence on the day of entering the rains residence oversteps the boundary of the monastery, there is a dukkaṭa for each monastery. If on that day, one encroaches upon the boundary of a hundred monasteries and oversteps it, there are a hundred offenses. But if, having overstepped one monastery, one returns without encroaching upon the boundary of another monastery, there is only one offense. If one has not observed the earlier rains residence due to some obstacle, the later rains residence should be observed.

Chavakuṭikā means a hut of various kinds, such as one with a fixed platform. It is not proper to enter the rains residence in that very place, but it is proper to construct another hut in the cemetery and enter the rains residence there. Also, in the case of a sunshade (chatta), it is proper to erect a sunshade on four posts, create a screen, attach a door, and enter the rains residence; this is called a sunshade-hut (chattakuṭi). Also, with a pot (cāṭiyā), it is proper to make a hut in the manner described for the sunshade with a large potsherd and enter the rains residence.

"Monks, the rains residence should not be entered in a tree hollow; whoever would enter, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa)" (mahāva. 204). Because of this statement, it is not proper to enter the rains residence in a bare tree hollow, but if the interior of a large tree hollow is made into a hut with a screen of branches and a door is attached to the entrance, it is proper to enter the rains residence. Having cut down a tree and made a hut with a screen of branches on top of the stump, it is also proper. "Monks, on a tree branch" (mahāva. 204): Because of this and similar statements, it is not proper to enter the rains residence on a bare branch, but on a large branch, a platform should be built, and there, having made a hut with a screen of branches and attached a door, one should enter the rains residence.

Vajo means a dwelling place for cowherds. If the settlement (vaja) moves and one goes along with the settlement, there is no offense for breaking the rains residence, because it was said, "I allow, monks, to go where the settlement (vajo) goes" (mahāva. 203). But when entering the rains residence in a caravan (satthe), on the day for entering the rains residence, the lay followers should be told, "It is suitable to obtain a hut." If they make one and give it, having entered it, it should be said three times, "Here I enter the rains residence." If they do not give one, one should enter the rains residence under a cart standing with the wheels blocked. If that is not obtained, an inclination (ālayo) should be made; but it is not proper to enter the rains residence in a caravan. Ālayo means merely the arising of the thought, "Here I will dwell for the rains." If the day for ending the rains residence (pavāraṇā) occurs while still on the road with the caravan, the ending of the rains residence should be done there itself. But if the caravan, within the rains period, reaches the desired place of the monk and goes beyond it, having dwelt in the desired place, the ending of the rains residence should be done there together with the monks. Or if the caravan, within the rains period, stops or disperses in a certain village in between, having dwelt together with the monks in that very village, the ending of the rains residence should be done; it is not proper to go beyond that without ending the rains residence. One who is entering the rains residence in a boat should also enter the rains residence in a hut; if one searches and does not obtain one, an inclination should be made. If within the three months the boat is still at sea, the ending of the rains residence should be done there itself. But if the boat reaches the shore, and this one desires to go further, it is not proper to go; having dwelt in the village reached by the boat, the ending of the rains residence should be done together with the monks. Even if the boat goes elsewhere along the shore, and the monk desires to dwell in the village first reached, let the boat go, the monk should dwell there itself and do the ending of the rains residence together with the monks. Thus, in these three situations—in a settlement (vaje), in a caravan (satthe), and in a boat (nāvāya)—there is no offense for breaking the rains residence, and one is able to end the rains residence.

"Monks, having entered the rains residence, one should not depart on tour without completing either the earlier three months or the later three months; whoever would depart, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa)" (mahāva. 186). Because of this statement, one who has entered the earlier rains residence should not depart on tour without completing the earlier three months, and one who has entered the later rains residence should not depart on tour without completing the later three months. However, if one who has entered the rains residence departs on the same day with a seven-day reason (sattāhakaraṇīyena), even without establishing the dawn, there is no offense for one who returns within seven days; what then to say of one who dwells for two or three days and departs with a seven-day reason, returning within seven days?

180. "I allow, monks, to go when sent with a seven-day reason (sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena pahite gantuṃ), but certainly not when not sent. To a monk, to a nun, to a female trainee, to a novice, to a female novice, to a male lay follower, to a female lay follower" (mahāva. 187). Because of this statement, having had a monastery, a lean-to (aḍḍhayogaṃ), a two-storied building (pāsādaṃ), a mansion (hammiyaṃ), a cave (guhaṃ), an enclosure (pariveṇaṃ), a store-house (koṭṭhakaṃ), an assembly hall (upaṭṭhānasālaṃ), a fire-hall (aggisālaṃ), a suitable-hut (kappiyakuṭiṃ), a toilet-hut (vaccakuṭiṃ), a walkway (caṅkamaṃ), a walkway-hall (caṅkamanasālaṃ), a well (udapānaṃ), a well-hall (udapānasālaṃ), a hot-bath house (jantāgharaṃ), a hot-bath house hall (jantāgharasālaṃ), a pond (pokkharaṇiṃ), a pavilion (maṇḍapaṃ), a park (ārāmaṃ), or park grounds (ārāmavatthuṃ) built by one of the five co-religionists, addressing the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, for one's own benefit or for the benefit of others, and having specified, "May the monks come, I wish to give alms, to hear the Dhamma, and to see the monks," one should go when sent with a seven-day reason, but certainly not when not sent. Or, likewise, a male or female lay follower, having had one of the monasteries, etc., built, addressing the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, or having had one of the dwellings, sleeping-quarters, or rest-houses, etc., built for their own benefit, or having specified some other task to be done, or being sick, might send a messenger to the monks, "May the venerable ones come, I wish to give alms, to hear the Dhamma, and to see the monks," one should go with a seven-day reason, but certainly not when not sent.

However, in the Andhaka Commentary, it is said, "It is proper to go even when not sent to those who are supporters of mother and father, relatives, or non-relatives." That is not said in the Commentary, nor is it said in the Pāḷi, therefore it should not be accepted.

If a monk's brother or another relative is sick, and he sends a messenger to the monk, "I am sick, may the venerable one come, I wish for the venerable one's arrival," one should go with a seven-day reason, but certainly not when not sent. If a monk-devoted benefactor is sick, dwelling together with the monks in a certain monastery, and he sends a messenger to the monks, "I am sick, may the monks come, I wish for the monks' arrival," one should go with a seven-day reason, but certainly not when not sent.

If a monk, a nun, a female trainee, a novice, or a female novice has arisen with discontent, or remorse, or a fixed wrong view, one should go with a seven-day reason even when not sent, thinking, "I will dispel discontent, or I will have it dispelled, or I will remove remorse, or I will have it removed, or I will disentangle the fixed wrong view, or I will have it disentangled, or I will give a Dhamma talk." How much more so when sent! If a certain monk has fallen into a serious offense, being eligible for probation (parivāsa), for reinstatement from the root (mūlāya paṭikassanā), for mānatta, or for reinstatement (abbhāna), one should go even when not sent, thinking, "I will undertake zeal in giving probation, I will announce, or I will be one who completes the quorum." How much more so when sent! For a nun also who is eligible for mānatta, for reinstatement from the root, or for reinstatement, this is the same method. If a novice desires to receive higher ordination, or desires to ask about the rains residence, or a female trainee desires to receive higher ordination, or her training is disturbed, or a female novice desires to undertake the training, or desires to ask about the rains residence, one should go even when not sent, how much more so when sent!

If the Saṅgha intends to perform an act against a monk or a nun, be it censure (tajjanīyaṃ), demotion (niyassaṃ), expulsion (pabbājanīyaṃ), reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīyaṃ), or suspension (ukkhepanīyaṃ), one should go even when not sent, how much more so when sent, thinking, "What if the Saṅgha would not perform the act, or would change it to a lighter one?" Even if the act has already been done, one should go even when not sent, thinking, "What if he would behave properly, reveal his faults, behave straightforwardly, and the Saṅgha would rescind that act?"

181. "I allow, monks, to go for Saṅgha business" (mahāva. 199). Because of this statement, it is also proper to go for Saṅgha business connected with lodgings. Here (mahāva. Aṭṭha. 199), whatever needs to be done in the lodgings such as the Uposatha hall etc., or in the cetiya umbrellas, vedikā platforms etc., even a monk's personal lodging, all is considered Saṅgha business, therefore, to produce that, to bring materials etc., or to give food, wages etc. to carpenters etc., one should go. Moreover, here this customary method outside the Pāḷi should be understood: One should not go when not invited for the sake of hearing the Dhamma, but if in a large monastery a prior agreement has been made, "On such and such a day we must assemble," then it is as if one has been invited, it is proper to go. One should not go thinking, "I will wash a bowl." But if the teachers and preceptors send one, it is proper. If a monastery is not too far away, one is not able to arrive thinking, "Having gone there, I will return today itself," it is proper. One is not allowed to go for the sake of recitation, questioning, etc., but one is allowed to go thinking, "I will see the teacher." If the teacher says to him, "Do not go today," it is proper. One is not allowed to go to see the supporting family or the family of relatives.

If after the monks have entered the rains residence, the village is raided by thieves, what should be done there? One should go to where the village is. If the village is split into two, one should go to where there are more people. If more people are unbelieving and unfaithful, one should go to where there are believing and faithful people. And here, if the village has gone not far away, having gone for alms in that place, one should return to the monastery and dwell there. If it has gone far away, the dawn should be established by a seven-day rotation; if it is not possible, one should dwell in a suitable place there itself. If the people give the usual alms such as ticket-food etc., they should be told, "We are not dwelling in that monastery." But if they say, "We do not give to the monastery or to the two-storied building, we give to you, dwell and eat wherever you may dwell," then one should eat as one pleases, it accrues to them. But if they say, "Having delivered it to your dwelling place, eat," then having taken it to where they dwell, it should be made to accrue with the rains-residence and then eaten. If they give the rains-residence alms (vassāvāsikaṃ) at the time of ending the rains residence, if they have established the dawn by a seven-day rotation, it should be accepted. But by those who have broken the rains residence, it should be said, "We are not dwelling there, we have broken the rains residence." If they say, "Let those to whom our lodging has accrued take it," it should be accepted. But the various items of belongings, such as robes etc., that were brought here thinking, "Lest what was deposited in the monastery be destroyed," having gone there, having informed the Saṅgha (apaloketvā), it should be distributed. When the field property etc., given to the alms-arrangers (kappiyakārakānaṃ) with "May they give the four requisites to the noble ones from this," is produced there, this is the same method. For Saṅgha belongings of various kinds, whether they are inside the monastery or outside the boundary, it is not proper for those standing outside the boundary to distribute them after informing the Saṅgha. But even if they are standing in both places, it is proper for those standing inside the boundary to distribute them after informing the Saṅgha.

If monks who have entered the rains residence are harassed by wasps, whether they sting or sting repeatedly; or are harassed by mustard seeds, whether they bite or bite repeatedly; or are harassed by thieves, whether they plunder or assault; or are harassed by non-human beings, whether they possess or kill, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger," there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence. If a village is burned by fire or swept away by water, and the monks are troubled for alms, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger," there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence. If the lodging is burned by fire or swept away by water, and the monks are troubled for lodging, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger," there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence. If monks who have entered the rains residence do not obtain sufficient and complete nourishment of coarse or fine food, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger." If they obtain sufficient and complete nourishment of coarse or fine food, but do not obtain suitable foods, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger." Even if they obtain sufficient and complete nourishment of coarse or fine food, obtain suitable foods, but do not obtain suitable medicines, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger." If they obtain sufficient and complete nourishment of coarse or fine food, obtain suitable foods, obtain suitable medicines, but do not obtain a fitting attendant, one may depart thinking, "This itself is a danger," in all these cases, there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence.

If a woman invites a monk who has entered the rains residence, saying, "Come, venerable sir, I will give you silver or gold, a field or property, a cow or a female cow, a male slave or a female slave, or I will give you my daughter as a wife, or I myself will become your wife, or I will bring another wife for you," if the monk thinks, "The mind is said by the Blessed One to be easily changeable, there might be an obstruction to the holy life for me," one may depart, there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence. In the same manner, if a prostitute invites, or a grown-up maiden invites, or a eunuch invites, or relatives invite, or kings invite, or thieves invite, or rogues invite, the same principle applies. If a monk who has entered the rains residence sees ownerless treasure, and if the monk thinks, "The mind is said by the Blessed One to be easily changeable, there might be an obstruction to the holy life for me," one may depart, there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence.

If a monk who has entered the rains residence sees many monks striving for a schism in the Sangha, or hears, "Many monks are striving for a schism in the Sangha," if the monk thinks, "Schism in the Sangha is said by the Blessed One to be serious, may the Sangha not be split while I am present," one may depart, there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence. If a monk who has entered the rains residence hears, "In such and such monastery, many monks are striving for a schism in the Sangha," if the monk thinks, "Those monks are my friends, I will say to them, 'Schism in the Sangha is said by the Blessed One to be serious, may schism in the Sangha not be pleasing to the venerable ones,' they will heed my words, they will listen attentively, they will lend an ear," one may depart, there is no offense involving breaking the rains residence, but after the Sangha has split, there is nothing to be done by going there.

If a certain monk, having promised, "I will spend the rains here for these three months," disappoints (the donor), there is an offense of dukkata. Not only in disappointing that promise is there an offense of dukkata, but also in disappointing each of those promises, such as, "Accept alms for these three months, we will both spend the rains here, we will recite together," and so on, there is an offense of dukkata. That (offense) occurs when one's mind was pure at first but later one disappoints (the donor) due to a reason for disappointment. But if one's mind was impure even at first, there is a pācittiya offense in making the promise. In disappointing (the donor), the dukkata offense is combined with the pācittiya offense.

182.For those who have entered the rains residence (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), having established the fixed duties during the rains, the monks who have entered the rains residence should be told, "Bind brooms." If handles and pegs are easily available, each should bind five or six hand-held brooms or two or three long-handled brooms. If they are difficult to obtain, two or three hand-held brooms and one long-handled broom should be bound. Novices should strike five firebrands each, and the requisites for robes should be prepared in the places of dwelling. Those who are performing the duties should not recite, should not have others recite, should not chant, should not ordain as a novice, should not confer the higher ordination, should not give dependence, and should not attend Dhamma talks. All these are proliferations; they should not perform such unwholesome duties, thinking, "Having become free from proliferation, we will perform only the duties of a renunciate." Or they should not undertake all thirteen dhutaṅgas, spend the time with standing and walking meditation without preparing a bed, take a vow of silence, or receive allowable items after going on a seven-day journey. But they should do this: The Dhamma of learning establishes the entire threefold Saddhamma. Therefore, respectfully recite, have others recite, chant, attend to the Dhamma talks completely. Those dwelling in meditation halls should recite, have others recite, and chant, sitting inside the monastery without causing disturbance. When ordaining as a novice, ordain after purifying (him); confer the higher ordination after purifying (him); give dependence after purifying (him). Even one son of a good family, having obtained the going forth and the higher ordination, establishes the entire Teaching. Undertake as many dhutaṅgas as you can with your own strength. "During the rains residence, one should be diligent throughout the entire day and in the first and last watches of the night, and one should arouse energy." The ancient great elders, having cut off all impediments, fulfilled the practice of solitary wandering during the rains residence. It is proper to speak on the ten-factor stories, the ten kinds of foulness, the ten recollections (anussati), and the thirty-two parts of the body, knowing the measure of speech. It is proper to perform the duties for newcomers and to give items after informing (the Sangha) for those who have gone on a seven-day journey. Such duties should be performed.

Furthermore, the monks should be advised, "Do not speak words of contention, slander, or harshness. Contemplating the precepts day by day, living with mindfulness, without neglecting the four protections." The practice of chewing tooth-wood should be explained. When paying homage to a stupa or a Bodhi tree, or offering incense or flowers, or putting a bowl into a bag, one should not talk. The alms-round practice should be explained. Within the village, one should not talk with people about things related to requisites or unsuitable topics. One should be restrained in the senses, and the duties of the Khandhaka and Sekhiya should be fulfilled. Thus, many discourses leading to liberation should be explained.

Thus ends the section on deciding about the Rains Residence

in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha.

27. Discourse on Deciding the Duties to the Preceptor Etc.

183.Herein, duty means the duty to the preceptor (upajjhaya-vatta), the duty to the teacher (acariya-vatta), the duty to the newcomer (agantuka-vatta), the duty to the resident monk (avasika-vatta), the duty to the going monk (gamika-vatta), the duty at the refectory (bhattaggavatta), the duty on the alms round (pindacarikavatta), the duty of the forest dweller (arannikavatta), the duty regarding the lodging (senasanavatta), the duty at the hot-bath room (jantagharavatta), and the duty at the toilet (vaccakutivatta). Among these, the duty to the preceptor should be understood thus: The pupil should rise early, remove his sandals, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, and give the tooth-wood and water for washing the face to his preceptor. In giving the tooth-wood, having brought three kinds of tooth-wood—large, medium, and small—from the fourth day onwards, he should give the same kind that he takes for three days. If he makes no fixed rule and takes any kind, then he should give whatever he obtains. In giving the water for washing the face, having brought both cold and hot water, from the fourth day onwards, he should give the same kind that he mixes for three days. If he mixes both kinds, both kinds should be brought. Having placed the water at the place for washing the face, he should sweep (the area) starting from the toilet. When the Elder has gone to the toilet, the enclosure should be swept, thus the enclosure is not left unattended. Before the Elder has come out of the toilet, a seat should be prepared. When he has performed his bodily functions and come back and is seated, if there is rice-gruel, the bowl should be washed and the rice-gruel should be brought. After he has drunk the rice-gruel, water should be given, the bowl should be taken back, lowered, washed carefully without knocking, and returned. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be removed. If that area is messy, littered with any rubbish, that area should be swept. If there is no other rubbish but only water droplets, they should be wiped away with the hand.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the village, the lower robe should be given, the returned lower robe should be received back, the girdle should be given, and the double robe should be given having been folded properly. The bowl, having been washed and filled with water, should be given. If the preceptor desires a follower, having completely covered himself with the three robes, having put on the lower robe properly, tied the girdle, draped the double robe having been folded properly, fastened the clasp, taken the washed bowl, he should be a follower of the preceptor, he should not go too far, he should not go too near. Herein, if, on turning back to look at the preceptor, he reaches him by skipping one or two steps, by that much it should be understood that he has not gone too far or too near. If the bowl of the preceptor is hot or heavy, having obtained rice-gruel or alms food on the alms round, one should give one’s own bowl to him and take that bowl (from him). One should not interrupt the preceptor while he is speaking. From here onwards, wherever a prohibition is made with the word "na" (not), in all those cases an offense of dukkata should be understood. The preceptor should be prevented from speaking near the boundary of an offense. In preventing him, he should be stopped in such a way as if asking, "Venerable sir, is it proper to say such a thing? Is there no offense?" But having determined, "I will stop him," he should not say, "Old man, do not speak like that."

If the village is near, or there is a sick monk in the monastery, one should come back from the village earlier. If the village is far, even if one is coming together with the preceptor, one should leave the village together with him, wrap the bowl with the robe, and come back earlier through the middle of the path. Having come back earlier in this way, a seat should be prepared, water for the feet, a footstool, and a foot-wiper should be placed, one should go forward to greet him, and the bowl and robe should be received back, the lower robe should be given, and the returned lower robe should be received back. If the robe is soaked with sweat, it should be warmed in the sun for a moment, but the robe should not be left in the sun, the robe should be patched. In patching the robe, the edge should be raised by four fingerbreadths and the robe should be patched. Why? Lest there be a break in the middle. For if the patching is done evenly, there is a break in the middle. Therefore, constantly breaking, it becomes weak. This is said to prevent that. Therefore, the patching should be done by raising it four fingerbreadths day by day, so that where it breaks today, it will not break tomorrow. The girdle should be made in the hem (of the robe).

If there is alms-food, and the preceptor wishes to eat, water should be given, and the alms-food should be brought near. The preceptor should be asked for water. When asking, he should be asked for water three times, saying, "May water be brought, venerable sir?" If there is time, one should eat oneself after the preceptor has eaten. If the time is near, after placing water near the preceptor, one should eat oneself. After he has finished eating, one should give water, take the bowl, lower it carefully without hitting it, wash it, drain the water, and warm it slightly for a moment; but the bowl should not be left in the heat. The bowl and robe should be put away. When putting away the bowl, one should take the bowl with one hand and touch the lower bed or lower seat with the other hand, and then put the bowl away; and the bowl should not be placed on the bare ground without a mat or a piece of leather in between. But if the ground is painted black or plastered with lime, and it is clean of dust, it is permissible to place it on such ground; it is also permissible to place it on washed sand, but it is not permissible on dust, dirt, gravel, etc. There, a leaf or a stand should be placed, and then it should be placed there. When putting away the robe, one should take the robe with one hand and brush the robe-rack or robe-rope with the other hand, and then, folding it from edge to edge, from inside to outside, the robe should be put away. And this is said for the purpose of gently putting it away with the approaching hand, after inserting the hand beneath the robe-rack etc. But if one takes hold of the end and throws it over the robe-rack etc. with a fold, the fold will hit the wall, therefore it should not be done like that. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be put away, the foot-water, foot-stool, and foot-wiper should be put back in their place. If that place is dirty, that place should be swept.

If the preceptor wishes to bathe, a bath should be prepared. If he needs cold water, cold water should be prepared. If he needs hot water, hot water should be prepared.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the bath-house, powder should be mixed, and clay should be moistened. Taking the bath-house seat, one should go behind the preceptor, give the bath-house seat, take the robe, and place it in a clean, smoke-free place. Powder should be given, clay should be given. If one is able, one should enter the bath-house. When entering, after smearing the face with clay and covering oneself in front and behind, one should enter the bath-house. Elder monks should not be closely sat upon, new monks should not be pushed away from their seats. In the bath-house, services should be performed for the preceptor. In the bath-house, service means all duties such as giving charcoal, clay, hot water, etc. When coming out of the bath-house, taking the bath-house seat, and covering oneself in front and behind, one should come out of the bath-house.

Even in the water, services such as rubbing the preceptor's limbs should be performed. Having bathed, one should come out before him, dry one's own body, dress, wipe the water from the preceptor's body, give him his lower robe, give him his upper robe, take the bath-house seat, come first, prepare a seat, place the foot-water, foot-stool, and foot-wiper nearby, and ask the preceptor for water. For in the bath-house there is thirst due to the heat. If he wishes to be taught, he should be taught. If he wishes to be questioned, he should be questioned.

In whatever monastery the preceptor resides, if that monastery is dirty, and if one is able, and not overcome by any sickness, it should be cleaned. For a healthy co-resident monk, even if he is sixty years old, should perform all the duties of a preceptor. If one does not do so out of disrespect, there is an offense of wrong-doing for breach of duty. However, in places associated with non-doing, even if one is sick, there is still an offense of wrong-doing for performing the forbidden action. When cleaning the monastery, first the bowl and robe should be taken out and put aside, the sitting cloth should be taken out and put aside, the pillow and bolster should be taken out and put aside, the bed should be lowered carefully without hitting it, without knocking against the door-jamb, taken out and put aside, the seat should be lowered carefully without hitting it, without knocking against the door-jamb, taken out and put aside, the bed-legs should be taken out and put aside, the spittoon should be taken out and put aside, the leaning board should be taken out and put aside. The floor covering should be observed according to how it was arranged, taken out and put aside. If there is a cobweb in the monastery, it should be taken down from above first, and the joints of the windows should be wiped. If the wall, which is decorated with red ochre, is covered with dirt, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and wiped. If the floor, which is painted black, is covered with dirt, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and wiped. If the floor is not painted, it should be sprinkled with water and swept, so that the monastery is not covered with dust, and the rubbish should be collected and thrown aside.

The floor covering should be warmed, cleaned, shaken, brought back, and arranged just as it was arranged before. It is for this reason that it was said, "It should be observed according to how it was arranged, taken out and put aside." But if it was arranged by someone who did not know how to do it before, it should be arranged leaving a gap of two or three finger-widths all around the wall. Here, this is the duty of arranging - if there is a very large mat made of reeds, it should be cut, the edge should be turned back and tied, and then it should be arranged. If one does not know how to turn back and tie the edge, it should not be cut. The bed-legs should be warmed, wiped, and put back in their place, the bed should be warmed, cleaned, shaken, lowered carefully without hitting it, without knocking against the door-jamb, brought over, and arranged as it was arranged before, the seat should be warmed, cleaned, shaken, lowered carefully without hitting it, without knocking against the door-jamb, brought over, and arranged as it was arranged before, the pillow and bolster should be warmed, cleaned, shaken, brought over, and arranged as they were arranged before, the sitting cloth should be warmed, cleaned, shaken, brought over, and arranged as it was arranged before, the spittoon should be warmed, wiped, brought over, and put back in its place, the leaning board should be warmed, wiped, brought over, and put back in its place. The bowl and robe should be put away. When putting away the bowl, one should take the bowl with one hand and touch the lower bed or lower seat with the other hand, and then put the bowl away; and the bowl should not be placed on the bare ground. When putting away the robe, one should take the robe with one hand and brush the robe-rack or robe-rope with the other hand, and then, folding it from edge to edge, from inside to outside, the robe should be put away.

If dusty winds are blowing from the east, the eastern windows should be closed. If dusty winds are blowing from the west, north, or south, the southern windows should be closed. If it is the cold season, the windows should be opened during the day and closed at night. If it is the hot season, they should be closed during the day and opened at night.

If it is dirty, the enclosure should be swept, the store-room should be swept, the service-hall should be swept, the fire-hall should be swept, the toilet should be swept, drinking water and water for use should be provided, and water should be poured into the rinsing pot.

If displeasure has arisen in the preceptor, the co-resident monk should take him elsewhere, or another monk should be asked, "Go and take the elder elsewhere," or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If worry has arisen in the preceptor, the co-resident monk should dispel it, or have it dispelled by another, or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If wrong view has arisen in the preceptor, the co-resident monk should refute it, or another monk should be asked, "Go and refute the elder's wrong view," or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor has fallen into a grave offense deserving of probation (parivāsa), the co-resident monk should be zealous, and each and every monk should be approached and asked for the sake of giving probation. If he is capable himself, he should give it himself. If he is not capable, he should have it given by another. If the preceptor is worthy of being drawn back to the root offense, worthy of mānatta, or worthy of reinstatement, zeal should be shown in the same way as stated. If the Sangha wishes to perform an act against the preceptor, whether it be a censure (tajjanīya), a degradation (niyassa), an expulsion (pabbājanīya), a reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīya), or a suspension (ukkhepanīya), the co-resident monk should be zealous, thinking, "By what means could the Sangha not perform the act against the preceptor, or change it into a lighter one?" For the co-resident monk, knowing that "the Sangha intends to perform a suspension act against the preceptor," should approach each and every monk and ask, "Venerable sirs, do not perform an act against our preceptor." If they are about to do it, they should be asked, "Perform a lighter act, such as a censure or degradation." If they are still about to do it, then the preceptor should be asked, "Speak rightly, venerable sir." Thus, having made him speak rightly, the monks should be asked, "May you set aside the act, venerable sirs."

If the preceptor's robe needs to be washed, it should be washed by the co-resident monk, or zeal should be shown, thinking, "How could the preceptor's robe be washed?" If the preceptor's robe needs to be made, or dye needs to be cooked, or the robe needs to be dyed, everything should be done by the co-resident monk, or zeal should be shown, thinking, "How could the preceptor's robe be dyed?" When dyeing the robe, it should be carefully turned over and dyed, and one should not leave while the pot is still boiling.

Without asking the preceptor, a bowl should not be given to one person, nor a bowl taken from one person; a robe should not be given to one person, nor a robe taken from one person; requisites should not be given to one person, nor requisites taken from one person; the hair of one person should not be cut, nor the hair of one person caused to be cut; a service should not be done for one person, nor a service caused to be done for one person; one should not be a personal attendant for one person, nor should one accept one person as a personal attendant; alms-food should not be brought out for one person, nor should alms-food be caused to be brought out for one person; without asking the preceptor, one should not enter a village. If one wishes to enter a village for alms or for any other business, one should enter only after asking. If the preceptor, having risen early, intends to go far for alms, he should say, "Let the young ones go for alms," and then depart. If he departs without saying so, it is proper to enter the village without seeing the preceptor after going to the monastery enclosure. Even if one sees him while entering the village, it is proper to ask permission starting from the place where he is seen. Without asking the preceptor, one should not go to a charnel ground for lodging or to see unpleasant things, nor should one depart in any direction. But if one wishes to depart, one should announce the reason and ask for permission up to three times. If he grants permission, that is good; if he does not grant permission, and while living in dependence on him, study, or questioning, or a meditation subject does not succeed for him, [and if] the preceptor is foolish and incompetent, [and] only because he wants him to stay near him does not allow him to go, even if he prevents him in this way, it is proper to go. If the preceptor is ill, he should be attended to as long as he lives, his recovery should be awaited, and one should not go anywhere. If there is another bhikkhu who is an attendant, one should seek medicine, give it into his hand, and say, "Venerable, this one will attend [to him]," and then depart. This, then, is the duty towards the preceptor.

184. This same [duty], because it should be done by the pupil to the teacher, is called the teacher's duty. Only the name is different here. Herein, as long as the dyeing of robes [duty] is not done, there is decline for the preceptor and the teacher. Therefore, for one who does not do it, whether he is released from dependence or not, there is an offense. From giving a bowl to one person onwards, there is an offense only for one who is not released from dependence. When the preceptor or teacher approves of the duty, even if there are many co-residents and pupils, there is an offense for all of them. If the preceptor or teacher says, "I have an attendant; you should apply yourselves to your own recitation and reflection, etc.," there is no offense for the co-residents, etc. If the preceptor or teacher does not know whether to approve or disapprove, [and] is foolish, [and] there are many co-residents, etc., if one bhikkhu who is accomplished in duty takes on the burden himself, saying, "I will do the preceptor's or teacher's business; you may live without anxiety," from the time he takes on the burden, there is no offense for them. Here, among the pupils, the dependent-pupil should do all the teacher's duties as long as he lives in dependence on the teacher. But the ordination-pupils, the higher ordination-pupils, and the Dhamma-pupils, even if they are released from dependence, should do the duties from the beginning up to the dyeing of robes. There is no offense for them in giving a bowl, etc., without asking.

Among these, the ordination-pupil and the higher ordination-pupil are burdens to the teacher as long as they live. The dependent-pupil and the Dhamma-pupil should be supported and assisted by the teachers and preceptors with instruction, questioning, advice, and exhortation as long as they live nearby. If the co-residents and pupils do not have a bowl, robe, or any other requisite, what one has as a surplus bowl, robe, or surplus requisite should be given. If not, effort should be made to seek it by lawful means. If the co-residents and pupils are ill, all the duties should be done in the manner stated in the preceptor's duties, beginning with giving a toothpick and ending with pouring water from the water pot; there is an offense for those who do not do [them]. Therefore, the teachers and preceptors should conduct themselves properly towards the co-residents and pupils. Indeed, for each one who does not conduct himself properly towards the teachers and preceptors, etc., there is an offense. The account of the duties towards the preceptor, etc., [is finished].

185. Now, the duties towards a visiting bhikkhu, etc., should be made known. A visiting bhikkhu, having gone near the boundary of the place for greetings, should take off his shoes, place them down low, tap them, take them with the shoe-stick, put up his umbrella, uncover his head, place his robe on his shoulder, and enter the monastery carefully and unhurriedly. As he enters the monastery, he should consider, "Where do the resident bhikkhus gather?" Having gone to where the resident bhikkhus gather, whether in the assembly hall, pavilion, or at the foot of a tree, he should put down his bowl in one place, put down his robe in one place, take a suitable seat, and sit down. He should ask for drinking water and for consumable water, "Which is drinking water? Which is consumable water?" If he needs drinking water, he should take it and drink. If he needs consumable water, he should take it and wash his feet. When washing his feet, he should pour water with one hand and wash his feet with the other hand; he should not pour water and wash his feet with the same hand. Having wiped the shoe-wiping cloth, he should wipe his shoes. When wiping his shoes, he should first wipe with a dry cloth and then with a wet one. Having washed the shoe-wiping cloth, he should spread it out in one place.

If the resident bhikkhu is an elder, he should be greeted. If he is a junior, he should be caused to greet [him]. He should ask for lodging, "Which lodging do I obtain?" He should ask whether it is occupied or unoccupied, "Is the alms-gathering village near or far? Should one go for alms early or during the day?" In this way, the alms-round should be asked about; the non-suitable area should be asked about; the suitable area should be asked about. A non-suitable area is a village of those with wrong view, or a village with a limited number of bhikkhus, where alms are given to only one or two [bhikkhus]. Families considered trainees should be asked about. The toilet should be asked about; the urinal should be asked about; "Do they drink only the water from this pond, or do they use it for bathing, etc.?" In this way, both drinking water and consumable water should be asked about. The razor-stick should be asked about; the Sangha's customary rules should be asked about. In some places there are wild animals or non-humans; therefore, one should ask, "At what time should one enter? At what time should one leave?" If the monastery is unoccupied, having knocked on the door, waited for a moment, unlatched the bolt, moved the door aside, he should look in from outside.

If that monastery is cluttered, either a bed is placed on a bed, or a stool is placed on a stool, or the bedding is piled up, if he is able, the entire monastery should be cleaned. If he is unable, he should take care of his own dwelling place. But if he is able to clean everything, having taken out the ground covering, beds, stools, etc., as stated in the preceptor's duties, cleaned the monastery, brought them back again, and arranged them in their proper places.

If eastern winds blowing dust are blowing, the eastern windows should be closed. If western, northern, or southern winds blowing dust are blowing, the southern windows should be closed. If it is the cold season, the windows should be opened during the day and closed at night. If it is the hot season, they should be closed during the day and opened at night.

If [the monastery] is cluttered, the surrounding area should be swept, the storehouse should be swept, the assembly hall should be swept, the fire-hall should be swept, the toilet should be swept, drinking water and consumable water should be provided, and water should be poured into the washing water pot. This is the duty towards a visiting bhikkhu.

186. In the duties towards a resident bhikkhu, a resident bhikkhu, having seen a visiting bhikkhu who is older, should prepare a seat, place foot-water, a foot-stool, and a foot-cloth nearby. Having gone to meet him, he should receive his bowl and robe. He should ask about drinking water. When asking, if he drinks all the drinking water that has been brought once, he should certainly ask, "Shall I bring more?" He should also fan him with a fan. When fanning, he should fan once on the foot-stool, once in the middle, and once on the head. When [the visiting bhikkhu] says, "Enough," he should fan more slowly. When he says "Enough" again, he should fan even more slowly. When [the visiting bhikkhu] says it a third time, the fan should be put away, and his feet should be washed. If he has oil, he should anoint [his feet] with oil. If he does not have oil, they should be anointed with the oil belonging to [the visiting bhikkhu]. If he is able, he should wipe his shoes. When wiping his shoes, he should first wipe with a dry cloth and then with a wet one. Having washed the shoe-wiping cloth, he should discard it in one place.

The visiting bhikkhu should be greeted, and lodging should be prepared, "This lodging is available." He should tell whether it is occupied or unoccupied, he should tell the suitable area, he should tell the non-suitable area, he should tell the families considered trainees, he should tell the toilet, he should tell the urinal, he should tell the drinking water, he should tell the consumable water, he should tell the razor-stick, he should tell the Sangha's customary rules, "One should enter at this time, and one should leave at this time."

If the visiting bhikkhu is a junior, he should tell [him] while sitting, "Put your bowl here, put your robe here, this is the seat, sit down." He should tell [him] about the drinking water, he should tell [him] about the consumable water, he should tell [him] about the shoe-wiping cloth. The visiting bhikkhu should be caused to greet [him], and the lodging, etc., should also be told while sitting. But when an elder arrives, everything, beginning with preparing a seat, etc., should be done even setting aside robe-making or new construction. While sweeping the courtyard of a cetiya, having put aside the broom, one should begin to do his duty. For a wise visiting bhikkhu will say, "Sweep the cetiya courtyard first." However, when preparing medicine for a sick person, if the sick person is not too seriously ill, one should do the duty first without preparing the medicine; but for a very sick person, the medicine should be prepared first. For a wise visiting bhikkhu will say, "Prepare the medicine first." This is the duty towards a resident bhikkhu.

187.Regulations for a Traveling Monk (Gamikavatta): When a monk is about to leave a dwelling, he should return all wooden furniture such as beds and chairs, as well as clay items and everything else like dustpans, to the fire room or another secure place. He should then close the doors and windows, inform the caretaker of the lodging, and depart. If there is no monk, a sāmaṇera should be informed. If there is no sāmaṇera, the monastery attendant (ārāmika) should be informed. If there is no monk, sāmaṇera, or ārāmika, he should place the bed on four stones, stack beds on top of each other, stack chairs on top of each other, pile up the bedding, return the wooden and clay items, close the doors and windows, and depart. If the monastery is leaking, he should cover everything if he can, or make an effort, thinking, "How can the monastery be covered?" If he succeeds, that is skillful. If he cannot, he should place the bed on four stones in a place where there is no leaking, stack beds on top of each other, stack chairs on top of each other, pile up the bedding, return the wooden and clay items, close the doors and windows, and depart. If the monastery is leaking, he should, if he can, move the bedding into the village, or make an effort, thinking, "How can the bedding be moved into the village?" If he succeeds, that is skillful. If he cannot, he should place the bed on four stones in an open space, stack beds on top of each other, stack chairs on top of each other, pile up the bedding, return the wooden and clay items, cover it with grass or leaves, and depart, thinking, "Perhaps they will not rot." This is the regulation for a traveling monk.

188.Regulations for the Refectory (Bhattaggavatta): If the time has been announced in the monastery, the monk, having properly covered himself with the three robes, should dress in a rounded manner, fasten his belt, make it secure, wear the outer robe, fasten the clasp, wash his bowl, take it, and enter the village carefully and without haste.

He should not overtake the senior monks, he should walk well-covered, well-restrained, with downcast eyes, and quietly enter the house. He should not enter the house with an uplifted body or in a swaggering manner. He should not enter the house swaying his body, arms, or head. He should not enter the house leaning on a pillar, wrapped up, or squatting.

He should sit well-covered, well-restrained, with downcast eyes, and quietly in the house. He should not sit in the house with an uplifted body or in a swaggering manner. He should not sit in the house swaying his body, arms, or head. He should not sit in the house leaning on a pillar, wrapped up, or cross-legged. He should not sit too close to the senior monks. If the seat is at the same level as the seat of the most senior monk, he should leave one or two seats empty if there are many seats, and then sit. Having counted the monks, he should not sit on the designated seats unless the most senior monk says, "Sit down." If the most senior monk does not speak, he should say, "Venerable sir, this seat is high." He should sit down when told, "Sit down." But if, even when asked, he does not speak, there is no offense for the one sitting, but there is an offense for the most senior monk. A junior monk incurs an offense by sitting on such a seat without asking, while a senior monk incurs an offense by not allowing it when asked. Junior monks should not be pushed away from seats, and the outer robe should not be spread out before sitting down in the house.

When water for washing the bowl is given, the bowl should be received with both hands and the water accepted. The rinsing water should be taken after placing the bowl on the stand in front, and the bowl should be washed quietly without making a sound of water or striking it. If there is a water receptacle, the water should be poured into the water receptacle quietly, thinking, "May the water receptacle not be splashed with water, may the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water." If there is no water receptacle, the water should be poured quietly onto the ground, thinking, "May the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water."

When rice is given, the bowl should be received with both hands and the rice accepted. The rice should be taken in proportion to the amount of curry. If there is ghee or oil or extra seasoning, the senior monk should say, "Provide it equally for everyone." This should be said not only for ghee and such, but also for rice. However, if there is only a small amount of ghee or such, enough for one or two people, it would be troublesome for the people if it were said to provide it equally for everyone. Therefore, such a small amount should be taken once or twice, and the rest should not be taken. Alms should be received respectfully, alms should be received mindfully of the bowl, and alms should be received with equal portions of curry. The senior monk should not eat until the rice has been provided to everyone. This is said with reference to a refectory with a fixed number of monks, where the people want to provide for everyone and pay their respects. But in a large refectory, where they eat in one area and water is given in another, one may eat as one pleases.

Alms should be eaten respectfully, alms should be eaten mindfully of the bowl, alms should be eaten in proper order, alms should be eaten with equal portions of curry. Alms should not be eaten piled up and pressed down. The curry or seasoning should not be covered with rice out of greed. Curry or rice should not be asked for and eaten for one's own sake when not ill. One should not look into other people's bowls with a disapproving attitude. A mouthful should not be too large, a morsel should be made round. The mouth should not be opened before the morsel is brought. The entire hand should not be put into the mouth while eating. One should not speak with a mouthful. One should not eat throwing the food in the air, nor cutting off a mouthful, nor making bulging cheeks, nor shaking the hand, nor scattering the grains of rice, nor sticking out the tongue, nor making a smacking sound, nor making a slurping sound, nor licking the hand, nor licking the bowl, nor licking the lips while eating.

The water cup should not be received with a soiled hand, and the water for washing hands should not be received by the senior monk until everyone has finished eating. If the people say, "Venerable sir, wash your bowl and hands," or if the monks say, "You take the water," it is permissible. When water is given, the bowl should be received with both hands and the water accepted, and the bowl should be washed quietly without making a sound of water or striking it. If there is a water receptacle, the water should be poured quietly into the water receptacle, thinking, "May the water receptacle not be splashed with water, may the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water." If there is no water receptacle, the water should be poured quietly onto the ground, thinking, "May the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water." Water used for washing the bowl with remnants of food should not be thrown away inside the house.

When leaving the refectory, junior monks should leave first, and then the senior monks. This is because there is no space for the most senior monks to exit in crowded houses. But when the junior monks leave in this way, they should stand at the doorway and proceed in order as the senior monks exit. However, if the most senior monks are sitting near the entrance, and the junior monks are inside the house, they should exit in order, starting from the seat of the senior monks, without bumping into each other, and with enough space for people to walk through.

Because it is said, "I allow, monks, a senior monk to give thanks in the refectory" (Cūḷava. 362), the saṅghatthera (Elder of the Order) should give thanks in the refectory. The others should not leave, abandoning him alone.

Because it is said, "I allow, monks, four or five senior and junior monks to remain in the refectory" (Cūḷava. 362), when the saṅghatthera is seated to give thanks, four monks below him should be seated in order. When a junior monk is seated, three monks should be seated below and above the most senior monk. When five are seated, four should be seated above. Even if a junior monk is requested to be seated below the saṅghatthera, four monks should still be seated starting from the saṅghatthera. But if the monk giving thanks says, "Venerable sirs, go, there is no need to remain," it is permissible to go. If the most senior monk says, "Let us go, friend," and he says, "Go," that is also permissible. It is also permissible to make an arrangement, saying, "We will return to the outskirts of the village," and then go to the outskirts of the village and tell one's dependents, "You wait for his return." If the people have the thanksgiving done by one person of their choice, there is no offense for the one giving thanks, nor is it a burden on the most senior monk. The senior monk should be asked only when the people are engaged in conversation about the topic that has been brought up. The characteristic here is that the most senior monk should remain only when requested for thanksgiving. However, because it is said, "I allow, monks, to go after informing the immediately adjacent monk when there is a need" (Cūḷava. 362), one should go after informing the immediately adjacent monk when afflicted by the need to urinate, etc. This is the regulation for the refectory.

189.Regulations for Alms Round (Piṇḍacārikavatta): A monk going on alms round, thinking, "Now I will enter the village," should properly cover himself with the three robes, dress in a rounded manner, fasten his belt, make it secure, wear the outer robe, fasten the clasp, wash his bowl, take it, and enter the village carefully and without haste. Everything else, such as walking well-covered in the houses, should be understood here in the same way as described in the regulations for the refectory.

When entering a dwelling, one should take note, "I will enter by this way, I will exit by this way." One should not enter too abruptly, nor stand too far away or too close, nor stand for too long, nor turn back too quickly. While standing, one should observe, "Are they willing to give alms or not?" If someone puts down their work, gets up from their seat, touches a ladle, touches a pot, or puts it away, one should stand thinking, "They are willing to give." When alms are being given, one should lift the outer robe with the left hand, extend the bowl with the right hand, receive the bowl with both hands, and accept the alms, whether it is a woman or a man. One should not look at the face at the time of giving alms, but should observe, "Are they willing to give curry or not?" If someone touches a ladle, touches a pot, or puts it away, one should stand thinking, "They are willing to give." After the alms have been given, one should cover the bowl with the outer robe and return carefully and without haste.

The monk who returns first from the village after the alms round should prepare the seat, provide water for washing the feet, a footstool, and a foot-wiper, wash and set out the waste disposal bowl, and provide drinking water and water for general use. The monk who returns last from the village after the alms round, if there is leftover food and if he wishes, may eat it. If he does not wish to eat it, it should be discarded in a green place or dropped into water where there are no living beings. He should then put away the seat, return the water for washing the feet, the footstool, and the foot-wiper to their places, wash and put away the waste disposal bowl, return the drinking water and water for general use to their places, and sweep the refectory. Whoever sees a water pot, a pot for general use, or a toilet pot empty and vacant, should replenish it. If it is beyond his strength, he should signal with a hand gesture to a second monk and have him replenish it with a hand signal. But speech should not be broken on that account. This is the Piṇḍacārika Vatta (duties regarding wandering for alms).

190.Āraññika Vatta (Duties of a Forest-Dwelling Monk): A forest-dwelling monk should rise early, put his bowl into the bowl bag, hang it on his shoulder, place his robe on his shoulder, put on his shoes, put away the wooden and clay utensils, close the doors and windows, and leave his dwelling place. Thinking, "Now I will enter the village," he should take off his shoes, place them low down, dust them off, put them in the bowl bag, hang it on his shoulder, cover himself in three places (with the lower and upper robes), wrap the lower robe evenly, fasten the waistband, arrange the robe well, put on the Saṅghāṭi robe, fasten the clasp, wash the bowl, take the bowl, and enter the village carefully and unhurriedly. Entering houses, all the procedures for going, etc., should be understood here as described in the refectory duties.

When entering a dwelling, he should consider, "I will enter by this way, I will exit by this way," etc. All the procedures for wandering for alms should be understood as described in the Piṇḍacārika Vatta. A forest-dwelling monk should provide drinking water and water for general use. If there are not enough containers, he should provide water for general use as well as drinking water. If a container is not available, he should provide water even with a bamboo tube. If even that is not available, it should be done as there is a water source nearby. Fire should be provided, along with a fire-drill. Even if there is a fire-drill, it is permissible not to make a fire. As with a forest dweller, one who has set out for the wilderness should also desire a fire-drill. But for those living in a group, it is permissible even without it. A knife should be provided, the lunar mansions should be learned, either all or in part, and one should be skilled in directions. This is the Āraññika Vatta.

191.Senāsana Vatta (Duties Regarding Lodgings): In whatever monastery he dwells, if that monastery is dirty, he should clean it if he is able. When cleaning the monastery, first the bowl and robes should be taken out and placed to one side, the sitting cloth and spread should be taken out and placed to one side, the cushion and headrest should be taken out and placed to one side, the bed should be lowered carefully without hitting or bumping, and taken out past the door frame and placed to one side. The stool should be lowered carefully without hitting or bumping, and taken out past the door frame and placed to one side. The bed legs should be taken out and placed to one side. The spittoon should be taken out and placed to one side. The leaning board should be taken out and placed to one side. The floor covering should be noted as prescribed, taken out, and placed to one side. If there are cobwebs in the monastery, they should be taken down first from above, and the window sills should be wiped. If the wall finished with red ochre is dirty, it should be wiped with a soaked and squeezed cloth. If the ground finished with black color is dirty, it should be wiped with a soaked and squeezed cloth. If the ground is unfinished, it should be sprinkled with water and swept so that the monastery is not covered with dust. Rubbish should be collected and thrown away to one side.

The lodging should not be dusted off in the vicinity of monks, nor should the lodging be dusted off in the vicinity of the monastery, nor should the lodging be dusted off in the vicinity of drinking water, nor should the lodging be dusted off in the vicinity of water for general use, nor should the lodging be dusted off in an open courtyard, but the lodging should be dusted off in a sheltered place.

The floor covering should be shaken out, cleaned, dusted off, and spread out as prescribed. The bed legs should be cleaned and wiped one by one and put back in their places. The bed should be cleaned and dusted off one by one, lowered carefully without hitting or bumping, moved past the door frame, and arranged as prescribed. The stool should be cleaned and dusted off one by one, lowered carefully without hitting or bumping, moved past the door frame, and arranged as prescribed. The cushion and headrest should be cleaned and dusted off one by one and arranged as prescribed. The sitting cloth and spread should be shaken out, dusted off, and arranged as prescribed. The spittoon should be cleaned and wiped one by one and put back in its place. The leaning board should be cleaned and wiped one by one and put back in its place. The bowl and robes should be put away. When putting away the bowl, the bowl should be taken with one hand, and the lower bed or lower stool should be touched with the other hand, and the bowl should be put away. The bowl should not be put directly on the bare ground. When putting away the robe, the robe should be taken with one hand, and the robe hanger or robe rope should be wiped with the other hand, and the robe should be put away by folding it from edge to edge, from inside to the fold.

If easterly dusty winds are blowing, the easterly windows should be closed. If westerly, northerly, or southerly dusty winds are blowing, the southerly windows should be closed. If it is the cold season, the windows should be opened during the day and closed at night. If it is the hot season, the windows should be closed during the day and opened at night.

If it is dirty, the enclosure should be swept, the store-room should be swept, the assembly hall should be swept, the fire-room should be swept, and the toilet should be swept. If there is no drinking water, drinking water should be provided. If there is no water for general use, water for general use should be provided. If there is no water in the washing water pot, water should be poured into the washing water pot.

If he lives in the same monastery with an elder, he should not give the lesson (uddesa) without asking the elder, he should not ask questions (paripucchā) without asking, he should not recite (sajjhāyo) without asking, he should not speak Dhamma without asking, he should not light a lamp without asking, he should not extinguish a lamp without asking, he should not open the windows without asking, and he should not close the windows without asking. As for the door, since it is a large screen, there is no need to ask permission there, but the remaining things, such as giving lessons, should be done only after asking. It is permissible to ask even daily. However, if the elder, when told, "Bhante, let it be as if I have asked," agrees with "Sādhu," or if he himself says, "May you live as you please," that is also permissible. It is also permissible with a colleague's trust. If he walks in the same cloister with an elder, he should turn around where the elder turns around, and the elder should not be touched by the edge of the Saṅghāṭi robe. This is the Senāsana Vatta.

192.Jantāghara Vatta (Duties Regarding the Hot-Bath House): Whoever goes to the hot-bath house first, if the ashes are piled up, the ashes should be discarded. If it is dirty, the hot-bath house should be swept, the equipment should be swept, the enclosure should be swept, the store-room should be swept, the hot-bath house hall should be swept, powder should be prepared, clay should be moistened, and water should be poured into the water trough. When entering the hot-bath house, one should smear his face with clay, cover himself in front and behind, and enter the hot-bath house. One should not sit pressing against senior monks, nor should new monks be pushed away from their seats. If he is able, he should perform services for the senior monks in the hot-bath house. When leaving the hot-bath house, one should take the hot-bath house stool, cover himself in front and behind, and leave the hot-bath house. If he is able, he should also perform services for the senior monks in the water. One should not bathe in front of the senior monks, nor should one bathe above them. When bathing, the path should be given to those who are coming up from below. Whoever leaves the hot-bath house last, if the hot-bath house is muddy, it should be washed. The clay trough should be washed, the hot-bath house stool should be put away, the fire should be extinguished, the door should be closed, and he should leave. This is the Jantāghara Vatta.

193.Vaccakuṭi Vatta (Duties Regarding the Toilet): Whoever goes to the toilet should cough while standing outside, and the one sitting inside should also cough. The robe should be hung on the robe hanger or robe rope, and one should enter the toilet carefully and unhurriedly. One should not enter too quickly, nor should one enter jumping. One should jump while standing on the toilet sandals. One should not defecate with a grunting sound, nor should one defecate while chewing a toothpick, nor should one defecate outside the toilet trough, nor should one urinate outside the urinal trough, nor should one spit in the urinal trough. One should not wipe with split wood, rough wood, knotted wood, thorny wood, hollow wood, rotten wood. But there is no offense for one who enters without taking a wiping stick. The wiping stick should not be dropped into the toilet pit. One should cover himself while standing on the toilet sandals. One should not leave too quickly, nor should one leave jumping. One should jump while standing on the washing water sandals. One should not wash with a "chap-chap" sound, nor should one leave water in the washing water pot. This is said with reference to a place common to all. For there, different people come, therefore water should not be left. But in a monastery that is Saṅghika, a place made in one area for regular use, or a personal place, it is permissible. It is also permissible for one who repeatedly enters after drinking a purgative. One should cover himself while standing on the washing water sandals.

If the toilet is dirty, smeared with feces outside, it should be washed by bringing water. There is water, but there is no container, it is called non-existent. There is a container, but there is no water, this is also non-existent. If both are non-existent, it is simply non-existent; one should wipe with wood or something and leave. If the wiping stick basket is full, the wiping stick should be discarded. If there is rubbish, the toilet should be swept, the equipment should be swept, the enclosure should be swept, and the store-room should be swept. If there is no water in the washing water pot, water should be poured into the washing water pot.

Because of the statement, "Monks, after defecating, water should not be poured while there is excrement; whoever pours, there is an offense of dukkata" (cūḷava. 373), an offense occurs for one who does not use water when water is available. If there is water but no secluded place, it should be taken out with a vessel and used. If there is no vessel, it should be taken out with a bowl; if there is no bowl, it is as if there is none. If one thinks, "This is too exposed, there will be other water ahead," and the time for alms round arrives while one has not found water, one should wipe with a stick or something else and proceed; it is permissible to eat and approve. Because of the statement, "Monks, in the latrine, defecation should not be done according to seniority; whoever does, there is an offense of dukkata. I allow, monks, defecation according to the order of arrival" (cuḷava. 373), one entering the latrine should enter according to the order of arrival. In the latrine, the order of arrival is the standard in all three places: the place for urinating, the bathing place, and the toilet. This is the practice regarding the latrine.

Thus ends the section on the Vinaya decisions extracted from the Pali

The discussion on the decisions regarding the duties of the preceptor, etc., is complete.

28. Discussion on the Analysis of the Four Requisites

194. Catupaccayabhājana means the distribution of the four requisites, namely robes, etc. Here, regarding the distribution of robes, one should understand the robe receiver, one should understand the robe storer, one should understand the storekeeper, one should understand the storehouse, one should understand the robe distributor, and one should understand the robe distribution.

The robe receiver should be appointed. Therein, one who, even though later arrivals, receives robes first for his relatives, etc., or one who shows affection for some and receives, or one who, due to greed, diverts robes for himself, goes to bias due to desire (chandāgati). One who, even for an earlier arrival, receives robes later due to anger, or one who receives robes with contempt for poor people, or one who creates an obstacle to the Sangha’s gain by saying, "Do you not have a place to keep it at home? Take what belongs to you and go," goes to bias due to aversion (dosāgati). One who is of confused mindfulness and lacks comprehension, goes to bias due to delusion (mohāgati). One who, even for later arrivals, receives robes first due to fear of powerful people, or one who trembles thinking, "The position of robe receiver is a heavy burden," goes to bias due to fear (bhayāgati). One who knows, "This was taken, and this was not taken," knows what was taken and what was not taken. Therefore, one who does not go to bias due to desire, etc., who does not discriminate between relatives, non-relatives, the rich, and the poor, but receives robes according to the order of arrival, who is endowed with virtue, conduct, and practice, who is mindful, wise, and learned, who is capable of generating confidence in donors by delivering appropriate approval with clear speech and complete phrases, such a one should be appointed.

And thus should one be appointed. First, a bhikkhu should be requested, and having requested, an eloquent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Sangha:

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe receiver. This is the motion (ñatti)."

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. The Sangha appoints the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe receiver. Whose approval is for the appointment of the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe receiver, let him be silent. Whose disapproval is, let him speak."

"The bhikkhu named so-and-so is appointed by the Sangha as the robe receiver. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it." (mahāva. 342) –

Thus, with this formal statement (kammavācā) or by announcement (apalokena), it is permissible to appoint him in the inner monastery amidst the entire Sangha or even within the boundary (khaṇḍasīmā). And one thus appointed should not stay at the edge of the monastery or in the meditation hall. But one should sit in such a durable place in the monastery where people come and go and can easily see, placing a fan nearby, seated on a well-covered and well-spread seat.

195. The robe storer also should be appointed with five qualities, as it is said, "I allow, monks, to appoint a bhikkhu as a robe storer who is endowed with five qualities: who does not go to bias due to desire, who does not go to bias due to aversion, who does not go to bias due to delusion, who does not go to bias due to fear, and who knows what is stored and what is not stored," a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities –

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe storer. This is the motion (ñatti)."

"Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. The Sangha appoints the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe storer. Whose approval is for the appointment of the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe storer, let him be silent. Whose disapproval is, let him speak."

"The bhikkhu named so-and-so is appointed by the Sangha as the robe storer. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it." (mahāva. 342) –

Thus, with this formal statement (kammavācā) or by announcement (apalokena), he should be appointed in the manner already stated.

196. The storekeeper also should be appointed with five qualities, as it is said, "I allow, monks, to appoint a bhikkhu as a storekeeper who is endowed with five qualities: who does not go to bias due to desire, who does not go to bias due to aversion, who does not go to bias due to delusion, who does not go to bias due to fear, and who knows what is guarded and what is not guarded" (mahāva. 343), a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should be appointed with the formal statement (kammavācā) or by announcement (apalokena) in the manner beginning, "Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the storekeeper" (mahāva. 343).

Knows what is guarded and what is not guarded.

197. "I allow, monks, to appoint a storehouse, whatever the Sangha desires: a dwelling, an Aḍḍhayoga, a storied building, a mansion, or a cave" (mahāva. 343), therefore the storehouse should be designated and established. Here, whichever dwelling or Aḍḍhayoga is in the middle of the monastery, not isolated from the monastery attendants, novices, etc., a place of common resort for all, that should be designated. A dwelling in the border area should not be designated. But this storehouse should not be designated by going to the boundary (khaṇḍasīma) and sitting within the boundary. In the middle of the monastery itself, it should be designated with the formal statement (kammavācā) or by announcement (apalokena) in the manner beginning, "Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should designate the dwelling named so-and-so as the storehouse" (mahāva. 343).

And the three, namely, the robe receiver, etc., should know their respective duties. Therein, whatever people give to the robe receiver, saying, "Seasonal robe" or "Non-seasonal robe" or "Emergency robe" or "Rain-bathing cloth" or "Sitting cloth" or "Covering cloth" or "Face-wiping cloth," all of that should not be taken by mixing it into one heap, but it should be taken separately and given to the robe storer after informing him accordingly. The robe storer also, when giving to the storekeeper, should give it after informing him, "This is a seasonal robe… this is a face-wiping cloth." The storekeeper also should keep it after making separate labels accordingly. Then, when the Sangha says, "Bring the seasonal robe," only the seasonal robe should be given… when they say, "Bring the face-wiping cloth," only that should be given. Thus, the robe receiver was allowed by the Blessed One, the robe storer was allowed, the storekeeper was allowed, and the storehouse was allowed, not for extravagance or discontent, but rather for the support of the Sangha. For if the bhikkhus were to distribute robes as they were brought in, they would not know what has been brought and what has not been brought, what has been given and what has not been given, what has been obtained and what has not been obtained. They might give what has been brought to the senior monks' seat, or they might cut and take pieces. In such a case, there would be improper use, and the welfare of all would not be accomplished. But by storing the robes in the storehouse, when the time comes, they will give each bhikkhu three robes, or two robes each, or one robe each, they will know what has been obtained and what has not been obtained, and knowing the state of not having obtained, they will think to provide support.

198. The robe distributor also, as it is said, "I allow, monks, to appoint a bhikkhu as a robe distributor who is endowed with five qualities: who does not go to bias due to desire, who does not go to bias due to aversion, who does not go to bias due to delusion, who does not go to bias due to fear, and who knows what has been distributed and what has not been distributed" (mahāva. 343), should be appointed and established only if he is endowed with five qualities, with the formal statement (kammavācā) or by announcement (apalokena) in the manner beginning, "Venerable Sangha, may the Sangha hear me. If it is convenient for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the robe distributor" (mahāva. 343).

Giving an expensive robe to others while not giving it to more senior monks goes to bias due to desire (chandāgati). Giving a cheap robe goes to bias due to aversion (dosāgati). Being deluded and not knowing the procedure for robe distribution goes to bias due to delusion (mohāgati). Giving an expensive robe to talkative junior monks who are not entitled to it due to fear goes to bias due to fear (bhayāgati). One who does not thus go (to these biases), who is a balance, a standard, and impartial to all, should be appointed. The robe distributor should first sort the cloths, saying, "This is coarse, this is fine, this is dense, this is thin, this is used, this is unused, this is so long, this is so wide." After determining the value, saying, "This is worth so much, this is worth so much," it is skillful if everyone receives ten units each. If that is not possible, what is worth nine or eight units should be tied together with something worth one or two units, and the lots should be placed equally. Then a lot should be drawn. If one day is not enough to give each person a robe, ten bhikkhus should be counted, and ten lots of robes should be tied together into a bundle, and one bundle of robes should be set aside. After these bundles of robes have been set aside, lots should be drawn. These bhikkhus should then draw lots again and distribute the robes.

In the Kurundi, it is said, "If the novices ask, 'Why, venerable sirs, do we not do the Sangha's work? We will do it,' equal portions should be given."

If a certain bhikkhu, having taken his share and obtained a companion, wants to cross a river or a wilderness and depart in some direction, then, because of the statement, "I allow, monks, to give a departing monk his share" (mahāva. 343), after the robes have been brought out from the storehouse, a bell should be struck, and when the Sangha of bhikkhus has assembled, the robe distributor, estimating, "This bhikkhu should have so much as his portion," should give robes according to the proper method, in equal shares. For it is not possible to give exactly equally as if weighed with a balance, therefore, whether it is less or more, giving thus with estimation and proper method is well given. Nothing less should be given again, and nothing extra should be received. If there are ten bhikkhus and also ten cloths, one of them is worth twelve units, and the rest are worth ten units. If lots are drawn with the basis that all are worth ten units, the bhikkhu who draws the lot worth twelve units should give whatever property he has that is suitable, worth the amount that is extra in that lot, and take that extra share. If everyone has five cloths and bowls, and there are also leftovers, but each person cannot receive one, they should be cut and given.

And fragments should be made by cutting cloths suitable for use as slippers etc., from damaged robes such as aḍḍhamaṇḍala. It is permissible to cut a piece measuring four finger-breadths in width by a length sufficient to protect from the wind with the lower limit in mind, but it should not be used for personal enjoyment. Even if one or two cloths are not enough for one monk’s share in the allocation, another sāmaṇaka item should be placed there. Afterwards, the lot casting should be done for whoever is satisfied with that. If, when forming groups by counting ten monks each, one group is not complete, having eight or nine members, eight or nine shares should be given to them, saying, "Take these and divide them amongst yourselves." After giving in this way, the lot casting should be done.

199.Now, regarding the eight grounds for receiving robes that were mentioned to indicate the scope for acquiring robes: "Monks, there are these eight grounds for the arising of robes: one gives to a designated boundary, one gives by agreement, one gives by declaration for alms, one gives to the Saṅgha, one gives to both Saṅghas, one gives to the Saṅgha that has spent the rains, one gives by anticipation, one gives to an individual" (mahāva. 379), a decision should be understood based on these.

sīmāya deti means: When something is given within a boundary in this way, it should be distributed among as many monks as have come within the boundary. And a boundary is of fifteen kinds: a khaṇḍasīmā, an upacārasīmā, a samānasaṃvāsa sīmā, an avippavāsasīmā, a lābhasīmā, a village boundary, a market town boundary, a city boundary, an internal boundary, a water-casting boundary, a district boundary, a kingdom boundary, a realm boundary, an island boundary, and a cakkavāḷa boundary. Among these, khaṇḍasīmā has already been discussed in the section on boundaries. Upacārasīmā is defined by the perimeter of a monastery that has been demarcated, or by a location suitable for demarcation if it is not demarcated. Furthermore, the upacārasīmā is to be understood as being within two leḍḍupātas of a man of moderate strength from the permanent gathering place of the monks, or from the regularly used dining hall, or from the permanent dwelling. However, it increases as the dwellings increase, and decreases as they decrease. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is stated that "it increases as the monks increase." Therefore, if the monks who have gathered in the monastery sit together as one continuous group, filling even a hundred yojanas, even a hundred yojanas is still the upacārasīmā, and the gain reaches everyone. The two boundaries, Samānasaṃvāsa and Avippavāsasīmā, have also been discussed. Lābhasīmā is not authorized by the Sammāsambuddha, nor established by the Elders who compiled the Dhamma, but rather, royal ministers or great ministers build a monastery and demarcate a gāvuta, half a yojana, or a yojana all around, and erect pillars with inscriptions stating, "This is the lābhasīmā of our monastery," and "Whatever arises within this boundary, we give it all to our monastery." This is called a lābhasīmā. Village, market town, city, internal, and water-casting boundaries have also been discussed.

Janapadasīmā means that within regions such as Kāsi and Kosala, there are many districts; the boundary of each district is a janapadasīmā. Raṭṭhasīmā is the boundary of regions such as Kāsi and Kosala. Rajjasīmā means the area where the authority of each king prevails, such as "the Cola territory" and "the Kerala territory." Dīpasīmā refers to both large islands and small islands bounded by the ocean. Cakkavāḷasīmā is bounded by the Cakkavāḷa Mountains. Thus, in these boundaries, if one sees the Saṅgha assembled for some purpose within a khaṇḍasīmā and says, "I give this to the Saṅgha within this boundary," it should be distributed among as many monks as have come within the khaṇḍasīmā. It reaches only them; it does not reach others who are standing outside the boundary of the sīmā or within the upacārasīmā. However, it does reach one standing on a tree or mountain within the khaṇḍasīmā, or one standing halfway down, or one standing in the middle of the earth. However, if something is given saying, "I give this to the Saṅgha within this upacārasīmā," it reaches those standing outside the khaṇḍasīmā boundary as well. However, if something is given saying, "I give this within the samānasaṃvāsa sīmā," it does not reach those standing outside the khaṇḍasīmā boundary. What is given within the avippavāsasīmā and lābhasīmā reaches those within those boundaries. What is given within the village boundary, etc., reaches even those standing within the bounded sīmā inside those boundaries. What is given within the internal boundary and water-casting boundary reaches only those within them. In the district, kingdom, realm, island, and cakkavāḷa boundaries as well, the decision is similar to what has been said for the village boundary, etc.

If someone standing in Jambudīpa says, "I give this to the Saṅgha in Tambavaṇṇidīpa," even one person coming from Tambapaṇṇidīpa is entitled to take it for everyone. Even if there, one monk who shares equally takes the share of those who share equally, he should not be prevented. Thus, a decision should be understood regarding the giving of one who refers to a boundary. But one who does not know how to say "in such and such a boundary," but only knows the word "sīmā," and comes to the monastery and says, "I give this to the sīmā" or "I give this to the Saṅgha within the sīmā," he should be asked, "The sīmā is of many kinds; which sīmā are you referring to?" If he says, "I do not know 'such and such a sīmā'; may the Saṅgha within the sīmā divide and take it," in which sīmā should it be divided? It is said that Mahāsīvatthera said, "In the avippavāsasīmā." Then they said to him, "The avippavāsasīmā can be three yojanas; in that case, those standing three yojanas away will take the gain; having stood three yojanas away, one will have to fulfill the duties of a guest and enter the monastery; a traveler will go three yojanas and ask for lodging; for one dependent on a preceptor, the dependence will be relinquished upon exceeding three yojanas; one undergoing penance will have to make the dawn rise after exceeding three yojanas; a bhikkhunī will have to ask for permission to enter the monastery after standing three yojanas away; all this should be done only within the confines of the upacārasīmā; therefore, it should be divided within the upacārasīmā."

200.Katikāya deti here, katikā means samānalābhakatikā, an agreement for equal gain. Here, such an agreement should be made: when monks have gathered in one monastery and want to include another monastery and make the gains equal, taking its name and stating some reason, such as "the monastery named such-and-such is old," or "resided in by Buddhas," or "has little gain," it should be announced three times, "Does it please the Saṅgha to make that monastery one in gain with this monastery?" By this much, one sitting in that monastery is as if sitting here. In that monastery also, the Saṅgha should do likewise. By this much, one sitting here is as if sitting in that monastery. When a gain is being distributed in one monastery, it is permissible for one staying in the other to take a share. In this way, many dwellings can be made one in gain with one monastery. And when this is done, giving in one dwelling is the same as giving everywhere.

201.Bhikkhāpaññatti means one’s own place for making known a renunciation, where permanent services are performed for the Saṅgha. Here, in whichever monastery the Saṅgha has ongoing support from this robe-giver’s family, in whichever monastery the monks always eat at his house by doing their duty, or where he has built a dwelling, or where ticket meals etc. are permanently arranged, these are called permanent services. There is no need to mention where an entire monastery has been established; therefore, if he says, "I will give where my permanent services are performed," or "Give there," even if the permanent services are in many places, it is the same as having given everywhere. But if there are many monks in one monastery, they should be told, "In one place of your permanent services, there are many monks, and in one place, there are few." If he says, "Take it by counting the monks," it is permissible to divide and take it that way. Here, even small items like cloth and medicine are easily distributed. But if there is only one couch or chair, it should be given to whichever monastery or, even within one monastery, to whichever lodging he decides after asking. Even if he says, "Let such and such a monk take it," it is permissible. But if he says, "Give it where my permanent services are," and goes away without deciding, it is permissible for the Saṅgha to decide. In this way, it should be decided: it should be said, "Give it to the residence of the Saṅghatthera." If the lodging there is full, it should be given where there is not enough. If one monk says, "There is no bedding or furniture in my residence," it should be given there.

202.Saṅghassa deti: Here, if one enters a monastery and gives, saying, "I give these robes to the Saṅgha," the Saṅgha standing within the upacārasīmā should strike the bell, announce the time, and distribute them. One taking a share without having reached the sīmā should not be prevented. If the monastery is large, and senior monks of lazy disposition come later while robes are being given, starting from the seat of the elders, they should not be told, "Bhante, it is being given to those of twenty years' standing; your seniority has passed." After setting aside according to seniority, it should be given to them, and then it should be given according to seniority. Having heard that "much robes have arisen in such and such a monastery," even monks from a monastery a yojana away come; it should be given to those who have arrived, starting from their place of arrival. To those who have not arrived but have entered the upacārasīmā, it should definitely be given if their students etc. are taking (shares). If they say, "Give to those standing outside the upacārasīmā," it should not be given. But if those who have stepped outside the upacārasīmā are together as one group either at the gate of their monastery or inside the monastery, it is considered that the sīmā has expanded due to the assembly, therefore it should be given. Even if it is given to a new monk of the Saṅgha, it should definitely be given to those who come later. But in the second distribution, those who have come after ascending to the seat of the elders do not receive the first distribution; it should be given from the second distribution according to seniority.

In one monastery there are ten monks; ten robes are given, saying, "We give this to the Saṅgha"; they should be distributed individually. If they take them all, thinking, "All of it reaches us," both the transfer and the acceptance are bad; wherever they go, they belong to the Saṅgha. But after setting aside one, having transferred it to the Saṅghatthera, saying, "This reaches you," it is permissible to take "the rest reaches us." If they bring only one robe, saying, "We give this to the Saṅgha," and take it without distributing it, thinking, "It reaches us," both the transfer and the acceptance are bad. After making a mark with a knife or turmeric etc., having transferred one part to the Saṅghatthera, saying, "This place reaches you," it is permissible to take "the rest reaches us." But it is not permissible to make a division with just a flower or fringe of the cloth. If, after taking out one thread, having given "this place reaches you" to the elder and taken "the rest reaches us," it is permissible. It is definitely permissible to distribute by cutting into fragments.

In a monastery occupied by a single bhikkhu, if robes arise for the Sangha, and that bhikkhu, according to the method previously described, takes them thinking, "All of these accrue to me," they are well-taken, but the established order (ṭhitikā) is not maintained. If he takes them one by one, thinking, "This accrues to me," the established order is maintained. In that case, if another bhikkhu arrives when an unestablished order is in place, and another robe arises, it should be divided in the middle and taken by both. If another, newer bhikkhu arrives when an established order is in place, the established order descends to a lower position. If a more senior bhikkhu arrives, the established order ascends to a higher position. If there is no other, it should again be brought to oneself and taken. However, giving alms robes (paṃsukūlika) after addressing it to the Sangha in any way, such as saying, "Let us give to the Sangha," or "Let us give to the Bhikkhu Sangha," is not allowable, because it was said, "I reject householder's robes; I undertake the practice of wearing only discarded rags," not because it is unsuitable. Even if given without seeking approval (apaloketvā) from the Bhikkhu Sangha, it should not be accepted. But whatever a bhikkhu gives from his own possessions, that is called bhikkhudattiya, a gift given by a bhikkhu, and it is allowable, but it is not paṃsukūla. Even so, the ascetic practice (dhutaṅga) is not broken. But if it is said, "Let us give to the bhikkhus, let us give to the elders," then it is allowable even for those observing the paṃsukūlika practice. If it is given saying, "Let us give this cloth to the Sangha; let them make shoe-straps, cushion covers, equipment bags, waistbands, etc., with this," it is also allowable. Even if many things are given for cushion covers etc., they are sufficient for a robe, and it is permissible to make a robe from them and wear it. But if the Sangha divides the remaining cloths after distribution and allocates them for making shoe-straps etc., it is not permissible to take them. For only what has been considered by the owners is allowable, not otherwise. It is also permissible for a paṃsukūlika to take something if it is said, "Let us give this to the Sangha for making dusters etc.," because equipment is desirable even for those observing the paṃsukūlika practice. Whatever is extra there, it is permissible to apply it even to robes. If thread is given to the Sangha, it should also be taken by those observing the paṃsukūlika practice. This is the ruling about robes given after entering a monastery, saying, "I give these robes to the Sangha." But if, seeing bhikkhus on a journey within the boundary of the outer courtyard, one announces to the Sangha elder or a new bhikkhu, "I give this to the Sangha," even if the assembly extends for a league, if it is a connected group, it accrues to all. But it does not accrue to those who are not within twelve cubits of the assembly.

203.Giving to both Sanghas: Here, even if it is said, "I give to both Sanghas," or "I give to the Sangha in two ways," or "I give to two Sanghas," or "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha and the Bhikkhuni Sangha," it is considered given to both Sanghas. There, even if there are many bhikkhus and one bhikkhuni, half should be given; the meaning is that two equal parts should be made and one part given. If there are many bhikkhunis and one bhikkhu, half should be given. If it is said, "I give to both Sanghas and to you," and if there are ten bhikkhus and ten bhikkhunis, twenty-one portions should be made, one portion should be given to the individual, ten to the Bhikkhu Sangha, and ten to the Bhikkhuni Sangha. The individual who receives a personal share can also take from the Sangha according to his seniority. Why? Because it was taken through the inclusion of both Sanghas. If it is said, "I give to both Sanghas and to a shrine (cetiya)," the same method applies. But here, there is no allocated share for the shrine from the Sangha; the share is like the portion accruing to a single individual. But if it is said, "I give to both Sanghas, to you, and to a shrine," twenty-two portions should be made, ten given to the bhikkhus, ten to the bhikkhunis, one to the individual, and one to the shrine. There, the individual can also take from the Sangha according to his seniority, but there is only one for the shrine.

If it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha and to the bhikkhunis," it should not be divided in the middle and given, but it should be given after counting the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis. If it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha, to the bhikkhunis, and to you," the individual does not receive a separate share, but receives only one from the place of accrual. Why? Because it was taken through the inclusion of the Bhikkhu Sangha. If it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha, to the bhikkhunis, to you, and to a shrine," the shrine receives a portion equivalent to one individual, but the individual does not receive separately; therefore, after giving one to the shrine, the remaining should be divided after counting the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.

If it is said, "I give to the bhikkhus and to the bhikkhunis," it should not be divided in the middle and given, but it should be distributed according to the number of individuals. If it is said, "I give to the bhikkhus and to the bhikkhunis and to you," or "I give to the bhikkhus and to the bhikkhunis and to a shrine," or "I give to the bhikkhus and to the bhikkhunis and to you and to a shrine," the shrine receives one portion, but there is nothing separate for the individual; the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis should be counted and divided accordingly. And just as the method has been laid down beginning with the Bhikkhu Sangha, so it should also be applied beginning with the Bhikkhuni Sangha.

If it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha and to you," there is no separate share for the individual; it should be taken only according to seniority. But if it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha and to a shrine," the shrine receives a separate portion. If it is said, "I give to the Bhikkhu Sangha, to you, and to a shrine," only the shrine receives separately, not the individual. If it is said, "I give to the bhikkhus and to you," there is also no separate share, but if it is said, "I give to the bhikkhus and to a shrine," the shrine receives. If it is said, "I give to the bhikkhus, to you, and to a shrine," only the shrine receives separately, not the individual. The same should be applied beginning with the Bhikkhuni Sangha as well.

In the past, they would give offerings to both Sanghas with the Buddha at the head. The Blessed One would sit in the middle, with the bhikkhus sitting to the right and the bhikkhunis to the left. The Blessed One was the elder of both Sanghas. At that time, the Blessed One would use the requisites received by himself and also give them to the bhikkhus. Nowadays, however, wise people place a statue or a shrine containing relics and give offerings to both Sanghas with the Buddha at the head. They place a bowl in front of the statue or shrine as a receptacle, offer water libation, and say, "Let us give to the Buddhas." There, they first give hard and soft food. Or, bringing it to the monastery, they give alms food, flowers, incense, etc., saying, "Let us give this to the shrine." How should one proceed in that case? The flowers, incense, etc., should be offered to the shrine, cloths should be made into banners, and lamps should be made with oil. But the alms food, honey, molasses, etc., should be given to the ordained or lay person who is regularly in charge of the shrine. If there is no regular caretaker, it is permissible to set aside the brought food, make a turn, and partake of it. It is permissible to eat when the time is near and make a turn afterward as well. And regarding flowers, incense, etc., if anything is said, "Take this and offer it to the shrine," it should be taken even far away and offered. If it is said, "Take it to the Bhikkhu Sangha," it should also be taken. But if someone says, "I am going for alms, there are bhikkhus in the refectory hall, they will take it," and they say, "Venerable sir, I give it to you," it is permissible to eat. But if, while taking it, thinking, "I will give it to the Bhikkhu Sangha," the time approaches in between while going, it is permissible to bring it to oneself and eat.

204.Giving to the Sangha that has resided for the rains: Here, if one enters a monastery and gives robes, saying, "I give these robes to the Sangha that has resided for the rains," it should be distributed among as many bhikkhus as have completed the rains residence in that dwelling without interruption; it does not accrue to others. Even to one who has departed to another region, it should be given until the Kathina is set up, if there is someone to take it. "But if it is given in this way at the end of the cold season when the Kathina is not established, saying, 'Let it accrue even to those who resided for the rains in the later period'," say those who know the characteristics. But this has not been considered in the Commentaries. But if, standing within the boundary of the outer courtyard, one says, "I give to the Sangha that has resided for the rains," it accrues to all who are present. Then, if one says, "To the Sangha that has resided for the rains in such-and-such monastery," it accrues only to those who have resided for the rains there until the Kathina is set up. But if one says this from the first day of the hot season, it accrues to all those who are present. Why? Because it arose at a time of backing away. Only during the rains, if it is said, "I give to those who are residing for the rains," those whose rains residence is broken do not receive, only those who are residing for the rains receive. But in the robes month, if it is said, "I give to those who are residing for the rains," it accrues only to those who have undertaken the rains residence in the later period, and it does not accrue to those who have undertaken the rains residence in the earlier period or whose rains residence is broken.

From the robes month until the last day of the cold season, if it is said, "Let us give a rain-residence offering (vassāvāsikaṃ)," whether the Kathina is established or not, it accrues only to those who completed the previous rains residence. But if it is said from the first day of the hot season, the matrix (mātikā) should be raised: "Five months have passed since the last rains residence, and the future rains residence will occur after four months; to which rains residence does he refer?" If one says, "I give to those who completed the past rains residence," it accrues only to those who completed the rains residence during that rains period, and those who have departed to other regions can also take a share. If one says, "I give a rain-residence offering in the future," it should be kept and taken on the day of undertaking the rains residence. Then, if it is said, "The monastery is unprotected, there is danger of thieves, it is not possible to keep it or wander around having taken it," and one says, "I give to those who are present," it should be divided and taken. If one says, "Venerable sir, a rain-residence offering has not been given to me for the third year from now, I give that," it accrues to the bhikkhus who resided during that rains period. If they have departed to other regions, another trustworthy person takes it; it should be given. But if only one remains and the rest have passed away, it all accrues to the one. If there is not even one, it belongs to the Sangha, it should be divided by those who are present.

205.Giving after designating: Here, giving after designating and specifying with respect to rice gruel, cooked rice, snacks, robes, lodging, or medicine is called giving after designating. Here is the ruling: After inviting bhikkhus for rice gruel either today or tomorrow, one gives rice gruel to those who have entered their house. After giving the rice gruel that has been drunk, one says, "I give these robes to those by whom my rice gruel has been drunk." It accrues only to those by whom the rice gruel has been drunk, having been invited. But it does not accrue to those to whom rice gruel was given while going on alms round at the house door or after entering the house, or to those to whom it was brought by people after bringing a bowl from the refectory hall, or to those who were sent by the elders. But if many others, invited and uninvited, come together with the invited bhikkhus and sit, filling the inner and outer areas of the house, and the donor says, "Whether invited or uninvited, let these cloths belong to all to whom rice gruel has been given by me," it accrues to all. But it does not accrue to those to whom rice gruel has been received from the hands of the elders. Then, if he says, "Let it belong to all by whom my rice gruel has been drunk," it accrues to all. The same method applies to cooked rice and snacks. Regarding robes, if one has previously provided lodging for the bhikkhus for the rains and has given robes to the bhikkhus, and if, after feeding the bhikkhus, he says, "Let this robe or thread or ghee, honey, molasses, etc., belong only to those to whom I have previously given robes," it all accrues only to them. Regarding lodging, if one says, "Let this belong to whoever dwells in the monastery or enclosure built by me," it belongs to that person. Regarding medicine, if one says, "We give ghee etc., as medicine to the elders from time to time; let this belong only to those by whom those things have been received," it belongs only to them.

206. He gives to an individual: Here, whether he gives saying, "I give this robe to so-and-so" in their absence, or whether he places it at their feet and says, "Bhante, I give this to you" in their presence, it belongs to that person alone. But if he says, "I give this to you and your pupils," then it accrues to the Elder and the pupils. It also accrues to one who has come to receive an uddesa (a subject of study or meditation) and is leaving after receiving it. When it is said, "I give to the monks who regularly wander with you," it accrues to all those who, having performed the duties for the uddesa pupils and having taken the uddesa and paripucchā (questions), are wandering. This is the determination in the phrase "he gives to an individual."

If a certain monk dwells alone during the rains, and people give robes saying, "We give to the Sangha," what should be done there? "I allow, monks, those robes to belong to him until the lifting of the kathina," (Mahāva. 363) according to this statement, if having obtained monks sufficient to form a chapter (gaṇapūraka), the kathina is laid out, then for five months; if it is not laid out, even if one carries those robes elsewhere for a robe-month, those robes belong to him alone; no one else is their owner. For whatever they give saying, "We give to the Sangha," or "We give intending the Sangha," or "We give to the Sangha who have spent the rains," or "We give to those dwelling for the rains," even if a robe for the dead enters that monastery without being distributed, all of it belongs to that monk. And whatever he takes as requisites for dwelling during the rains from the deposit he has placed to grow for the dwelling during the rains or from what arises there, all of it is well-taken. Here, the characteristic is this: in any way whatever, cloth that has arisen for the Sangha accrues for five months for a laid-out kathina, or for a robe-month for an unlaid-out kathina. But if a certain monk dwells alone in a season other than the rains, and people give robes saying, "We give to the Sangha," that monk should determine, "These robes are mine." However, in determining, the proper procedure should be known. That monk, having struck a bell or announced the time, having waited a little, if monks come at the signal of the bell or the signal of the time, they should be shared with them. If, while those monks are sharing in that robe, a lot (kusa) has not been cast and another monk arrives, an equal share should be given. If, after a lot has been cast, another monk arrives, a share should not be given against their will. For even when a single share with a kusa stick has been cast, even if there are a thousand monks, the robe is considered taken. Therefore, a share should not be given against their will. But if they are willing to give out of their own desire, they may give. The same method applies to a secondary share.

Then, if at the signal of the bell or the signal of the time, other monks do not come, they should be determined, "These robes accrue to me." When determined thus, all of them belong to him alone, but the established practice does not stand. If, picking them up one by one, he takes them saying, "This first share accrues to me, this second share," and the ones taken are well-taken, and the established practice also stands; even when taking after having caused it to accrue in this way, it is indeed determined. But if, having struck the bell or without striking it, or even having announced the time or without announcing it, he takes them saying, "There is no one else here, these robes belong to me," they are badly taken. Then, if he takes them thinking, "There is no one else here, these robes accrue to me," they are well-taken. Then, without even having determined, if he takes those robes and goes intending another monastery, thinking, "There I will share with the monks," those robes are Sangha property in each place he goes. The mere sight of the monks is the measure here. Therefore, if some monks coming along the road, having asked, "Where are you going, friend?" and having heard the matter, share and take right there, saying, "What, friend, are we not the Sangha?" they are well-taken. Even if he turns aside from the road and enters some monastery or hall or enters a single house while wandering for alms, and there monks, having seen him and having asked about the matter, share and take, they are indeed well-taken.

"Monks, a share of robes should not be appropriated apart from one who has spent the rains; whoever should appropriate, there is an offense of wrong-doing," (Mahāva. 364) because of this statement, if one other than one who has spent the rains takes a share, there is a wrong-doing. Here, although the offense is light, nevertheless, the robes that have been taken should be given in the place they were taken. Even if they are lost or worn out, it is his responsibility. When asked, "Give," if he does not give, he should be made to pay the price of the goods as a deposit against the burden.

A monk spends the rains in two residences thinking, "Thus, I will have many robes arise for me"; he obtains only a single person's portion. Therefore, if he dwells in each monastery for a day each or a week each, half of what a single person obtains should be given in each monastery. For in this way, a single person's portion has been given. But if, while dwelling in one monastery, he makes the dawn arise in the other on the occasion of a week, a portion should be given to him from the monastery where he dwells the most. Even in this way, only a single person's portion has been given. And this has been spoken with regard to monasteries within a single boundary with different gains and different attentions. However, in monasteries with different boundaries, the acceptance of lodging ceases. Therefore, a robe portion does not accrue there, but everything else, such as material and medicine, accrues everywhere for one who has come within the boundary.

207. "Monks, when a monk has completed his time, the Sangha is the owner of the bowl and robes; moreover, the sick-attendants are very helpful. I allow, monks, the Sangha to give the three robes and bowl to the sick-attendants; whatever light goods and light requisites there are, the Sangha should share face-to-face; whatever heavy goods and heavy requisites there are, that is unassignable and indivisible to the Sangha from the four directions, both present and not yet present," (Mahāva. 369) because of this statement, when a monk has completed his time, having announced:

"Bhante, may the Sangha hear me. A monk named so-and-so has completed his time. These are his three robes and bowl. If it is proper for the Sangha, the Sangha should give these three robes and bowl to the sick-attendants. This is the motion."

"Bhante, may the Sangha hear me. A monk named so-and-so has completed his time. These are his three robes and bowl. The Sangha gives these three robes and bowl to the sick-attendants. Whichever venerable one approves of giving these three robes and bowl to the sick-attendants, let him be silent. Whichever one does not approve, let him speak."

"This three robes and bowl has been given by the Sangha to the sick-attendants. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I hold it," (Mahāva. 367) –

Having announced the motion in this way and having given the bowl and robes to the sick-attendants, the remaining light requisites should be shared and taken by the Sangha face-to-face.

208. However, this is the determination in the gain for the sick-attendants: if he makes his time while all the monks are attending to him, all are the owners. Then, if he makes his time when some have made their turn and some have not yet made it, there some teachers say, "All should do it when their turn arrives, therefore all are the owners." Some say, "Those by whom he was cared for, they alone receive; the others do not receive." When a novice also makes his time, if there is a robe, it should be given to the sick-attendants. If there is not, whatever there is, that should be given. When there are other requisites, a robe share should be made and given. If a monk and a novice attend to him equally, an equal share should be given. Then, if the novice alone attends to him, and the monk only arranges it, the elder share should be given to the novice. If the novice, having cooked gruel with water brought by the monk, only makes the acceptance, and the monk attends to him, the elder share should be given to the monk. Many monks all attend to him in harmony; an equal share should be given to all. However, one who attends to him specially should be given a special portion.

But one by whom even for one day gruel or rice has been cooked and given in the manner of a sick-attendant, or bathing has been arranged, he too is a sick-attendant. But one who, without coming near, sends medicine, rice grains, etc., this one is not a sick-attendant. One who, having searched and caused it to be taken, comes, this one is indeed a sick-attendant. One cares for him out of duty, one out of expectation; at the time of death, both expect; it should be given to both. One, having attended to the sick one, has gone somewhere by his own work or by the sick one's work thinking, "I will come again and care for him"; it should be given to this one also. One, having cared for a long time, gives up the responsibility and goes thinking, "Now I am not able"; even if the sick one makes his time on that very day, a sick-attendant's share should not be given. The sick-attendant, whether a householder or a renunciate, even a woman, all receive a share. If that monk has only the three robes and bowl, and there is nothing else, everything should be given to the sick-attendants alone. Even if it is worth a thousand, they do not receive other plentiful requisites; it belongs to the Sangha alone. The remaining goods are plentiful and of great value, and the three robes are of little value; having taken from that, the three-robe requisites should be given. All of this is obtained as Sangha property. But if he, while still living, has given up all of his requisites and given them to someone, or someone has accepted them on trust, it belongs to the one to whom it was given and by whom it was taken; the sick-attendants receive according to his wish. Requisites placed far away without giving to others belong to the Sangha in that very place. There is ownership by two, undivided; when one makes his time, the other is the owner. The same method applies in the case of many owners. When all have died, it becomes Sangha property. Even if, without dividing, they give to the co-resident, etc., it is not given. However, when divided and given, it is well-given. Even when they have died, it belongs to the co-resident, etc., not to the Sangha.

If a monk who has spent the rains departs when a robe has not arisen or when it has arisen but not been distributed, or if he is mad, deranged in mind, afflicted by pain, or suspended, when there is a suitable receiver, a share should be given. But if he wanders off, or makes his time, or a novice acknowledges, or one who has renounced the training, one who has committed an ultimate offense, an impotent person, one in communion with a thief, one who has gone over to the heretics, one gone to the animal realm, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an arahant, one who has violated a nun, one who has caused a schism in the Sangha, one who has caused blood to flow, or one who is of double gender acknowledges, the Sangha is the owner; a share should not be given.

It is stated in the Great Commentary: If in whichever fortnight water has been given, in that very fortnight robes are given, saying, "We give to the fortnight," those robes belong to that fortnight alone; the other fortnight is not the owner. But if, when a robe has arisen for the monks who have spent the rains but has not been distributed, the Sangha is split, it should be shared equally by all.

If, among a group of monks traveling on a journey, some monks enter a cemetery for rag-robes, while others depart without waiting, a share should not be given unwillingly to those who depart without waiting, but a share should be given even unwillingly to those who wait. But if people give, saying, "Let those who have come here take it," or if they make an agreement and leave, saying, "Let those who arrive take it," it accrues to all who arrive. If they have thrown it away and left, whoever takes it is the owner. If some monks enter a cemetery first and others later, those who entered first obtain the rag-robe, those who entered later do not obtain it. Because of the statement, "I allow, monks, giving a share unwillingly to those who entered later" (mahāva. 341), a share should not be given unwillingly to those who entered later. But if all enter at the same time, and some obtain it while others do not, because of the statement, "I allow, monks, giving a share unwillingly to those who entered at the same time" (mahāva. 341), a share should be given even unwillingly to those who entered at the same time. But if, having made an agreement beforehand, saying, "We will all divide the rag-robe obtained and take it," they enter the cemetery, and some obtain it while others do not, because of the statement, "I allow, monks, giving a share unwillingly to those who entered having made an agreement beforehand" (mahāva. 341), a share should be given even unwillingly to those who entered having made an agreement beforehand. This, so far, is the discussion on sharing robes.

209.In sharing alms-food, however, in the case of saṅghabhatta, uddesabhatta, invitation, ticket-food, fortnightly, uposatha, and pāṭipada meals, which were thus allowed: "I allow, monks, saṅghabhatta, uddesabhatta, invitation, ticket-food, fortnightly, uposatha, and pāṭipada meals" (cūḷava. 325), this is the judgment (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325):

Saṅghabhatta means food to be given to the entire saṅgha. Therefore, in saṅghabhatta, there is no fixed order. Hence, one should not say there, "It has been ten or twelve days for us eating; now bring monks from elsewhere." Nor is it permissible to say, "We did not receive it in previous days; now take it for us." For it accrues to those who arrive.

In the case of Uddesabhatta and the others, this is the method: when the king or a royal minister sends word, "Having designated from the saṅgha, bring so many monks," having announced the time, the fixed order should be asked. If there is one, it should be taken starting from there. If not, it should be taken starting from the seat of the elders. The designator should not pass over those who live on alms-food. But they, protecting the dhutaṅga, will pass over it themselves. While it is being taken in this way, if lazy elder monks arrive later, one should not say, "Venerable Sir, it is being taken by those of twenty years; your turn has passed." Having set aside the turn, it should be taken for them, and then it should be taken for the turn. Having heard, "Much uddesabhatta has arisen in such and such monastery," monks come even from monasteries a yojana away. It should be taken for those who have arrived, starting from their place of standing. Even for those who have not arrived, it should be taken when their pupils and others who have entered the boundary of attendance are taking it. If they say, "Take it for those standing outside the boundary of attendance," it should not be taken. But if those who have entered the boundary of attendance are united and are at the door of their own monastery or inside the monastery itself, the boundary is considered to have been extended due to the assembly, therefore it should be taken. Even when it is given to a newly ordained member of the saṅgha, it should be taken for those who arrive later. However, in the second portion, when one who has ascended to the seat of elders arrives again, he does not receive the first portion; it should be taken from the second portion according to seniority.

Having defined one place for bhattuddesa in one monastery, the uddesabhatta announced anywhere within the boundary of attendance, even if it is a gāvuta in extent, should be taken at that place for bhattuddesa. One sends word to another monk, "Tomorrow, having designated from the saṅgha, send ten monks." That matter should be announced to the one in charge of the bhattuddesa. If he forgets that day, it should be announced early the next day. If he forgets and remembers only when entering for alms, as long as he does not go beyond the boundary of attendance, it should be taken according to the established order of the refectory. Even if he has gone beyond the boundary of attendance, and the monks are united with those at the boundary of attendance, going without leaving a distance of twelve cubits from each other, it should be taken according to the established order. But if the monks are not so united, having made a new turn at the place where he remembers outside the boundary of attendance, it should be taken. If he remembers in the village inside the hall, it should be taken according to the order of the hall. Having remembered anywhere, it should be taken; it is not proper not to take it. For this is not obtainable on the second day.

If, seeing monks going from their own monastery to another monastery, someone arranges for uddesabhatta, as long as they are within the inner boundary of attendance or united with those at the boundary of attendance in the manner described, it should be taken according to the order in their own monastery. However, when it is said that it is given to those standing outside the boundary of attendance, "Venerable Sirs, designate so many monks from the saṅgha," it should be taken for those who have arrived. There, even those standing far away in a united manner without leaving a distance of twelve cubits should be understood as having arrived. If they announce it when they have entered the monastery to which they are going, it should be taken according to the order of that monastery. Even if someone announces saṅghuddesa having seen monks at the village gate, in the street, at the crossroads, or inside a house, it should be taken for those who have entered the inner boundary of attendance at that very place.

One house is one boundary of attendance. However, if one house has a wall erected in the middle to provide comfortable dwellings for two wives, and separate doorways and courtyards have been made, the gain from uddesa that arises there does not accrue to the one within the wall; it accrues only to the one sitting in that place. This is called one house with different boundaries of attendance. But in a house where many monks have been invited and, starting from the inner area, they are made united and seated, filling even the houses of the neighbors, the gain from uddesa that arises there accrues to all. And also in a dwelling of different families, if they enclose it with one doorway without erecting a wall in the middle, the same method applies there as well. This is called different houses with one boundary of attendance. However, if a gain from uddesa arises for monks sitting in different dwellings, even if the monks can be seen through a gap in the wall, it accrues only to those sitting in that dwelling. This is called different houses with different boundaries of attendance.

If someone, having obtained uddesabhatta at one place among the village gate, street, or crossroads, and there being no other monk, consumes it himself, and on the second day also obtains another one in the same place, then if he sees another monk, young or old, it should be given to him. If there is no one, he should consume it himself. If, among the monks sitting in the hall waiting for the time, someone comes and says, "Give the saṅghuddesa allocation, give the uddesa allocation, give the allocation designated from the saṅgha, give the saṅghika allocation," the uddesa allocation should be given, taking it according to the order. The same method applies when he says, "Give the saṅghuddesa monk, give the monk designated from the saṅgha, give the saṅghika monk."

Here, the designator should be amiable, conscientious, and intelligent. Having asked the order three times, if there is no one who knows the order, it should be taken from the seat of the elders. But if someone says, "I know, it was obtained after ten years," one should ask, "Venerable Sir, are there monks of ten years?" If, having heard that, many come saying, "I am of ten years, I am of ten years," without going to each one and saying, "It accrues to you, it accrues to you," one should say, "Be quiet, all of you," and place them in order. Having placed them in order, the donor should be asked, "How many monks do you want?" When he says, "So many, Venerable Sir," without saying, "It accrues to you, it accrues to you," the seniority of all the novices, the season, the time of day, and the shadow should be asked. Even while the shadow is being asked, if another elder arrives, it should be given to him. But after asking the shadow and saying, "It accrues to you," if an elder arrives, he does not obtain it. For what is taken from one sitting and sleeping due to elaboration of talk is well-taken, and what is passed over is well-passed over. For this is called shareable goods; it accrues only to one who has arrived. There, the state of having arrived should be determined by attendance. The inner enclosure of the hall is the attendance; the gain accrues to one standing there.

Someone, having brought eight uddesa bowls from the hall, fills seven bowls with delicious food and one with water and sends them to the hall. Those who have brought them, without saying anything, place them in the hands of the monks and depart. Whatever one obtains, that belongs to him. But for the one who has obtained water, even setting aside the expired turn, another uddesabhatta should be taken. Whether he obtains coarse food or delicious food or the set of three robes, that belongs to him. For this is his special merit. But since water is not food, he obtains another uddesabhatta. But if those who have brought them say, "Venerable Sirs, divide all this and eat," all should divide and eat, and the water should be drunk. To one who says, "Give eight senior elders designated from the saṅgha, give middle ones, give novices, give fully ordained novices, give middle reciters, etc., give my relatives who are monks," one should say, "Lay devotee, you speak thus, but it does not accrue to them according to the order," and they should be given only according to the order. But when young novices obtain uddesabhatta, if there is a celebration in the house of the donors, it should be said, "Send it to your preceptors and teachers." In the uddesabhatta in which the first portion accrues to the novices and a share to the senior elders, there the novices cannot go forward, saying, "We obtained the first portion"; they should go in order. When it is said, "Come, designated from the saṅgha," one should take it only according to the order, saying, "You will know me another time, but the order goes like this." Then, when one says, "Give the saṅghuddesa bowl," and someone takes a bowl and fills it before it is taken, even what is brought should be taken only according to the order.

One sent, saying, "Bring the saṅghuddesa bowl," says, "Venerable Sir, give one bowl, I will bring invitation food." If the monks, knowing that "this one has come from the uddesabhatta house," are told, "Have you not come from such and such house?" and he says, "Yes, Venerable Sir, not invitation food, uddesabhatta," it should be taken according to the order. But if, when one says, "Bring one bowl," he asks, "What should I say when I bring it?" and is told, "As you please," and he comes, this is called a messenger who is free to speak. Whatever he wants, an uddesa bowl, a bowl in order, or an individual bowl, should be given to him. One who is foolish and inexperienced, sent, saying, "Bring the uddesa bowl," does not know what to say and remains silent. He should not be asked, "To whom have you come?" or "Whose bowl will you carry?" For if asked thus, due to the nature of the question, he might say, "I have come to you" or "I will carry your bowl." Then other monks, disgusted by that monk, would not look at him. However, he should be asked, "Where are you going? What are you doing wandering about?" If he says, "I have come for the uddesa bowl," having taken it, the bowl should be given.

There is what is called a fixed meal (kūṭaṭṭhitikā). In the house of a king or a royal minister, eight excellent specially prepared meals are regularly given. Making these into alms-food for individual wanderers, monks partake of them according to the established arrangement. Some monks, thinking, "Tomorrow it will be our turn," go after noting their turn. While they have not yet arrived, other visiting monks come and sit in the assembly hall. At that very moment, royal officials come and say, "Give the bowls for the specially prepared food." The visiting monks, not knowing the arrangement, take them. At that very moment, monks who know the arrangement come and say, "Why are you taking them?" (They ask,) "Is it a specially prepared meal from the royal household? From how many years has this been (the arrangement)?" (They reply,) "It has been this many years." Preventing them, saying, "Do not take them," it should be taken for the fixed meal. Even if (the bowls) have been taken, even if (the monks) arrive at the time of giving out bowls, even if they arrive at the time of the meal being given, even if they arrive at the time the bowls are filled with food from the royal household, even if the king sends word, "Let only monks come today," and gives the alms-food into the hands of the monks themselves, even having taken the alms-food given in this way, when they arrive, monks who know the arrangement, preventing (the others) saying, "Do not eat this," should take (the food) only for the fixed meal.

Then, if the king, having fed them, even fills their bowls and gives (them), that which has been brought should be taken for the fixed meal. But if only a little has been put in the bowls, thinking, "Let them not go back empty-handed," that should not be taken. Venerable Mahāsumatthera said, "Then, having eaten, they come back with empty bowls; what has been eaten by them is a burden on them ( gīvā )." But Venerable Mahāpadumatthera said, "There is no question of burden ( gīvākiccaṃ ) here. But those who do not know the arrangement should sit until those who know it come. Even if that happens, the food eaten by the monks is well-eaten. Now it should be taken for the bowl-arrangement."

A set of three robes, an alms-food worth a hundred (kahāpanas), was obtained by a monk who had been authorized ( avassika ). And in the monastery, they wrote and placed (a notice), "Such alms-food was obtained by the authorized one." Then, after sixty years, another such alms-food arose. Should this be taken for the authorized-one's arrangement ( avassikaṭhitikā ), or for the sixty-year arrangement ( saṭṭhivassaṭhitikā )? It was said, "For the sixty-year arrangement." For this monk has grown up taking only the monk's arrangement. A novice, having eaten a fixed meal, becomes a sāmaṇera. Can he again take a bowl that has come to him for the sāmaṇera arrangement? It seems that this is called antarābhaṭṭhako (one who is obtained in between). But if a sāmaṇera who is fully mature ( paripuṇṇavasso ), thinking, "Tomorrow I will receive a fixed meal," is ordained today itself, his turn (ṭhitikā) has passed. A fixed meal has come to a certain monk, and his bowl is not empty. He gives his bowl to (another) who is sitting nearby. If they steal that (bowl), there is an offense ( gīvā ). But if that monk gives (it) himself, thinking, "I will give my bowl," there is no offense for him. Or, being disinterested in that food, he says to another, "Enough for me. I give this food of mine to you. Send the bowl and have it brought back," whatever is brought back from there, all of it belongs to the bowl's owner. If they steal the bowl, it is well-taken, because the food has been given, there is no offense.

There are ten monks in a monastery. Of those, nine are alms-goers ( piṇḍapātikā ), one is a receiver ( sādiyanako ). When it is said, "Give ten fixed-meal bowls," the alms-goers do not wish to take them. The other monk takes them, thinking, "All (the bowls) will come to me." There is no fixed arrangement. But if he gives (the bowls) to each one (individually) and takes them, the fixed arrangement stands. Having taken them in this way, and having them brought by all ten bowls, he gives nine bowls to the alms-goers (saying), "Venerable sirs, please do me a favor." This is called monk-given ( bhikkhudattiyaṃ ). It is allowable to take. If that layperson says, "Venerable sir, you must come to (my) house," and that monk goes to his house (saying to) those monks, "Come, venerable sirs, be my companions," whatever he obtains there, all of it belongs to him. The others receive what is given by him. Then, having seated them in the house itself and having given the water of donation, they give rice-gruel, cakes, etc. (saying), "Venerable sirs, take whatever people give." It is allowable for the others by the word of that monk. Having filled the bowls of those who have eaten and having taken (them), they give (them) for the purpose of going (back). All of it belongs to that monk. What is given by him is allowable for the others. But if, in the monastery itself, they go, having been told by that monk, "Venerable sirs, take my alms-food. It is fitting to do the bidding of the people," whatever they eat there and whatever they take away, all of it belongs to them. Or, not having been told "Take my alms-food," (but thinking) "It is fitting to do the bidding of the people," they go. There, if, having heard one giving thanks in a sweet voice, and having been pleased by the elders' ( therānaṃ ) tranquility, they give much requisites for ascetics, this is called a benefit arisen from pleasure in the elders, not done previously ( akatabhāgo ). Therefore, it accrues to all.

A certain (monk), having had bowls distributed from the Sangha and having taken a bowl for the fixed arrangement, carries (it), fills (it) with delicious hard and soft food, brings (it back), and gives (it, saying), "Venerable sirs, let the entire Sangha partake of this." It should be divided and partaken of by all. But, setting aside even the passed ( atikkantampi ) turn of the bowl's owner, another fixed meal should be given. Then, if he says at the very beginning, "Give all the Sangha's bowls," a bowl belonging to a modest monk should be given. And, having brought (the food) and having said, "Let the entire Sangha partake of it," it should be divided and partaken of. A certain (person), having brought food in a bowl, says, "I will give (this as) a Sangha offering ( saṅghuddesaṃ )." Without giving a single mouthful to each, it should be given to one, making (it) enough for sustenance, according to the fixed arrangement. Then, if that (person) brings the food, not knowing how to say anything, remains silent, it should not be said, "To whom has it been brought? To whom does he wish to give it?" For, if he should say in answer to a question, "It has been brought to you, I wish to give it to you," then the other monks would despise that monk and would not even consider (him worthy of being) looked at with their necks turned. But if, when asked, "Where are you going? What are you doing wandering about?" he says, "I have come taking the fixed meal," it should be taken for the fixed arrangement by one modest monk. If what has been brought is much, enough for all, there is no need for a fixed arrangement. Having filled the bowls starting from the seat of the elders, it should be given.

When it is said, "Give a Sangha-offering bowl," without saying "What will you bring?" it should be taken according to the usual arrangement. But for delicious foods such as rice-porridge or delicious alms-food that are regularly obtained, a special arrangement ( āveṇikā ṭhitikā ) should be made, likewise for rice-gruel with accompaniments ( saparivārāya yāguyā ), expensive fruits, and delicious cakes. For ordinary rice, rice-gruel, fruits, and cakes, only one arrangement should be made. When it is said, "I will bring ghee," only one arrangement is fitting for all ghee, likewise for all oils. But when it is said, "I will bring honey," only one arrangement is fitting for honey, likewise for molasses, licorice, etc., and medicines. But if they give garlands of flowers as a Sangha offering, is it allowable for the alms-goers or not? Because only meat has been rejected, it is allowable. "But because it has been given as an offering to the Sangha, it should not be taken," some say.

The Discourse on Fixed Meals is Finished.

210.Invitation: If it is personal, he himself is the master. But if it is for the Sangha, it should be taken in the same manner as stated in the fixed meal ( uddesabhatte ). But here, if the messenger is articulate, without saying, "Venerable sirs, take a meal for the Sangha of monks in the royal household," he says, "Take alms-food," it is allowable even for the alms-goers ( piṇḍapātikānampi ). Then, if the messenger is inarticulate and says, "Take a meal," and the meal-arranger is articulate, without saying "meal," he says, "Venerable sirs, you go, you go," even in this way it is allowable for the alms-goers. But if it is said, "Venerable sirs, a meal will come to you in turn," it is not allowable. If a person who has come to invite (monks) enters the assembly hall and says, "Give eight monks" or "Give eight bowls," even in this way it is allowable for the alms-goers. (It) should be said, "You and you go." If he says, "Give eight monks, take a meal; give eight bowls, take a meal," it should be taken in turn. But when taking, if (the messenger), cutting (the sentence) short and without saying "meal," says, "You and you go," it is allowable for the alms-goers. But when it is said, "Venerable sirs, give your bowls, you come," it should be gone (saying), "Good, layperson." Even if it is said, "Having designated (monks) from the Sangha, you come," it should be taken for the fixed arrangement.

From the house for the invited meal, the bowl should be given for the arrangement in the same manner as stated in the fixed meal ( uddesabhatte ) to one who has come for a bowl. A certain (person), without saying "a bowl in turn from the Sangha," simply saying "Give one bowl," takes a bowl from whomever he likes even without (it) being agreed upon ( aggāhiteyeva ), fills (it), and brings (it). That belongs to the bowl's owner himself. It should not be taken for the fixed arrangement as in the fixed meal. Here also, if someone comes and stands silently, he should not be asked, "To whose presence have you come?" or "Whose bowl will you carry?" For if he should say in answer to a question, "I have come to your presence, I will carry your bowl," then that monk would be despised by the monks. But if, when asked, "Where are you going? What are you doing wandering about?" he says, "I have come for his bowl," a bowl should be given, having taken (it) for the bowl-in-turn arrangement. When it is said, "Give a bowl for carrying the meal," it should be given only for the bowl-in-turn arrangement. If, having brought (the food), he says, "Let the entire Sangha eat," it should be divided and eaten. Setting aside even the passed turn of the bowl's owner, another meal-in-turn should be taken.

A certain (person), having brought food in a bowl, says, "I will give (this) to the Sangha." It should be divided, starting from the arrangement for mouthful-food, by counting the mouthfuls. But if he remains silent, it should not be said, "To whom has it been brought? To whom does he wish to give it?" But if, when asked, "Where are you going? What are you doing wandering about?" he says, "Food has been brought by me for the Sangha, food has been brought by me for the elders," having taken (it), it should be divided for the mouthful-food arrangement. But if the food brought in this way is much, enough for the entire Sangha, it is called abhihaṭabhikkhā (brought alms-food). It is allowable even for the alms-goers. There is no need to ask about the arrangement. Having filled the bowls starting from the seat of the elders, it should be given.

A layperson sends (word) to the Sangha-elder or to the meal-arranger well-known for his ascetic practice or by way of learning, "Having taken eight monks for the purpose of receiving our meal, please come." Even if (the message) has been sent by relatives and attendants, these three people are not allowed to ask, but should set the agenda right away. Having had eight monks designated from the Sangha, he should go as the ninth himself. Why? Because profit arises for the Sangha of monks depending on these monks. But a resident monk ( āvāsikabhikkhu ) not well-known for ascetic practice, etc., is allowed to ask. Therefore, having set the agenda, "Shall I take (monks) from the Sangha, or shall I come together with those whom I know?" it should be proceeded according to how the donors say. But when it is said, "Having taken those who are dependent on you or those whom you know, please come," it is allowable to go together with those who wish. If they send (word), "Send eight monks," they should be sent only from the Sangha. If it is possible to obtain alms-food in another village by oneself, another village should be gone to. If it is not possible to obtain (alms-food), that same village should be entered for alms.

When invited monks are seated in the assembly hall, and people come saying, "Give alms-bowls," they should not be given to those who are not invited. One should say, "These are invited monks." However, if they say, "Give to us too," it is permissible to give. At festivals, people themselves go to the enclosures (pariveṇa) and meditation halls (padhānaghara), and invite even hundreds of monks, including those who know the Tipitaka and those who preach the Dhamma. Then, those who know should take those monks and go. Why? Because people who need many monks do not go to the enclosures and meditation halls; they gather monks from the assembly place itself, according to their ability and strength, and go.

However, in the Kurundī, it is stated, "If it is said, 'Give eight elders,' then only eight elders should be given." This is the method in the Majjhima texts and others. But if one says without specifying, "Give eight monks," they should be given from the Saṅgha.

The Discourse on Invited Meals is concluded.

211. As for Ticket Meals (salākabhatta), "I allow, monks, to designate a meal by fastening a ticket (salākā) or a slip (paṭṭikā) and drawing lots" (Cūḷava. 326). According to this statement, one should write the letters "Ticket Meal of so-and-so" on a ticket made of heartwood or on a slip made of bamboo, reeds, palm leaf, or the like. Having made it either in a basket or on a robe-holder (cīvarabhoga), all the tickets should be thoroughly mixed and stirred repeatedly from top to bottom. Then, a meal-designator (bhattuddesaka) endowed with five qualities should give the tickets, starting from an established order (ṭhitikā) if there is one, or from the seat of the elders if there is not. Even to those who arrive later and to those standing far away together, they should be given in the same manner as stated for designated meals (uddesabhatta).

If a monastery has many alms-villages all around, but not many monks, the tickets can be distributed based on villages. One should ascertain based on villages, saying, "A ticket meal is due in such-and-such a village of yours." By ascertaining in this way, even if there are sixty different kinds of ticket meals in each village, all are considered to have been taken. If there are two or three other ticket meals near that alms-village, they should be given to the same monk. It is not possible to send another monk just for those.

This is stated in the Kurundī. But if there are many monks, and tickets cannot be distributed based on villages, they should be distributed based on streets (vīthi), or based on one house in a street, or based on one family. And in streets and other places where there are many meals, they should be distributed to many monks in the same way as stated for villages, and even without tickets, they should be ascertained by designating.

212. The ticket-distributor (salākadāyaka) should know his duties (vatta). He should get up early, take his bowl and robe, go to the dining hall, sweep the unswept area, provide drinking water and water for washing, and, considering the time, thinking, "Now the monks' duties will have been done," he should strike the gong. When the monks have gathered, he should first ascertain the ticket meal in the rotation-villages (vāragāma), saying, "A ticket is due in such-and-such a rotation-village of yours; go there." If the village is more than an abhireka-gavuta away, they will be exhausted going there that day. It should be ascertained today, saying, "It is due in your rotation-village tomorrow." If someone, when sent to a rotation-village, does not go and asks for another ticket, it should not be given. For the meritorious action of faithful people is lost, and there is a loss of gain for the Saṅgha. Therefore, another ticket should not be given to him even on the second or third day. He should be told, "Go and eat at your regular alms-round place." But if he does not go for three days, a ticket should be ascertained for him in a rotation-village closer than his rotation-village. If he does not accept that, then it is not permissible to give him another ticket from then on. Strict disciplinary action (daṇḍakammaṃ) should be taken. It should not be reduced from sixty or fifty. Having ascertained a rotation-village, the monastery-turn (vihāravāra) should be ascertained, saying, "Your monastery-turn is due." For the monastery-turn, two or three gruel tickets and three or four meal tickets should be given, but they should not be given on a fixed basis (nibaddhaṃ katvā). For the gruel-meal-givers might become displeased, thinking, "The monastery stewards are eating our gruel-meal." Therefore, they should be given to other families.

If those on monastery-turn bring and give a portion (sabhāga), that is skillful. If not, gruel and meals should be brought for them by taking the turn. Only then do their tickets become truly beneficial. However, during the rains, at the regular alms-round place, they can certainly take another excellent meal ticket as well. For the extra distribution (atirekauttaribhaṅga) and the single alms-round meal (ekacārikabhatta), a separate arrangement (ṭhitikaṃ) should be made, and tickets should be given. If someone has received a ticket but does not receive that meal on that day, it should be ascertained for him on another day. He receives only the meal, not the extra distribution, and even so, it should be ascertained again. The same method applies to milk-rice tickets. However, if he only receives milk and not rice, he should not be ascertained again from the time he receives the milk. If someone receives two or three single alms-round meals, during times of famine, when the new Saṅgha has received them, they should be separated and ascertained separately. Even if a natural ticket-meal (pākatikasalākabhattaṃ) has not been received, it should be ascertained again on the next day.

If it is a small monastery, and all the monks share equally, when ascertaining sugarcane tickets (ucchusalākaṃ), it is permissible to give it to anyone who is present, after having it cut during the day for the elders and others. Having delivered the sugar juice ticket and also strained the after-meal drink, making it into treacle (phāṇita), it should be given even to those who go on alms-round. For the newcomers, after knowing whether they have arrived or not, they should be ascertained. In a large monastery, they should be ascertained after making an arrangement (ṭhitikaṃ). Even the fruit ticket, cake ticket, medicine ticket, perfume ticket, and flower garland ticket should be ascertained according to a separate arrangement. Although here the medicine tickets and others are suitable even for those who go on alms-round, they should not be consumed without being offered, since they were ascertained by way of tickets. They give only the best alms as a ticket meal; it should be ascertained after asking about the arrangement (ṭhitikaṃ). If there is no arrangement, it should be ascertained starting from the seat of the elders. If there are many such meals, two or three should be given to each monk. If not, having given only one to each and going in order, it should be given again, starting from the seat of the elders. But if it is interrupted in between, the arrangement (ṭhitikā) should be considered. But if such a meal is fixed (nibaddhaṃ), whoever is due should be told, "Whether you have received it or not, take it again tomorrow." If one is not fixed, he receives as much as he needs on the day he receives it. The days he does not receive are more numerous. Whoever is due should be told, without receiving it, "Take it tomorrow."

If someone comes after the tickets have been taken, the tickets that have already been distributed should not be presented and given to him. A ticket is received only by coming and extending one's hand from the moment the gong is struck; even if someone else comes and stands nearby, the distributed ones are indeed distributed. But if there is someone else taking it for him, he receives it even if he himself has not come; in the shared place, knowing that "so-and-so has not come," it is permissible to keep it, saying, "This is his ticket." If they make an agreement that "it should not be given to someone who has not come," it is unrighteous. For those who stay within the inner boundary (antoupacāra), shareable goods (bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ) are received. But if they make a great noise, saying, "Give to the one who has not come," disciplinary action should be imposed, and it should be said, "Let them come and take it." If five or six tickets are lost, and the meal-designator does not remember the names of the givers, if he gives the lost tickets to the elder or to himself and tells the monks, "I have had a ticket meal sent to me in such-and-such a village; you should eat the ticket meal you have received there," it is permissible. However, it is not permissible to receive that meal in the assembly hall without having it sent to the monastery, and after receiving it, to eat it there. If it is said, "From today, take my ticket meal," it is not permissible to have it ascertained in the assembly hall; it should be brought to the monastery and ascertained. But if it is said, "From tomorrow," the meal-designator should be informed, "From tomorrow, such-and-such a family is giving a ticket meal; remember at the time of taking the ticket." In times of famine, having discontinued the ticket meal, when abundance arises, seeing any monk, they re-establish it, saying, "From today, take our ticket meal." Without taking it inside the village, it should be brought to the monastery and ascertained. For this ticket meal is not like a designated meal; it is given with the monastery in mind. Therefore, it is not permissible to have it ascertained outside the boundary. But if it is said, "From tomorrow," it should certainly be ascertained in the monastery.

A village monk (gāmiko bhikkhu), wanting to go in whatever direction, if another has received a rotation-village ticket there, it is permissible for him to take it, saying to the other monk, "You take my regular alms-round ticket." However, his ticket should be ascertained for him there without crossing the boundary of attendance (upacārasīmaṃ). After dwelling in an abandoned monastery, people establish a ticket meal, saying, "Let them maintain the Bodhi tree and shrines and eat." The monks, dwelling in shared places, go there early, perform the duties, and eat that meal; it is permissible. If, after they have gone to have it sent to them for the next day, a newcomer monk dwells in the abandoned monastery, performs the duties early, strikes the gong, has the ticket meal sent to himself, and goes to the assembly hall, he alone is the master of that meal. But whoever, while the monks are performing their duties, gives two or three sweeping strokes to the ground, strikes the gong, and goes, saying, "A ticket meal is due to me in Dhuragāma," he does not receive that, because it was taken by theft; it belongs to the monks who have come after performing the duties and having it sent.

If one village is very far away, and the monks do not want to go regularly, the people say, "We will be excluded from merit." Those shared monks in the monastery near that village should be told, "You eat on the days those monks do not come." However, the tickets should be sent daily. And those, indeed, are not considered sent merely by striking the gong or shaking the basket; the basket should be taken, and the tickets should be scattered on a stool. However, the basket should not be taken to the mouth rim (mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ). For if there were a snake or scorpion there, it would cause suffering. Therefore, holding the basket from below and turning the basket away, the tickets should be scattered, thinking, "Even if there is a snake, it will flee right here." Having scattered the tickets in this way, they should be ascertained in the same manner as stated earlier, based on villages and other places.

Moreover, having sent one to the elder, and having sent the remaining ones to oneself, while the monks are standing in the cloister (vitakkamāḷake) after performing the duties and worshiping the shrine, if they are told, "The tickets have been sent, venerable," they should be told, "Yes, venerable, you take the ticket meal in the village you have gone to." For even sent ones are very well sent. Monks, going to another monastery for the purpose of listening to the Dhamma all night, without taking the tickets, thinking, "Without taking the alms here, we will go on alms-round in our alms-village and come back," and they come to the monastery to eat the ticket meal in the elder's bowl, it is permissible. Then the elder also goes with them, thinking, "What am I doing here?" When they arrive at the alms-village without eating at the monastery they went to, and it is said, "Give us the bowls, venerable, we will bring the ticket gruel and other things," the bowls should not be given. Why, venerable, do you not give? The meal belonging to the monastery belongs to those who live in the monastery; we live in another monastery. But if they say, "Give, venerable, we are not giving it to the monastery's storekeeper (pālikāya), we are giving it to you, take our alms," then it is permissible.

The Discourse on Ticket Meals is concluded.

213. Moreover, pakkhika is what is given with the intention of making the monks mindful to observe the Uposatha on the fourteenth, fifteenth, fifth, or eighth day of those fortnights that are specified for such offerings. This is treated in the same way as salākabhatta; it should be taken and consumed. If both salākabhatta and pakkhikabhatta are plentiful and sufficient for all, both types of meals should be taken separately. If the community of monks is large, the pakkhika should be taken first, and then the salākabhatta should be taken to cover any remaining needs, or vice versa. Those who do not receive these offerings will go for alms. If both types of meals are plentiful and the monks are few, since salākabhatta is usually available daily, it should be set aside, and only the pakkhika should be given, saying, "Friends, partake of the pakkhika." If a fine pakkhika is offered, a separate allocation should be made; the pakkhika should not be taken today with the thought, "Tomorrow is the pakkha." However, if the donors say, "Tomorrow we will also have plain food at our house, please designate the pakkhikabhatta today," this is allowable.

Uposathika is what is given on the Uposatha day of the half-month, being only what one eats after undertaking the Uposatha observances oneself. Pāṭipadika is a gift given on the day after the Uposatha, considering that "on the Uposatha, many faithful people make offerings to the monks, but on the day after the Uposatha, the monks are tired; a gift given on the day after the Uposatha is like a donation during a famine, bringing great reward, or a gift given on the second day to those whose sīla is purified by the Uposatha act brings great reward." Both of these are treated in the same way as salākabhatta. Thus, these seven kinds of meals are not allowable for those practicing the dhutaṅga of being a piṇḍapātika; they would be breaking their dhutaṅga.

214. Furthermore, in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 350), four kinds of meals are mentioned in the Pāḷi as having been given after Visākhā made a request: āgantukabhatta (meal for guests), gamikabhatta (meal for those departing), gilānabhatta (meal for the sick), and gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta (meal for attendants of the sick). Among these, āgantukabhatta is a meal given to guests. The same principle applies to the others. Here, if there are many āgantukabhattas and many guests, one should be taken for each of them. If the meals are insufficient, they should be taken according to an allocation. If one guest arrives first and takes all the āgantukabhatta for himself and sits down, it all belongs to him. The guests who arrive later should partake of what is given by him. He, too, should take one portion for himself and give the rest. This is generosity. However, if, having arrived first, he sits quietly without taking anything for himself, it should be taken in turn along with those who arrive later. If guests arrive regularly, it should be eaten on the day of arrival. If they arrive intermittently, it should be eaten for two or three days. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is said, "It is allowable to eat for seven days." If a resident monk goes somewhere and returns, he should also eat the āgantukabhatta. However, if it is allocated to the monastery, it should be taken at the monastery. If the monastery is far away and it is allocated to the assembly hall, it should be taken at the assembly hall. However, if the donors say, "When there are no guests, resident monks may also eat it," it is allowable; if they do not say so, it is not allowable.

The same line of reasoning applies to gamikabhatta. However, this is the difference: a guest receives only āgantukabhatta, but one who is departing receives both āgantukabhatta and gamikabhatta. A resident monk who intends to depart is also considered one who is departing and receives gamikabhatta. This, like āgantukabhatta, is not received for two, three, or seven days. Even if one has eaten with the intention of departing and does not go on that day for some reason, it is allowable to eat again on the following day due to the intention to depart. If thieves block the path of one who has eaten with the intention of departing, or it rains, or the caravan does not leave, it should be eaten with the intention of departing. In the Mahāpaccariya it is said, "Considering these obstacles, it is allowable to eat for two or three days." However, it is not allowable to eat by falsely claiming "I will depart, I will depart."

Regarding gilānabhatta, if it is sufficient for all the sick, it should be given to all of them. If not, it should be taken after making an allocation. If one sick person is healthy enough to go into the village, and another is not, the latter is called a seriously ill person, and gilānabhatta should be given to him. If there are two seriously ill people, one is well-known and receives much food, both hard and soft, while the other is without support and enters the village for meager gains; gilānabhatta should be given to the latter. There is no limit of days for gilānabhatta; it should be eaten as long as the illness does not subside and one cannot sustain oneself without consuming suitable food. However, once the illness no longer worsens even when one eats mixed gruel or mixed food, it should no longer be eaten.

Regarding gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta, if it is sufficient for all the attendants of the sick, it should be given to all of them. If it is not sufficient, it should be taken after making an allocation. This, too, should be given to the attendant of the seriously ill person among two sick people, and to the attendant of the unsupported seriously ill person among two seriously ill people. In a family that gives both gilānabhatta and gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta, the attendant of the sick person who is entitled to gilānabhatta should also receive it there. There is also no limit of days for gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta; the attendant receives it as long as the sick person receives it. These four kinds of meals are allowable for piṇḍapātikas if they are given with the intention that "guests, those departing, the sick, and attendants of the sick may take my alms." However, if they are given with the intention that "I am allocating meals for the four, starting with guests, may they take my meals," they are not allowable for piṇḍapātikas.

215. Furthermore, there are three kinds of meals: dhurabhatta, kuṭibhatta, and vārakabhatta. Among these, dhurabhatta is called niccabhatta (regular meal), and it is of two kinds: saṅghika (belonging to the Saṅgha) and puggalika (belonging to an individual). Among these, that which is allocated with the intention that "we give dhurabhatta to the Saṅgha" is treated in the same way as salākabhatta. However, that which is given after saying "may you receive my regular alms" is allowable even for piṇḍapātikas. Even in the case of puggalika, if it is said "I will give you dhurabhatta," it is not allowable if one is a piṇḍapātika; however, if it is said "receive my regular alms," it is allowable and should be accepted. If after some time has passed, one says "receive dhurabhatta," it is allowable because it was well received at the beginning.

Kuṭibhatta is what is allocated after constructing a residence for the Saṅgha, with the intention that "those residing in our dwelling should receive only our meal." This is treated in the same way as salākabhatta; it should be taken and consumed. However, if it is said "those residing in our dwelling should receive only our alms," it is allowable even for piṇḍapātikas. However, that which is given to a person one is pleased with, after building a residence for him, with the intention that "we give it to you," belongs to him alone and should be consumed by his dependents if he goes somewhere.

Vārakabhatta is what is given during a time of famine, starting from the house that arranges the turn, with the intention that "we will support the monks in turn." This, too, if given by way of invitation for alms, is allowable for piṇḍapātikas; however, if it is given as "vārakabhatta," it is treated in the same way as salākabhatta. If they send rice and other items, saying "may the sāmaṇeras cook and give it," it is allowable for piṇḍapātikas. Thus, these three, and the four beginning with āgantukabhatta, total seven; together with the fourteen meals starting with saṅghabhatta, there are fourteen meals.

216. In the Commentary, however, four other kinds of meals are mentioned: vihārabhatta, aṭṭhakabhatta, catukkabhatta, and guḷhakabhatta. Among these, vihārabhatta is the meal originating in the monastery; this is included in saṅghabhatta. However, because it has been accepted in places like Tissamahāvihāra, Cittalapabbata, and others, where khīṇāsavas who have attained paṭisambhidā are able to partake of it even as piṇḍapātikas, it is allowable for piṇḍapātikas in such places. However, aṭṭhakabhatta and catukkabhatta, given with the intention that "we give to eight monks, we give to four," are also allowable for piṇḍapātikas if given by way of invitation for alms. Guḷhakabhatta is a meal given by completely filling a bowl with extra cakes made with great effort. These three are treated in the same way as salākabhatta. There is also another guḷhakabhatta: in this case, some people, after arranging for a great Dhamma sermon and worship of the monastery, give guḷhaka to determine the number of monks, with the intention that "we cannot give to the entire Saṅgha, may two or three hundred monks receive our alms." This is also allowable for piṇḍapātikas.

The section on food suitable for alms-gathering is concluded.

217. Food Suitable as Requisites for the Sick should be understood as follows (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325 pakkhikabhattādikathā): Among medicines like ghee, royal or great ministers send a hundred or a thousand jars of ghee to the monastery; after striking the bell, it should be given, filling the bowls, starting from the seat of the elders; it is also allowable for piṇḍapātikas. If elders of lazy disposition arrive late, they should not be told, "Venerable sir, it is being given to those with twenty years of seniority, your allocation has passed;" after setting aside an allocation, it should be given to them, and then given according to seniority. Having heard that "much ghee has arisen in such and such a monastery," monks come even from monasteries a yojana away; it should be given to those who have arrived, starting from their place of arrival. It should definitely be given to those who have not yet arrived but have entered the boundary of the vicinity, while their pupils and others are taking it. If they say, "Give it to those standing outside the boundary of the vicinity," it should not be given. However, if those who have crossed into the boundary of the vicinity are united and are at the gate of their monastery or even inside the monastery, the boundary is said to have expanded due to the group, therefore it should be given. Even if it is given to the new Saṅgha, it should still be given to those who arrive later. However, those who arrive after ascending to the seat of the elders in the second distribution do not receive the first distribution; it should be given according to seniority from the second distribution. Wherever it is given after entering the inner boundary of the vicinity, it should all be divided at the assembly place.

In a monastery where there are ten monks and only ten jars of ghee are given, it should be divided on the basis of one jar per monk. If there is one jar of ghee, it should be divided and taken by the ten monks. If they take it with the thought, "It will accrue to us according to our position," it is wrongly taken; it belongs to the Saṅgha wherever it goes. However, after tilting the jar and making a little ghee in a dish, saying, "This accrues to the elder, the rest accrues to us," and pouring that back into the jar, one should take according to one's desire and depart. If the ghee is thick, even if one makes a mark, saying, "The portion beyond the mark accrues to the elder, the rest accrues to us," it is well taken. In cases where there are more or fewer monks and jars of ghee than the number mentioned, it should be divided by this method. However, if there is one monk and one jar, it is also allowable to take it, striking the bell, with the thought, "This accrues to me." It is also allowable to assign a small portion, saying "This first portion accrues to me, this second portion." The same principle applies to butter and other items. In the case of clear sesame oil and the like, where a mark does not remain, it should be poured out and divided. All medicines like ginger and pepper, as well as spare bowls, dishes, and other monastic requisites, should be divided after carefully considering them in accordance with the manner described above. This is the discourse on food suitable as requisites for the sick.

218. Now, the decision regarding accepting a dwelling (senāsana) should be understood (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): This acceptance of a dwelling is twofold: during the favorable season (utukāla) and during the rains-residence (vassāvāsa). Here, in favorable season, some newly arrived bhikkhus come before the meal, some after the meal, or in the first watch, the middle watch, or the last watch of the night. Whenever they arrive, the bhikkhus should get up and give them a dwelling at that very time; there is no such thing as an inopportune time. However, the bhikkhu assigning dwellings should be wise and keep one or two bench-places (mañcaṭṭhāna) available. If one or two elders (thera) arrive at an unseemly hour, they should be told, "Venerable sirs, if we were to rouse everyone starting from the beginning, all the bhikkhus would become upset; please stay in our own dwelling place."

But if many arrive, after rousing the resident monks, dwellings should be given in order. If a single pariveṇa (enclosure) is sufficient, a single pariveṇa should be given. Therein, everything such as the fire-hall, the long-hall, the circular pavilion, and the terrace, all belong to that bhikkhu. If there is not enough space in this way, it should be given with the upper story of a building; if there is not enough space in the buildings, it should be given with a cell; if there is not enough space in the cells, it should be given with a sleeping space; if there is not enough space in the sleeping spaces, it should be given with a bench-place; if there is not enough space in the bench-place, it should be given as a single seat-place; however, the amount of space a bhikkhu can stand in should not be taken as a dwelling, for this is not considered a dwelling. If there is not enough space even for a seat-place, one bench-place or one seat-place should be given to three people, saying, "Venerable sirs, rest in turns." For it is not possible to live entirely in the open air throughout the night in the cold season. The great elder, after resting during the first watch, should go out and say to the second elder, "Friend, come in here." If the great elder is heavy with sleep and does not know the time, he should cough, knock on the door, and say, "Venerable sir, the time has come, the cold is unbearable." Then he should go out and give the space, he is not allowed not to give it. The second elder, after resting during the middle watch, should give it to the other in the same manner as before. If he is heavy with sleep, he should be roused in the manner stated. Thus, one bench-place should be given to three people for one night. In Jambudipa (India), some bhikkhus think, "A dwelling, whether a bench-place or a seat-place, is suitable for some and unsuitable for others," and they take a dwelling daily, whether there are newly arrived bhikkhus or not. This is called accepting a dwelling during the favorable season.

219. In the rains-residence, there is the duty of a newcomer and the duty of a resident. A newcomer who wishes to relinquish his own dwelling and go to live elsewhere should not go there on the very day of entering the rains-residence. For the dwelling place there might be crowded, or alms-seeking might not be successful, and thus he might not live comfortably. Therefore, he should enter that monastery, thinking, "The rains-residence will begin in about a month." While living there for about a month, if he is interested in learning, he should consider the suitability for learning; if he is interested in meditation, he should consider the suitability for meditation; if he is interested in requisites, he should consider the gain of requisites, and then he will live happily during the rains. When going there from his own dwelling, he should not disturb the village for alms. He should not say to the people there, "Because of you, there is no ticket-food, etc., or rice-gruel and snacks, etc., or a rains-residence offering. This is for the enclosure of the cetiya, this is for the uposatha hall, this is a bolt and a key; take care of your monastery." After attending to the dwelling and returning the wooden utensils and earthen utensils, he should depart, fulfilling the duty of a departing bhikkhu.

In the Kurundi, it is said, "When asked, 'Where are you going?' one should say, 'To such-and-such a place,' and when asked, 'Why are you going there?' the reason should be explained." Both of these are blameless due to pure intention. This is called the duty of a newcomer.

The duty of a resident: Resident bhikkhus should attend to the monastery right from the start. They should repair what is broken and ruined, and make necessary items. All of these should be attended to: the night-quarters, the day-quarters, the toilet, the place for urine, the main house, the monastery path. All of this should be done, as well as whitewashing the cetiya, applying oil to the low railing, and attending to the benches and seats, thinking, "Those who wish to spend the rains will come and live happily, engaging in learning, questioning, meditation, and other pursuits." Having done the preparations, from the fifth day of the waxing moon of Āsāḷhi, one should ask for the rains-residence offering. Where should one ask? From where it is normally received. But it is not proper to ask from those who have never given before. Why should one ask? Sometimes people give, and sometimes, afflicted by famine and other calamities, they do not give. There, if one accepts the rains-residence offering from those who will not give without asking, it will cause an obstruction to the gains of the bhikkhus who have been accepted. Therefore, one should accept only after asking.

When asking, one should say, "Venerable sirs, the time for accepting the rains-residence offering is near." If they say, "Venerable sir, we are afflicted by famine and other calamities this year, we cannot give," or "We will give less than what we used to give," or "Now cotton is easily available, we will give more than what we used to give," one should consider that and accept the rains-residence offering for the bhikkhus in their dwellings in accordance with that situation. If people say, "Whoever receives our rains-residence offering should provide water for three months, attend to the monastery path, attend to the cetiya compound and the Bodhi compound, and pour water on the Bodhi tree," it should be told to the one who receives it. However, if the village is located a distance of one or two yojanas away, and if families always give the rains-residence offering after depositing a pledge, even after requesting those families, the rains-residence offering should be accepted for the one who dwells there, performing his duties. But if a paṃsukūlika (rag-robe wearer) lives in their dwelling, and upon seeing him arrive, they say, "We will give you the rains-residence offering," he should inform the Saṅgha. If those families do not wish to give to the Saṅgha and say, "We will give it to you," the co-resident bhikkhu should be told, "Accept it after performing your duties." But this is not proper for a paṃsukūlika. Thus, people who are faithful and give offerings should be asked.

In the monastery itself, the kappiyakārakas (those who make things allowable) should be asked. How should they be asked? "Friends, will there be cloth for covering the Saṅgha's possessions?" If they say, "Venerable sir, we will give each one a nine-cubit cloth, please accept the rains-residence offering," it should be accepted. Even if they say, "There are no cloths, but there is material, venerable sir, please accept it," it is indeed proper to accept it even if there is material. For whatever is allowable in the hands of the kappiyakārakas, from the material given with the intention, "Use the allowable items," is all permitted to be used. But that which is given specifically for alms-food and for the requisites of the sick, when allocating it for robes, should be allocated after informing the Saṅgha for the well-being of the Saṅgha. However, that which is given specifically for dwellings is considered a heavy item. However, when allocating for robes what is given only for the purpose of robes or for the four requisites, there is no need for the act of informing. And when performing the act of informing, it should be done individually, not collectively for the Saṅgha. Informing is not proper for gold and silver or for raw grain, but it is proper for allowable items such as robes and rice. That, however, should be done in this way: "Now there is plenty of food and alms are easily obtained, the bhikkhus are struggling with robes; it pleases the bhikkhus to make so much of the rice-portion into robes," or "Requisites for the sick are easily obtained, or there is no one sick; it pleases the bhikkhus to make so much of the rice-portion into robes."

In the Kurundi, it is said, "It is proper to appoint eight or sixteen people." Their appointment is proper both by a formal kammavācā (declaration) and by informing. Those appointed bhikkhus should inspect the dwellings. The cetiya-house, the Bodhi-house, the assembly-hall, the sweeping-area, the wood-storage area, the toilet, the brick-hall, the carpenters' hall, the gate-house, the water-pavilion, the path, the pond—these are non-dwellings. The monastery, the lean-to, the building, the mansion, the cave, the pavilion, the foot of a tree, the bamboo grove—these are dwellings, and they should be accepted.

220. When accepting, from the initial statement, "I allow, O bhikkhus, first to count the bhikkhus, having counted the bhikkhus, to count the beds, having counted the beds, to accept by sleeping-space" (Cūḷava. 318), first, in the monastery, having counted the bhikkhus, the bench-places should be counted; then, each bench-place should be accepted for each bhikkhu. If there are extra bench-places, it should be accepted with the monastery building. If there are also extra monasteries, it should be accepted with the pariveṇa. If there are also extra pariveṇas, then another portion should be given. For when there are very few bhikkhus, two or three pariveṇas should be given to each bhikkhu. But if, after a second portion has been accepted, another bhikkhu arrives, that portion should not be given to him against his wish. But if the one by whom it was accepted gives that second portion or the first portion according to his own wish, it is proper.

"A dwelling should not be accepted while standing outside the boundary (sīma); whoever accepts it, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa)" (Cūḷava. 318). Therefore, it should not be accepted by one standing outside the boundary of the residence. But it is allowable even for one standing far away within the boundary.

"I allow, O bhikkhus, to give a suitable bed to the sick" (Cūḷava. 316). Therefore, one who is sick (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 316) with cough, mustard, fistula, dysentery, etc., for whom it is necessary to keep spittoons, bowls for feces, etc., or who has leprosy and contaminates the dwelling, a secluded dwelling should be given to such a one in the lower story of a building or in a leaf-hut, etc. For one in whose dwelling there is no contamination, even a superior bed should be given. Whoever takes any medicine for oily drinks, purgatives, nasal administrations, etc., all of them are sick. For him too, having considered, a suitable dwelling should be given.

"Two should not be refused by one, whoever refuses, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (Cūḷava. 319). Therefore, two dwellings should not be accepted by one person. Even if he should accept, the previous acceptance lapses with the later acceptance. For acceptance lapses by acceptance, inclination lapses by acceptance, acceptance lapses by inclination, and inclination lapses by inclination. How? Here, someone (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 319) on the day of entering the rains-residence, having accepted a dwelling in one monastery, goes to a neighboring monastery and accepts there as well; by this acceptance, the previous acceptance lapses. Another, having merely made an inclination, thinking, "I will dwell here," goes to a neighboring monastery and accepts a dwelling there; by this acceptance alone, the previous inclination lapses. Someone, having accepted a dwelling or having made an inclination, thinking, "I will dwell here," goes to a neighboring monastery and makes an inclination, thinking, "Now I will dwell here"; thus, by inclination either the acceptance or the inclination lapses, and in all cases, the later acceptance or inclination stands. However, if someone, having accepted a dwelling in one monastery, goes thinking, "I will dwell in another monastery," the acceptance of the dwelling lapses upon crossing the boundary. But if he goes thinking, "It will be comfortable there, I will dwell there; if not, I will return," and later goes knowing it is uncomfortable, it is proper.

Moreover, after assigning a dwelling, the senāsanaggāhaka should assign the vassāvāsika. When assigning, if there are two requisites related to robes—one belonging to the Saṅgha and another offered through faith (saddhādeyya)—whichever the bhikkhus wish to receive first should be taken first, and then the other should be assigned from the time that arrangement is made. The Elder Mahāsumata said: "If, when a dwelling is assigned by individual cells, one cell becomes very profitable and receives ten or twelve robes, it should be redistributed to other monasteries that have no gains, and should be assigned to other bhikkhus as well." However, the Elder Mahāpaduma said: "It should not be done like that. People give requisites for the maintenance of their own dwelling, therefore other bhikkhus should enter there."

221. If in this case a senior elder objects, saying, "Do not assign it like that, venerable ones, follow the Buddha’s instruction. For the Buddha said, 'I allow, O bhikkhus, to assign it by individual cells' (cūḷava. 318)." Without heeding that objection, after informing him, "Venerable sir, there are many bhikkhus, but the requisites are few; it is proper to make a sharing," it should certainly be assigned. The bhikkhu who has been appointed to assign should go to the senior elder and say, "Venerable sir, the dwelling comes to you; please accept the requisites." The requisite of such-and-such a family and such-and-such a dwelling come to me, venerable sir. It comes to you, venerable sir, please accept it. I accept it, venerable sir. It is accepted. The Elder Mahāsumata said, "However, if when it is said, ‘It is accepted by you, venerable sir,’ he says, ‘It is accepted by me,’ or when it is said, ‘Will you accept it, venerable sir?’ he says, ‘I will accept it,’ it is not accepted." But the Elder Mahāpaduma said, "Whether it is a past tense or a future tense expression or a present tense expression, here only the arising of satisfaction and the mere act of making an attachment are the measure; therefore, it is indeed accepted."

In the Mahāpaccariya it is said: "When a paṃsukūlika (rag-robe wearer) takes a dwelling for residence, the senāsanaggāhaka should say, 'Venerable sir, there is a requisite here, what should be done with it?' He should be told, 'Have another one assigned below.' But if he lives without saying anything and they give him a sāṭaka (outer robe) after the rains at his feet, it is allowable. Then, if they say, 'Let us give the vassāvāsika,' it belongs to the bhikkhus who have spent the rains in that dwelling." But those who have no dwelling and give only the requisites, it is allowable to assign the requisites to a non-vassāvāsika dwelling. People make a thūpa (mound) and assign the vassāvāsika. Thūpa means a non-dwelling; it should be assigned by attaching it to a tree or a pavilion near it. That bhikkhu should take care of the cetiya. The same method applies to the Bodhi-tree, Bodhi-house, āsana-house, broom, aṭṭadaḷu (platform made of planks), aṭṭavaccakuṭi (privy platform), door frame, koṭṭhaka (store room), water shed, water pavilion, and toothpick stand. But the refectory is indeed a dwelling, therefore it is allowable to assign it after allocating it to one or many. All this is said in detail in the Mahāpaccariya.

The senāsanaggāhaka should assign it from the first light of dawn until the next dawn breaks. For this is the field of the senāsanaggāhaka. If, after a dwelling has been assigned early in the morning, another bhikkhu who is prone to thinking comes and asks for a dwelling, he should be told, "The dwelling has been assigned, venerable sir, the Saṅgha has entered the rains, the monastery is delightful, dwell in the root of a tree etc. wherever you wish." However, on the last day for entering the rains, if someone brings a ten-cubit cloth and gives it as vassāvāsika when the Saṅgha is assembled after announcing the time, if that visiting bhikkhu is a senior elder of the Saṅgha, it should be given to him. If he is a junior, the appointed bhikkhu should say to the senior elder of the Saṅgha, "If you wish, venerable sir, release the first share and take this cloth"; it should not be given to one who does not release it. If he releases what was previously accepted and accepts it, it should be given. In the same way, after transferring it from the second elder onwards, it should be given to the visitor right at the place of the bowl. But if two, three, four, or five cloths are received by those who entered the rains first, after distributing each one received in the same way, it should be given until it is equal to the visitor. Having received equally, the remaining portion should be given to the seat of the elders. When there is an immediate gain, it is allowable to make an agreement to assign it according to the established custom.

In the Kurundī, it is said: "An agreement rule (katikavatta) should be made: 'There is not enough rice gruel and cooked rice for all of us here; come after residing in a shared place, you will receive a bowl of vassāvāsika.' If one refuses it, it is a good refusal. If he does not refuse, the agreement is well made. Later, it should be given after informing those who have come after residing there; it is not allowed to refuse during the time of informing." Again, it is said: "If, when some of those who have entered the rains do not receive the vassāvāsika, the bhikkhus make an agreement, 'It is agreeable to give the vassāvāsika of those whose rains-residence is ended and of those whose rains-residence is now arising to these ones,' having made an agreement in this way, it is just like assigned; whatever arises should be given to those ones." Even if one departs or becomes deranged after providing water for three months, and taking care of the monastery road, cetiya courtyard, and Bodhi-tree courtyard, and sprinkling water on the Bodhi-tree, he indeed receives the vassāvāsika. For what he has done is indeed tied to the meal; however, even if one becomes deranged during the rains after it has been assigned by performing a Saṅghika act of informing, he indeed receives it; but they say that one does not receive it if it is assigned by reason of requisites.

If a bhikkhu who has finished the rains is going to another direction, and after taking some allowable goods from the hand of the resident bhikkhu, says, "The vassāvāsika comes to me in such-and-such a family; please take it," and becomes deranged at the place where he has gone, the vassāvāsika belongs to the Saṅgha. If he goes after making the people agree in person, he receives it. When it is said, "Let us give this vassāvāsika to the bhikkhu who resided in our dwelling," it belongs to the one to whom it was assigned. If, wishing to please the owner of the dwelling, sons, daughters, etc., bring many cloths and give them saying, "Let us give them to our dwelling," only one cloth should be given to the one who has entered the rains there; the rest belong to the Saṅgha. They should be assigned according to the established custom of the vassāvāsika; in the absence of established custom, they should be assigned starting from the seat of the elders. This same method applies even when many cloths are brought out of faith, which arose in dependence on the bhikkhu who entered the rains in the dwelling, and given saying, "Let us give them to the dwelling." But if they place it at the feet and say, "Let us give it to this bhikkhu," it belongs to him alone.

There is a method that comes in the Mahāpaccariya: In one house, a young sāmaṇera receives the vassāvāsika; if he asks, "To whom does our vassāvāsika come?" instead of saying, "To the sāmaṇera," one should say, "You will know at the time of giving," and on the day of giving, a senior elder should be sent and brought out. If the one to whom the vassāvāsika comes becomes deranged or dies, and the people ask, "To whom does our vassāvāsika come?" the truth should be told to them. If they say, "Let us give it to you," it belongs to that bhikkhu. Or if they give it to the Saṅgha or the group, it belongs to the Saṅgha or the group. If those who have entered the rains are purely paṃsukūlikas, the vassāvāsika that has been brought should be kept as a dwelling requisite, or bimbohana (pillow), etc. should be made.

This is the Senāsanaggāhaka story according to the vassūpanāyika day during the rains-residence.

The Senāsanaggāhaka Story.