Vinayasaṅgaha-Aṭṭhakathā

(Pāḷi-English AI-Generated Translations)

WARNING: THIS IS AN AI-TRANSLATED EXPERIMENT.

Please do not blindly trust the LLM output. LLMs can produce errors. If you are uncertain, refer to the original Pāḷi text for verification.

The main purpose of this page is to facilitate quick searches using English keywords to locate relevant Pāḷi passages.

- For the Table of Contents, please click on the 📜 icon in the left-hand corner.
- Click on any word to pop up ONLINE dictionaries.
- Code files to assist with translation: https://github.com/vpnry/ai-translation

Pāḷi display script

Hide|Show Translations:

Tr. 1 Tr. 2 Tr. 3

Source text: https://tipitakapali.org (Feb 2025)

Translation 1: Grok3 (26 Feb 2025)

Translation 2: Gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05 (26 Feb 2025)

Translation 3: Deepseek v3 (27 Feb 2025)

This file was last generated on: 2025-03-18 19:41:20

Ganthārambhakathā

Discourse on the Introduction to the Text

Introductory Verses

The Chapter on Beginning the Composition.

The scattered and diverse meanings, decisions from the Pāḷi and non-canonical texts;

Having gathered the scattered teachings from various places, the essence of the Pāli and Vinaya;

Protective chants, hospitality, uninvited requests, and supporting one’s relatives.

Protective chants, courteous reception, and the acceptance of invitations from families.

“The earth, the community of living beings, two kinds of sleeping in the same place;

Sleeping arrangements in a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha, and leaving after having spread out.

“The four allowable items for a limited time, the four grounds for permissibility;

Emerging from a serious offense, proper and improper actions, and miscellaneous matters.”

1. Divāseyyavinicchayakathā

1. Discourse on the Judgment of Sleeping by Day

1. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Sleeping During the Day

1. The Discussion on the Determination of Daytime Dwelling.

1. Tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjanaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, divā paṭisallīyantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitu”nti (pārā. 77) vacanato divā nipajjantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā nipajjitabbaṃ. Ettha ca kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ “ayaṃ nāma āpattī”ti na vuttā, vivaritvā nipannadosena pana uppanne vatthusmiṃ dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā nipajjituṃ anuññātattā asaṃvaritvā nipajjantassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) vuttaṃ. Bhagavato hi adhippāyaṃ ñatvā upālittherādīhi aṭṭhakathā ṭhapitā. “Atthāpatti divā āpajjati, no ratti”nti (pari. 323) imināpi cetaṃ siddhaṃ.

1. Herein, divāseyyā means lying down during the day. This is the judgment: From the statement, “I allow, monks, one who is secluded during the day to seclude oneself after closing the door” (pārā. 77), one who lies down during the day should do so after closing the door. Although it is not stated in the Pali text, “This is such-and-such an offense,” in a case arising from the fault of lying down with the door open, since it is permitted to lie down after closing the door, the aṭṭhakathā states that there is a dukkaṭa offense (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) for one who lies down without closing it. Indeed, the commentary was established by Elder Upāli and others, knowing the Blessed One’s intention. This is also established by the statement, “An offense is committed during the day, not at night” (pari. 323).

1. Therein, sleeping during the day (divāseyyā) means lying down during the day. Herein is the decision – According to the statement, “I allow, monks, that one who is retiring during the day may retire after closing the door” (pārā. 77), one who is lying down during the day should lie down after closing the door. Although it is not stated in the Pāḷi, “This is an offense,” because permission was given to lie down after closing the door when a situation arose due to the fault of lying down with the door open, it is stated in the commentary (aṭṭhakathā) that there is a dukkaṭa offense for one who lies down without closing the door (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77). The commentary was established by Thera Upāli and others after knowing the Blessed One’s intention. This is also confirmed by the statement, “One commits an offense during the day, not at night” (pari. 323).

1. Herein, divāseyyā refers to lying down during the day. The determination here is as follows: “I allow, monks, for one who is secluded during the day to close the door and seclude oneself” (Pārā. 77). Thus, one who lies down during the day should close the door before lying down. Although the Pāli does not state, “This is an offense,” it is understood that lying down with the door open leads to fault. Therefore, not closing the door before lying down incurs a dukkata offense according to the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.77). The commentary was established by the elders like Upāli, understanding the Buddha’s intention. “An offense is incurred during the day, not at night” (Pari. 323) also confirms this.

2. Kīdisaṃ pana dvāraṃ saṃvaritabbaṃ, kīdisaṃ na saṃvaritabbaṃ? Rukkhapadaraveḷupadarakilañjapaṇṇādīnaṃ yena kenaci kavāṭaṃ katvā heṭṭhā udukkhale upari uttarapāsake ca pavesetvā kataṃ parivattakadvārameva saṃvaritabbaṃ. Aññaṃ gorūpānaṃ vajesu viya rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāraṃ, gāmathakanakaṃ cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ, phalakesu vā kiṭikāsu vā dve tīṇi cakkalakāni yojetvā kataṃ saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāraṃ, āpaṇesu viya kataṃ ugghāṭanakiṭikadvāraṃ, dvīsu tīsu ṭhānesu veḷusalākā gopphetvā paṇṇakuṭīsu kataṃ salākahatthakadvāraṃ, dussasāṇidvāranti evarūpaṃ dvāraṃ na saṃvaritabbaṃ. Pattahatthassa kavāṭappaṇāmane pana ekaṃ dussasāṇidvārameva anāpattikaraṃ, avasesāni paṇāmentassa āpatti. Divā paṭisallīyantassa pana parivattakadvārameva āpattikaraṃ, sesāni saṃvaritvā vā asaṃvaritvā vā nipajjantassa āpatti natthi, saṃvaritvā pana nipajjitabbaṃ, etaṃ vattaṃ.

2. But what kind of door should be closed, and what kind should not? A revolving door made of wood, leaves, bamboo, stakes, or grass, set in a lower socket and an upper lintel, is the only one that should be closed. Other doors—like a wooden spiked door used for cattle pens, a door with wheels made of village thatch, a sliding door made by attaching two or three wheels to planks or lattices, a liftable lattice door as seen in shops, a door with bamboo bolts fastened in two or three places as made in leaf huts, or a door of cloth curtains—such doors should not be closed. For one holding a bowl, bending a cloth-curtain door causes no offense, but bending the others incurs an offense. For one secluding oneself during the day, only a revolving door incurs an offense; for the others, whether closed or not, there is no offense when lying down, though one should lie down after closing them—this is the proper conduct.

2. But what kind of door should be closed, and what kind should not be closed? Only a revolving door, made by placing any kind of leaf such as palm leaf, bamboo leaf, matting, or bark, in the lower threshold and the upper lintel, and fastened with a latch, should be closed. Other types, such as a door made of wood, bamboo, or thorns, like those in cow pens; a village gate; a door with a wheel mechanism; a sliding door made by joining two or three wheels on planks or boards; a lifting door like those in shops; a door made of bamboo slats joined in two or three places, like those in leaf huts; and a cloth curtain door – such doors should not be closed. However, only a cloth curtain door is without offense when moved by someone holding a bowl; for moving the others, there is an offense. But for one retiring during the day, only a revolving door is an offense-causing action; for lying down after closing or not closing the others, there is no offense. However, it should be closed; this is the duty.

2. What kind of door should be closed, and what kind should not? A door made of wood, bamboo, reeds, or leaves, with any kind of latch, should be closed by turning it. Other doors, like those of cowsheds with wooden spikes, village gates with wheels, or sliding doors with two or three wheels, should not be closed. A door made of cloth or hemp should also not be closed. However, if one moves the door with a hand holding a bowl, only a cloth door is exempt from offense; moving others incurs an offense. For one who is secluded during the day, only a turning door incurs an offense; others, whether closed or not, do not incur an offense if one lies down. However, it is proper to close the door before lying down.

3. Parivattakadvāraṃ kittakena saṃvutaṃ hoti? Sūcighaṭikāsu dinnāsu saṃvutameva hoti. Apica kho sūcimattepi dinne vaṭṭati, ghaṭikāmattepi dinne vaṭṭati, dvārabāhaṃ phusitvā ṭhapitamattepi vaṭṭati, īsakaṃ aphusitepi vaṭṭati, sabbantimena vidhinā yāvatā sīsaṃ nappavisati, tāvatā aphusitepi vaṭṭati. Sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, bhikkhuṃ vā sāmaṇeraṃ vā “dvāraṃ, āvuso, jaggāhī”ti vatvāpi nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Atha bhikkhū cīvarakammaṃ vā aññaṃ vā kiñci karontā nisinnā honti, “ete dvāraṃ jaggissantī”ti ābhogaṃ katvāpi nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “upāsakampi āpucchitvā vā ’esa jaggissatī’ti ābhogaṃ katvā vā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati, kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā mātugāmaṃ vā āpucchituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Evaṃ sabbatthapi yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ.

3. How much must a revolving door be closed to be considered closed? It is closed once the latches are engaged. Moreover, it is permissible if even just the bolt is inserted, or just the latch is set, or it is placed touching the doorframe, or even slightly not touching it; even if it does not touch by the smallest measure, as long as the head cannot enter, it is permissible. If it is a place where many adjust it, it is permissible to lie down after saying to a monk or novice, “Friend, watch the door.” If monks are seated, engaged in robe work or some other task, it is permissible to lie down after reflecting, “They will watch the door.” In the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “It is permissible to lie down after asking a lay follower or reflecting, ‘He will watch it,’ but it is not permissible to ask a nun or woman”—this is reasonable. Thus, in all cases, the later statement of the Theravāda or commentary should be taken as authoritative.

3. To what extent is a revolving door considered closed? When the pins and latches are inserted, it is considered closed. However, it is permissible even if only the pin is inserted, or only the latch is inserted, or even if it is just placed touching the doorjamb. It is permissible even if it is slightly not touching, and in the most extreme case, it is permissible even if it is not touching as long as the head cannot enter. If it is a place used by many, it is permissible to lie down after saying to a monk or novice, “Friend, please watch the door.” If monks are sitting doing robe work or any other task, it is permissible to lie down after reflecting, “These will watch the door.” However, in the Kurunda Commentary, it is stated, “It is permissible to lie down after asking even a lay follower or reflecting, ‘This one will watch,’ but it is not permissible to ask a bhikkhuni or a woman.” This is correct. Thus, in all cases, whatever Theravāda teaching or commentary teaching is stated later, that alone should be taken as authoritative.

3. How much must a turning door be closed to be considered closed? It is considered closed if a pin or latch is inserted. Even a small pin or latch suffices. If the doorpost is touched, it is considered closed. Even if it is slightly not touching, it is considered closed. As long as the head does not enter, it is considered closed. If there are many places to secure, one may tell a monk or novice, “Friend, watch the door,” and then lie down. If monks are sitting and doing robe work or other tasks, one may lie down thinking, “They will watch the door.” According to the Kurunda Commentary, one may also inform a layperson or rely on their attention, but one should not inform a nun or woman. This is proper. In all cases, the opinion of the elders or the commentary should be taken as authoritative.

4. Atha dvārassa udukkhalaṃ vā uttarapāsako vā bhinno hoti aṭṭhapito vā, saṃvarituṃ na sakkoti, navakammatthaṃ vā pana iṭṭhakapuñjo vā mattikādīnaṃ vā rāsi antodvāre kato hoti, aṭṭaṃ vā bandhanti, yathā saṃvarituṃ na sakkoti. Evarūpe antarāye sati asaṃvaritvāpi nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Yadi pana kavāṭaṃ natthi, laddhakappameva. Upari sayantena nisseṇiṃ āropetvā nipajjitabbaṃ. Sace nisseṇimatthake thakanakaṃ hoti, thaketvāpi nipajjitabbaṃ. Gabbhe nipajjantena gabbhadvāraṃ vā pamukhadvāraṃ vā yaṃ kiñci saṃvaritvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace ekakuṭṭake gehe dvīsu passesu dvārāni katvā vaḷañjanti, dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbāni, tibhūmakepi pāsāde dvāraṃ jaggitabbameva. Sace bhikkhācārā paṭikkamma lohapāsādasadisaṃ pāsādaṃ bahū bhikkhū divāvihāratthaṃ pavisanti, saṅghattherena dvārapālassa “dvāraṃ jaggāhī”ti vatvā vā “dvārajagganaṃ nāma etassa bhāro”ti ābhogaṃ katvā vā pavisitvā nipajjitabbaṃ. Yāva saṅghanavakena evameva kātabbaṃ. Pure pavisantānaṃ “dvārajagganaṃ nāma pacchimānaṃ bhāro”ti evaṃ ābhogaṃ kātumpi vaṭṭati. Anāpucchā vā ābhogaṃ akatvā vā antogabbhe vā asaṃvutadvāre bahi vā nipajjantānaṃ āpatti. Gabbhe vā bahi vā nipajjanakālepi “dvārajagganaṃ nāma mahādvāre dvārapālassa bhāro”ti ābhogaṃ katvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Evaṃ lohapāsādādīsu ākāsatale nipajjantenapi dvāraṃ saṃvaritabbameva.

4. If the lower socket or upper lintel of the door is broken or not installed, making it impossible to close, or if, for new construction, a pile of bricks or clay is placed inside the door, or a wall is being built, preventing it from being closed, in such obstacles it is permissible to lie down without closing it. If there is no door panel, what is obtained is permissible. One sleeping above should lie down after climbing a ladder. If there is a covering at the ladder’s top, one may lie down after covering it. One lying in a room may lie down after closing either the room’s door or the main door, whichever is available. If a house has two doors on either side and is being used, both doors must be watched; even in a three-story building, the door must be watched. If monks returning from alms rounds enter a metal palace-like building for daytime rest, the senior monk may say to the doorkeeper, “Watch the door,” or reflect, “Watching the door is his responsibility,” and then enter and lie down. The same should be done by the junior monk. It is also permissible for those entering first to reflect, “Watching the door is the responsibility of those who come last.” For those lying down inside a room or outside with an unclosed door, without asking or reflecting, there is an offense. When lying inside or outside, it is permissible to lie down after reflecting, “Watching the great door is the doorkeeper’s responsibility.” Even in a metal palace or similar place, one lying in an open space must close the door.

4. If the door’s lower threshold or upper lintel is broken or not fixed, and it cannot be closed, or if a pile of bricks or a heap of clay or the like has been placed inside the doorway for new construction, or if they are building a scaffold, so that it cannot be closed, in such cases of obstruction, it is permissible to lie down without closing it. If there is no door panel, it is the same as if one had been obtained. One lying down above should lie down after raising a ladder. If there is a covering at the head of the ladder, one should lie down after covering it. One lying down in a room should lie down after closing either the room door or the front door, whichever is possible. If in a single-roofed house, doors are made on two sides and used, both doors should be watched; even in a three-storied mansion, the door should be watched. If many monks enter a mansion like the Lohapāsāda after returning from their alms round for the purpose of a daytime dwelling, the Saṅgha elder should enter and lie down after saying to the doorkeeper, “Watch the door,” or after reflecting, “Watching the door is this one’s responsibility.” The most junior member of the Saṅgha should do the same. It is also permissible for those entering earlier to reflect, “Watching the door is the responsibility of those who come later.” There is an offense for those who lie down inside a room without asking or reflecting, or outside with the door not closed. Even when lying down inside a room or outside, it is permissible to lie down after reflecting, “Watching the door is the responsibility of the doorkeeper at the main gate.” Thus, even when lying down on the open roof of the Lohapāsāda and the like, the door should be closed.

4. If the door’s latch or post is broken or removed, and it cannot be closed, or if there is a pile of bricks or clay inside the door for construction, or if the door is tied in such a way that it cannot be closed, one may lie down without closing it. If there is no door, it is permissible. One who sleeps above should place a ladder and lie down. If there is a bolt at the top of the ladder, one should bolt it and lie down. One lying in a room should close the room door or the main door. If there are two doors on either side of a single-room house, both doors should be watched. In a three-story building, the door should be watched. If many monks enter a building like an iron palace for daytime dwelling, the senior monk should tell the doorkeeper, “Watch the door,” or rely on his attention, and then enter and lie down. The same applies to the junior monks. Those entering earlier may also rely on the attention of those entering later. Not informing or not paying attention while lying down inside or outside incurs an offense. Whether inside or outside, one may lie down relying on the doorkeeper’s attention for the main door. Even when lying down on a rooftop like an iron palace, the door should be closed.

Ayañhettha saṅkhepo – idaṃ divāpaṭisallīyanaṃ yena kenaci parikkhitte sadvārabandhe ṭhāne kathitaṃ, tasmā abbhokāse vā rukkhamūle vā maṇḍape vā yattha katthaci sadvārabandhe nipajjantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvāva nipajjitabbaṃ. Sace mahāpariveṇaṃ hoti mahābodhiyaṅgaṇalohapāsādaṅgaṇasadisaṃ bahūnaṃ osaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ, yattha dvāraṃ saṃvutampi saṃvutaṭṭhāne na tiṭṭhati, dvāraṃ alabhantā pākāraṃ āruhitvāpi vicaranti, tattha saṃvaraṇakiccaṃ natthi. Rattiṃ dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti. Sace pana pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpatti. Yo pana “aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmī”ti paricchinditvāva dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā rattiṃ nipajjati, yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhāti, tassa āpattiyeva. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “evaṃ nipajjanto anādariyadukkaṭāpi na muccatī”ti vuttaṃ.

This is the summary here: This daytime seclusion applies to any enclosed place with a fastened door; thus, in an open space, at a tree’s base, or in a pavilion—wherever there is a fastened door—one must lie down after closing it. If it is a great monastery, like the courtyard of the Great Bodhi or a metal palace, where many come and go, and the door, even when closed, does not stay in place, and those without a door climb over the wall, there is no duty to close it. One who lies down at night with the door open and rises at dawn incurs no offense. But if he wakes and sleeps again, there is an offense. One who lies down at night without closing the door, having decided, “I will rise at dawn,” and rises as decided, still incurs an offense. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “One lying down like this is not free from the dukkaṭa of disrespect.”

This is the summary here – this retiring during the day is stated in reference to a place enclosed by anything with a secured door; therefore, one lying down in the open air, or under a tree, or in a pavilion, or anywhere with a secured door, should lie down only after closing the door. If it is a large precinct, like the precinct of the Great Bodhi Tree or the Lohapāsāda, a place where many gather, where the door, even when closed, does not remain in the closed position, and people enter even by climbing the wall when they do not find the door, there is no need to close it. If one lies down at night with the door open and gets up when the dawn arises, there is no offense. But if one wakes up and sleeps again, there is an offense. One who lies down at night without closing the door, having determined, “I will get up when the dawn arises,” and gets up as determined, commits an offense. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is stated, “One who lies down thus is not even free from a negligent dukkaṭa.”

Here is the summary: This daytime seclusion is taught for any enclosed place with a proper door. Therefore, whether in the open air, under a tree, or in a pavilion, one should close the door before lying down. If it is a large monastery like the Mahābodhi courtyard or an iron palace courtyard with many entrances, where even a closed door does not remain closed, and people climb over walls to enter, there is no duty to close the door. If one lies down at night with the door open and rises at dawn, there is no offense. However, if one wakes up and goes back to sleep, there is an offense. If one decides, “I will rise at dawn,” and lies down without closing the door, and rises as planned, there is still an offense. According to the Mahāpaccariya, “One who lies down thus is not free from the offense of disrespect.”

5. Yo pana bahudeva rattiṃ jaggitvā addhānaṃ vā gantvā divā kilantarūpo mañce nisinno pāde bhūmito amocetvāva niddāvasena nipajjati, tassa anāpatti. Sace okkantaniddo ajānantopi pāde mañcakaṃ āropeti, āpattiyeva. Nisīditvā apassāya supantassa anāpatti. Yopi ca “niddaṃ vinodessāmī”ti caṅkamanto patitvā sahasā vuṭṭhāti, tassapi anāpatti. Yo pana patitvā tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhāti, tassa āpatti.

5. One who, having stayed awake much of the night or traveled a distance, sits on a couch during the day, exhausted, and lies down overcome by sleep without lifting his feet from the ground, incurs no offense. If, overtaken by sleep, he unknowingly lifts his feet onto the couch, there is an offense. One who sits and sleeps leaning incurs no offense. One who falls while walking to dispel sleep and rises immediately incurs no offense. But one who falls and lies there without rising incurs an offense.

5. One who has stayed awake for much of the night or has traveled a long distance and, being tired during the day, sits on a couch and lies down due to sleepiness without removing his feet from the ground, for him there is no offense. If, while falling asleep, he raises his feet onto the couch even unknowingly, there is an offense. There is no offense for one who sleeps while leaning after sitting. And for one who, while walking back and forth to dispel sleepiness, falls down and suddenly gets up, for him also there is no offense. But for one who falls and sleeps there and does not get up, for him there is an offense.

5. If one has stayed awake most of the night or traveled a long distance and, being tired, lies down on a bed during the day without lifting one’s feet from the ground, there is no offense. If one falls asleep unknowingly and lifts one’s feet onto the bed, there is an offense. If one sits and dozes off without lying down, there is no offense. If one walks to dispel sleep and suddenly rises after falling, there is no offense. But if one falls and remains lying down without rising, there is an offense.

Ko muccati, ko na muccatīti? Mahāpaccariyaṃ tāva “ekabhaṅgena nipannako eva muccati. Pāde pana bhūmito mocetvā nipannopi yakkhagahitakopi visaññībhūtopi na muccatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “bandhitvā nipajjāpitova muccatī”ti vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “yo caṅkamanto mucchitvā patito tattheva supati, tassapi avisayatāya āpatti na dissati. Ācariyā pana evaṃ na kathayanti, tasmā āpattiyevāti mahāpadumattherena vuttaṃ. Dve pana janā āpattito muccantiyeva, yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito”ti.

Who is free, and who is not? In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “One lying with a single break is free. But one who lifts his feet from the ground and lies down, even if seized by a yakkha or unconscious, is not free.” In the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Only one bound and made to lie down is free.” In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “One who faints while walking and sleeps there incurs no offense due to lack of intent, according to Elder Mahāpaduma. But teachers do not say this; thus, it is an offense. However, two are certainly free from offense: one seized by a yakkha and one bound and made to lie down.”

Who is exempt, and who is not? In the Mahāpaccariya, it is stated, “Only one who lies down with a single break is exempt. But one who lies down after removing his feet from the ground, or one seized by a yakkha, or one who has become unconscious, is not exempt.” In the Kurunda Commentary, however, it is stated, “Only one who has been made to lie down after being tied up is exempt.” In the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, however, it is stated, “For one who falls unconscious while walking and sleeps there, an offense is not seen due to it being beyond his control. But the teachers do not say thus; therefore, there is an offense,” as stated by Mahāpaduma Thera. “But two people are indeed exempt from offense: one who is seized by a yakkha, and one who has been made to lie down after being tied up.”

Who is exempt, and who is not? According to the Mahāpaccariya, “One who lies down in one posture is exempt. But one who lies down with feet lifted from the ground, even if possessed by a spirit or unconscious, is not exempt.” According to the Kurunda Commentary, “One who is bound and made to lie down is exempt.” According to the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā, “One who falls while walking and sleeps there is not subject to an offense due to lack of intention. But the teachers do not say this, so there is an offense. However, two types of people are exempt: one who is possessed by a spirit and one who is bound and made to lie down.”

2. Parikkhāravinicchayakathā

2. Discourse on the Judgment of Requisites

2. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Requisites

2. The Discussion on the Determination of Requisites.

6. Parikkhāroti samaṇaparikkhāro. Tatrāyaṃ kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85) – keci tālapaṇṇacchattaṃ anto vā bahi vā pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbitvā vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ karonti, taṃ na vaṭṭati. Ekavaṇṇena pana nīlena vā pītakena vā yena kenaci suttena anto vā bahi vā sibbituṃ , chattadaṇḍaggāhakaṃ salākapañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho thirakaraṇatthaṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāya. Chattapaṇṇesu makaradantakaṃ vā aḍḍhacandakaṃ vā chindituṃ na vaṭṭati. Chattadaṇḍe gehatthambhesu viya ghaṭako vā vāḷarūpakaṃ vā na vaṭṭati. Sacepi sabbattha āraggena lekhā dinnā hoti, sāpi na vaṭṭati. Ghaṭakaṃ vā vāḷarūpakaṃ vā bhinditvā dhāretabbaṃ, lekhāpi ghaṃsitvā vā apanetabbā, suttakena vā daṇḍo veṭhetabbo. Daṇḍabunde pana ahicchattakasaṇṭhānaṃ vaṭṭati. Vātappahārena acalanatthaṃ chattamaṇḍalikaṃ rajjukehi gāhetvā daṇḍe bandhanti, tasmiṃ bandhanaṭṭhāne valayamiva ukkiritvā lekhaṃ ṭhapenti, sā vaṭṭati.

6. Parikkhāro means monastic requisites. Here is the judgment on permissible and impermissible requisites (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85): Some make a palm-leaf umbrella colorful by sewing it inside or out with five-colored thread—this is not permissible. But sewing it inside or out with a single color—blue, yellow, or any other thread—or binding the umbrella stick or bamboo frame is permissible, and that only for durability, not for decoration. Cutting shapes like a makara’s tooth or a crescent into the umbrella leaves is not permissible. Carving a knob or animal figure on the umbrella stick, as on house pillars, is not permissible. Even if a line is scratched everywhere with a copper tool, that too is not permissible. A knob or animal figure must be broken and carried; a scratched line must be rubbed off or removed, or the stick wrapped with thread. However, a snake-hood shape at the stick’s base is permissible. To prevent wind from moving it, they tie the umbrella’s circle with ropes to the stick; carving a ring-like line at that binding spot is permissible.

6. Requisites (Parikkhāro) means a monastic’s requisites. Herein is the decision regarding allowable and unallowable requisites (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85) – Some make an umbrella from palm leaves, sewing it inside or outside with five-colored thread, and make it decorative; that is not permissible. However, it is permissible to sew it inside or outside with single-colored thread, whether blue, yellow, or any other color, and to bind the handle and the frame of the umbrella, and that is permissible for the purpose of making it firm, not for decoration. It is not permissible to cut a makara-tooth design or a half-moon design on the umbrella leaves. On the umbrella handle, it is not permissible to have a knob or an animal figure, like on house pillars. Even if lines are drawn with red arsenic everywhere, that is also not permissible. The knob or animal figure should be broken off and discarded, the lines should be rubbed off or removed, or the handle should be wrapped with thread. However, a shape like a cobra’s hood is permissible at the base of the handle. To prevent it from moving due to the wind, they attach the umbrella’s rim with cords and tie it to the handle; at the place of tying, they make a line by carving it like a ring; that is permissible.

6. Parikkhāro refers to the requisites of a monk. Herein is the determination of what is allowable and what is not regarding requisites (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.85). Some make a palm-leaf umbrella, stitching it inside or outside with thread of five colors and polishing it to make it colorful; this is not allowable. However, stitching it with a single color, whether blue or yellow, inside or outside, is allowable. It is also allowable to make a handle for the umbrella or a cage for the ribs, but only for the purpose of making it sturdy, not for decoration. Cutting a design like a makara’s tooth or a half-moon on the palm leaves is not allowable. Making a knob or a lion’s head on the umbrella handle, as on house pillars, is not allowable. Even if a design is engraved everywhere, it is not allowable. A knob or lion’s head should be removed, and the engraving should be erased or covered with thread. A bundle of sticks in the shape of a snake’s hood is allowable. To prevent the umbrella from being blown away by the wind, the umbrella circle is tied to the handle with strings, and a ring-like design is made at the tying place; this is allowable.

7. Cīvaramaṇḍanatthāya nānāsuttakehi satapadisadisaṃ sibbantā āgantukapaṭṭaṃ ṭhapenti, aññampi yaṃ kiñci sūcikammavikāraṃ karonti, paṭṭamukhe vā pariyante vā veṇiṃ vā saṅkhalikaṃ vā muggaraṃ vā evamādi sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati, pakatisūcikammameva vaṭṭati. Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭakañca pāsakapaṭṭakañca aṭṭhakoṇampi soḷasakoṇampi karonti, tattha agghiyagayamuggarādīni dassenti, kakkaṭakkhīni ukkiranti, sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati, catukoṇameva vaṭṭati, koṇasuttapīḷakā ca cīvare ratte duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭanti. Kañjikapiṭṭhakhaliaalakādīsu cīvaraṃ pakkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati, cīvarakammakāle pana hatthamalasūcimalādīnaṃ dhovanatthaṃ kiliṭṭhakāle ca dhovanatthaṃ vaṭṭati, gandhaṃ vā lākhaṃ vā telaṃ vā rajane pakkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati.

7. For decorating robes, some sew with various threads like a centipede, attach foreign cloth, or make other needlework distortions; making braids, chains, or clubs at the cloth’s edge or border—all this is not permissible; only plain needlework is permissible. They make octagonal or sixteen-sided knotted or looped cloth, showing hoes, clubs, or crab eyes—all this is not permissible; only a square is permissible, and corner-thread lumps on a red robe that are hard to discern are permissible. Placing a robe in a starch pot, flour pot, or oil pot is not permissible; but for robe work, washing hand dirt or needle dirt, or washing when soiled, is permissible; adding scent, lac, oil, or dye is not permissible.

7. For the purpose of adorning robes, they place an incoming patch, sewing it like a centipede with various threads, and they make any other kind of needlework variation; at the edge or border of the patch, they make a braid, a chain, or a knot, all of this and the like is not permissible. Only regular needlework is permissible. They also make knotted patches and loop patches, eight-cornered and sixteen-cornered, displaying decorative elements like hinges, eyelets, and crab’s eyes. All of this is not permissible. Only a four-cornered one is permissible. And thread loops on the corners of the robe, which are difficult to discern when the robe is dyed, are permissible. It is not permissible to immerse the robe in rice gruel, paste, mud, or dye; however, it is permissible for washing away hand dirt, needle dirt, and the like during robe-making, and for washing it when it is soiled. It is not permissible to add fragrance, lac, oil, or dye to the dye solution.

7. For decorating robes, some stitch with various threads, making designs like a hundred-petaled lotus, and place a guest cloth, or make other needlework variations, such as fringes, borders, braids, chains, or hammers; all this is not allowable. Only plain needlework is allowable. They also make eight-cornered or sixteen-cornered cloths with knots and beads, showing valuable items like agate and coral, and carving crab’s eyes; all this is not allowable. Only four-cornered cloths are allowable, and thread knots on robes that are difficult to recognize are allowable. It is not allowable to put robes in a pot of rice water, husks, or chaff, but it is allowable to wash hands stained with dye or dirt during robe-making. It is not allowable to put perfume, lac, or oil in dye, but it is allowable to wash hands stained with dye or dirt during robe-making.

Rajanesu ca haliddiṃ ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ mūlarajanaṃ vaṭṭati, mañjiṭṭhiñca tuṅgahārañca ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ khandharajanaṃ vaṭṭati. Tuṅgahāro nāma eko sakaṇṭakarukkho, tassa haritālavaṇṇaṃ khandharajanaṃ hoti. Loddañca kaṇḍulañca ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ tacarajanaṃ vaṭṭati. Allipattañca nīlipattañca ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ pattarajanaṃ vaṭṭati. Gihiparibhuttakaṃ pana allipattena ekavāraṃ rajituṃ vaṭṭati. Kiṃsukapupphañca kusumbhapupphañca ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ puppharajanaṃ vaṭṭati. Phalarajane pana na kiñci na vaṭṭati (mahāva. aṭṭha. 344).

Among dyes, except for turmeric, all mūlarajana (root dyes) are permissible; except for madder and arsenic, all khandharajana (bark dyes) are permissible. Arsenic is a thorny tree with a yellow-green khandharajana. Except for lodh and sandalwood, all tacarajana (skin dyes) are permissible. Except for fresh indigo and blue lotus leaves, all pattarajana (leaf dyes) are permissible. Cloth used by laypeople may be dyed once with fresh indigo leaves. Except for kimsuka and safflower, all puppharajana (flower dyes) are permissible. In phalarajana (fruit dyes), nothing is impermissible (mahāva. aṭṭha. 344).

Regarding dyes, all root dyes are permissible with the addition of turmeric, and all stem dyes are permissible with the addition of mañjiṭṭhi and tuṅgahāra. Tuṅgahāra is a tree with thorns; its stem dye is the color of orpiment. All bark dyes are permissible with the addition of lodda and kaṇḍula. All leaf dyes are permissible with the addition of fresh leaves and indigo leaves. However, it is permissible to dye once with fresh leaves that have been used by householders. All flower dyes are permissible with the addition of kiṃsuka flowers and kusumbha flowers. In fruit dyes, however, nothing is impermissible (mahāva. aṭṭha. 344).

Among dyes, except for turmeric, all root dyes are allowable. Except for madder and tuṅgahāra, all stem dyes are allowable. Tuṅgahāra is a thorny tree, and its greenish-yellow dye is called stem dye. Except for lodda and kaṇḍula, all bark dyes are allowable. Except for allipatta and nīlipatta, all leaf dyes are allowable. However, it is allowable to dye once with allipatta for household-used cloth. Except for kiṃsuka and kusumbha flowers, all flower dyes are allowable. Fruit dyes are not allowable at all (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 344).

8. Cīvaraṃ rajitvā saṅkhena vā maṇinā vā yena kenaci na ghaṭṭetabbaṃ, bhūmiyaṃ jāṇukāni nihantvā hatthehi gahetvā doṇiyampi na ghaṃsitabbaṃ. Doṇiyaṃ vā phalake vā ṭhapetvā ante gāhāpetvā hatthena paharituṃ pana vaṭṭati, tampi muṭṭhinā na kātabbaṃ. Porāṇakattherā pana doṇiyampi na ṭhapesuṃ. Eko cīvaraṃ gahetvā tiṭṭhati, aparo hatthe katvā hatthena paharati. Cīvarassa kaṇṇasuttakaṃ na vaṭṭati, rajitakāle chinditabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇasuttaka”nti (mahāva. 344) evaṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ anuvāte pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbaṃ rajanakāle lagganatthāya. Gaṇṭhikepi sobhākaraṇatthaṃ lekhā vā pīḷakā vā na vaṭṭati, nāsetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ.

8. After dyeing a robe, it must not be rubbed with a conch, gem, or anything else; kneeling on the ground and holding it with hands, it must not be scraped in a trough. But placing it in a trough or on a plank, holding the edge, and striking it with the hand is permissible, though not with a fist. Ancient elders did not even place it in a trough: one held the robe while another struck it with his hand. Corner threads on a robe are not permissible and must be cut when dyed. But what was allowed with, “I allow, monks, corner threads” (mahāva. 344), should be made into a loop and tied for dyeing to prevent sticking. Even in knots, lines or lumps for adornment are not permissible; they must be removed and used.

8. After dyeing the robe, it should not be rubbed with a conch shell, a gem, or anything else. One should not kneel on the ground, hold it with the hands, and rub it even in a trough. However, it is permissible to place it in a trough or on a plank, have someone hold the ends, and strike it with the hand, but that should not be done with a fist. The ancient elders, however, did not even place it in a trough. One holds the robe and stands, and another strikes it with the hand after covering the hand. The corner thread of the robe is not permissible; it should be cut off at the time of dyeing. What is allowed, as in “I allow, monks, a corner thread” (mahāva. 344), should be made into a loop on the border and tied for the purpose of fastening during dyeing. Even on the knot, decorative lines or loops are not permissible; they should be removed and then it should be used.

8. After dyeing a robe, it should not be rubbed with sand, a gem, or anything else. One should not press it with the knees on the ground or handle it with the hands in a trough. It is allowable to place it in a trough or on a board, hold the ends, and beat it with the hands, but not with the fist. The ancient elders did not even place it in a trough. One holds the robe, and another beats it with the hands. The corner thread of the robe is not allowable; it should be cut during dyeing. However, what is allowed by the Buddha, “I allow, monks, the corner thread” (Mahāva. 344), should be tied with a stone in the windward direction for the purpose of dyeing. Even in knots, decorative engravings or beads are not allowable; they should be removed and used.

9. Patte vā thālake vā āraggena lekhaṃ karonti anto vā bahi vā, na vaṭṭati. Pattaṃ bhamaṃ āropetvā majjitvā pacanti “maṇivaṇṇaṃ karissāmā”ti, na vaṭṭati, telavaṇṇo pana vaṭṭati. Pattamaṇḍale bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭati, makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭati.

9. Carving a line on a bowl or tray, inside or out, with a copper tool is not permissible. Spinning a bowl on a wheel, polishing and baking it to make it gem-colored, is not permissible, though an oil-like sheen is permissible. Wall-like work on a bowl’s rim is not permissible, but a makara-tooth shape is permissible.

9. They draw lines with red arsenic on bowls or plates, inside or outside; that is not permissible. They heat the bowl after placing it on a potter’s wheel and polish it, saying, “We will make it gem-colored;” that is not permissible, but an oil color is permissible. Decorative work on the bowl’s rim is not permissible, but a makara-tooth design is permissible.

9. Engraving on bowls or plates, inside or outside, is not allowable. Turning a bowl on a lathe and polishing it to make it jewel-colored is not allowable, but an oil color is allowable. Making a wall design on a bowl is not allowable, but a makara’s tooth design is allowable.

Dhamakaraṇachattakassa upari vā heṭṭhā vā dhamakaraṇakucchiyaṃ vā lekhā na vaṭṭati, chattamukhavaṭṭiyaṃ panassa lekhā vaṭṭati.

On a bellows umbrella, above or below or in the bellows’ belly, a line is not permissible; but a line on its mouth rim is permissible.

On the upper or lower part of the water strainer’s umbrella, or on the belly of the water strainer, lines are not permissible, but lines on the rim of the umbrella are permissible.

On a dhamakaraṇa umbrella, above, below, or inside the belly, engraving is not allowable, but engraving on the umbrella’s rim is allowable.

10. Kāyabandhanassa sobhanatthaṃ tahiṃ tahiṃ diguṇaṃ suttaṃ koṭṭenti, kakkaṭakkhīni uṭṭhāpenti, na vaṭṭati, ubhosu pana antesu dasāmukhassa thirabhāvāya diguṇaṃ koṭṭetuṃ vaṭṭati. Dasāmukhe pana ghaṭakaṃ vā makaramukhaṃ vā deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci vikārarūpaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tattha tattha acchīni dassetvā mālākammādīni vā katvā koṭṭitakāyabandhanampi na vaṭṭati, ujukameva pana macchakaṇṭakaṃ vā khajjūripattakaṃ vā maṭṭhakapaṭṭikaṃ vā katvā koṭṭetuṃ vaṭṭati. Kāyabandhanassa dasā ekā vaṭṭati, dve tīṇi cattāripi vaṭṭanti, tato paraṃ na vaṭṭanti. Rajjukakāyabandhanaṃ ekameva vaṭṭati, pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ pana ekampi na vaṭṭati, dasā pana pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānāpi vaṭṭati, bahurajjuke ekato katvā ekena nirantaraṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ bahurajjukanti na vattabbaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭati.

10. For a waistband’s beauty, doubling the thread here and there or raising crab eyes is not permissible; but doubling it at both ends for firmness is permissible. Making a knob, makara face, turtle head, or any distorted shape on the hem, or showing holes with garland work or pounding it, is not permissible; but making it straight like a fish spine, date leaf, or smooth strip is permissible. One hem on a waistband is permissible; two, three, or four are permissible; beyond that is not permissible. A rope waistband is permissible only as one; even one in a necklace shape is not permissible, though a hem in a necklace shape is permissible. A multi-rope band made continuous by wrapping with one rope should not be called a multi-rope band—it is permissible.

10. For the decoration of the waist-band, they twist double threads here and there, and they raise crab’s eyes; that is not permissible, but it is permissible to twist double threads at both ends for the firmness of the fringe ends. At the fringe ends, a knob, a makara’s mouth, a deḍḍubha’s head, or any other kind of figure is not permissible. A waist-band twisted with decorations like flowers displayed here and there is also not permissible; however, it is permissible to twist it plainly, making it like a fishbone, a date palm leaf, or a smooth strip. One fringe of the waist-band is permissible, two, three, or four are also permissible, but beyond that is not permissible. A waist-band made of cord is only one, but even one in the shape of a sling is not permissible, but fringes in the shape of a sling are permissible. A waist-band made by joining many cords together and wrapping them continuously with one is not to be called a multi-corded one; that is permissible.

10. To beautify a waistband, some double the thread in places, raise crab’s eyes, and make designs; this is not allowable. However, doubling the thread at both ends for the stability of the clasp is allowable. On the clasp, making a knob, a makara’s mouth, or a frog’s head, or any other design, is not allowable. Showing eyes here and there, or making garlands, etc., is not allowable. However, making a straight fish spine, a date palm leaf, or a smooth cloth is allowable. One design on a waistband is allowable, two, three, or four are also allowable, but more than that is not. A single-string waistband is allowable, but a pāmaṅga-shaped one is not allowable, even one design. However, ten pāmaṅga-shaped designs are allowable. Making many strings into one and wrapping them continuously is not called a multi-string waistband; it is allowable.

Kāyabandhanavidhe aṭṭhamaṅgalādikaṃ yaṃ kiñci vikārarūpaṃ na vaṭṭati, paricchedalekhāmattaṃ vaṭṭati. Vidhakassa ubhosu antesu thirakaraṇatthāya ghaṭakaṃ karonti, ayampi vaṭṭati.

In waistband designs, any distorted shape like the eight auspicious symbols is not permissible; only a boundary line is permissible. Making a knob at both ends of a piercing tool for firmness is permissible.

In the design of the waist-band, any kind of figure, such as the eight auspicious signs, is not permissible; only a dividing line is permissible. They make a knob at both ends of the needle case for firmness; this is also permissible.

In the method of making a waistband, any design like an eight-pointed star is not allowable, but a boundary line is allowable. On the ends of a split waistband, a knob is made for stability; this is also allowable.

11. Añjaniyaṃ itthipurisacatuppadasakuṇarūpaṃ vā mālākammalatākammamakaradantakagomuttakaaḍḍhacandakādibhedaṃ vā vikārarūpaṃ na vaṭṭati, ghaṃsitvā vā bhinditvā vā yathā vā na paññāyati, tathā suttakena veṭhetvā vaḷañjetabbā. Ujukameva pana caturaṃsā vā aṭṭhaṃsā vā soḷasaṃsā vā añjanī vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhatopissā dve vā tisso vā vaṭṭalekhāyo vaṭṭanti, gīvāyampissā pidhānakabandhanatthaṃ ekā vaṭṭalekhā vaṭṭati.

11. A cosmetic box shaped like a woman, man, quadruped, or bird, or with garland work, vine work, makara teeth, cowrie shells, or crescents is not permissible; it must be rubbed or broken or wrapped with thread so it is not recognizable and used. But a plain square, octagonal, or sixteen-sided cosmetic box is permissible. Two or three circular lines below it are permissible; one circular line at its neck for closing is permissible.

11. An eye-salve container with the form of a woman, a man, a four-footed animal, a bird, or with various designs such as flower work, creeper work, makara-tooth, crescent moon, and the like, is not permissible. It should be rubbed off, broken, or wrapped with thread so that it is not discernible. However, a plain, four-cornered, eight-cornered, or sixteen-cornered eye-salve container is permissible. Below it, two or three circular lines are permissible, and at its neck, one circular line is permissible for fastening the lid.

11. On an añjanī (a type of cloth), designs of male and female figures, animals, birds, garlands, vines, makara’s teeth, cow’s urine, half-moons, etc., are not allowable. They should be erased, removed, or covered with thread so that they are not visible. However, a straight añjanī with four, eight, or sixteen corners is allowable. Below it, two or three circular lines are allowable, and on the neck, one circular line for a fastening band is allowable.

Añjanīsalākāyapi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭati, añjanīthavikāyapi yaṃ kiñci nānāvaṇṇena suttena vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭati. Eseva nayo kuñcikakosakepi. Kuñcikāya vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭati, tathā sipāṭikāya. Ekavaṇṇasuttena pana yena kenaci yaṃ kiñci sibbituṃ vaṭṭati.

Decorative work on a cosmetic stick is not permissible; nor is decorative work with various colored threads on a cosmetic bag. The same applies to a key case or sheath. Decorative work on a key is not permissible, nor on a sewing box. But sewing anything with a single-colored thread is permissible.

On the eye-salve stick also, decorative work is not permissible, and on the eye-salve container’s bag also, any kind of decorative work with various colored threads is not permissible. The same rule applies to the key case. Decorative work on the key is not permissible, and likewise on the pouch. However, it is permissible to sew anything with any single-colored thread.

On an añjanī needle, coloring is not allowable. On an añjanī sheath, any coloring with various threads is not allowable. The same applies to keys and locks. Coloring a key is not allowable, and the same for a sheath. However, stitching with a single-colored thread is allowable.

12. Ārakaṇṭakepi vaṭṭamaṇikaṃ vā aññaṃ vā vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati, gīvāyaṃ pana paricchedalekhā vaṭṭati. Pipphalikepi maṇikaṃ vā pīḷakaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, daṇḍake pana paricchedalekhā vaṭṭati. Nakhacchedanaṃ valitakaṃyeva karonti, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭati. Uttarāraṇiyaṃ vāpi araṇidhanuke vā uparipellanadaṇḍake vā mālākammādi yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati. Pellanadaṇḍakassa pana vemajjhe maṇḍalaṃ hoti, tattha paricchedalekhāmattaṃ vaṭṭati. Sūcisaṇḍāsaṃ karonti, yena sūciṃ ḍaṃsāpetvā ghaṃsanti, tattha makaramukhādikaṃ yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati, sūciḍaṃsanatthaṃ pana mukhamattaṃ hoti, taṃ vaṭṭati.

12. On a needle’s eye, a circular gem or any decorative work is not permissible; but a boundary line at its neck is permissible. On a needle case, raising a gem or lump is not permissible; but a boundary line on its stick is permissible. Nail clippers are made only wrinkled—this is permissible. On an upper grinding stone, lower bow, or pressing stick, any decorative garland work is not permissible. On a pressing stick, a circle in the middle with only a boundary line is permissible. They make a needle pincers to bite and rub a needle; any decorative makara face there is not permissible, but a plain mouth for biting the needle is permissible.

12. Even on the awl, a gem bead or any other decoration is not permissible, but a dividing line at the neck is permissible. Even on the pipphali (small pliers), it is not permissible to raise a bead, a loop, or anything else, but a dividing line on the handle is permissible. The nail cutter is made only curved, therefore it is permissible. On the upper fire-stick, the fire-drill bow, or the upper pressing stick, any kind of decoration such as flower work is not permissible. However, on the pressing stick, there is a circle in the middle; there, only a dividing line is permissible. They make a needle-holding clamp, with which they hold the needle by pressing it and rub it; there, any kind of decoration such as a makara’s mouth is not permissible, but only a mouth for the purpose of holding the needle is permissible; that is permissible.

12. On an ārakaṇṭaka (a type of ornament), a circular gem or any other coloring is not allowable, but a boundary line on the neck is allowable. On a pipphalikā (a type of ornament), a gem or bead or any other design is not allowable, but a boundary line on the stick is allowable. Nail cutting is done only with a curved blade, so it is allowable. On an upper araṇi (fire-drilling stick) or an araṇi stick, any coloring or garland work is not allowable. However, on the middle of the araṇi stick, a circle is made, and a boundary line is allowable. A needle case is made, where a needle is inserted and rubbed; there, any design like a makara’s mouth is not allowable, but a mouth for inserting the needle is allowable.

Dantakaṭṭhacchedanavāsiyampi yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati, ujukameva kappiyalohena ubhosu vā passesu caturaṃsaṃ vā aṭṭhaṃsaṃ vā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Kattaradaṇḍepi yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati, heṭṭhā ekā vā dve vā vaṭṭalekhā upari ahicchattakamakuḷamattañca vaṭṭati.

On a toothpick cutter or axe, any decorative work is not permissible; with permissible metal, making it square or octagonal on both sides is permissible. On a staff stick, any decorative work is not permissible; one or two circular lines below and a snake-hood bud above are permissible.

Even on the knife for cutting tooth-sticks, any kind of decoration is not permissible; it is permissible to bind it plainly with an allowable metal, four-cornered or eight-cornered, on both sides. Even on the razor handle, any kind of decoration is not permissible; below, one or two circular lines and above, a shape like a cobra’s hood bud are permissible.

On a toothpick or a razor, any coloring is not allowable. However, it is allowable to make it straight and bind it with allowable metal on both sides, either four-cornered or eight-cornered. On a razor handle, any coloring is not allowable, but one or two circular lines below and a small snake-hood design above are allowable.

13. Telabhājanesu visāṇe vā nāḷiyaṃ vā alābuke vā āmaṇḍasārake vā ṭhapetvā itthirūpaṃ purisarūpañca avasesaṃ sabbampi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati. Mañcapīṭhe bhisibimbohane bhūmattharaṇe pādapuñchane caṅkamanabhisiyā sammuñjaniyaṃ kacavarachaḍḍanake rajanadoṇikāya pānīyauḷuṅke pānīyaghaṭe pādakathalikāya phalakapīṭhake valayādhārake daṇḍādhārake pattapidhāne tālavaṇṭe bījaneti etesu sabbaṃ mālākammādi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati.

13. In oil vessels—whether horn, tube, gourd, or raw seed core—except for female or male shapes, all decorative garland work is permissible. On a bed, seat, mattress, pillow, floor covering, foot wiper, walking mattress, broom, rubbish bin, dye trough, water dipper, water pot, footrest, plank seat, ring stand, stick stand, bowl lid, palm fan, or fan—all decorative garland work is permissible.

13. On oil containers, placing them in a horn, a coconut shell, a gourd, or a mango seed, and making the form of a woman, a man, and all other remaining decorative work is permissible. On couches, seats, cushions, bolsters, floor coverings, foot-wipers, walking meditation cushions, brooms, refuse receptacles, dye troughs, water ladles, water pots, footstools, plank seats, ring stands, rod stands, bowl covers, palm-leaf fans, and winnowing fans, all decorative work such as flower work is permissible.

13. In oil containers, such as horns, bamboo tubes, gourds, or clay pots, except for designs of male and female figures, all other coloring is allowable. On beds, chairs, mattresses, foot wipers, walking sticks, brooms, dustpans, dye pots, water pots, water jars, footrests, wooden stools, ring stands, staff stands, bowl covers, palm leaves, and seeds, all garland work and coloring are allowable.

14. Senāsane pana dvārakavāṭavātapānakavāṭādīsu sabbaratanamayampi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati. Senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthi aññatra viruddhasenāsanā . Viruddhasenāsanaṃ nāma aññesaṃ sīmāya rājavallabhehi katasenāsanaṃ vuccati. Tasmā ye tādisaṃ senāsanaṃ karonti, te vattabbā “mā amhākaṃ sīmāya senāsanaṃ karothā”ti. Anādiyitvā karontiyeva, punapi vattabbā “mā evaṃ akattha, mā amhākaṃ uposathapavāraṇānaṃ antarāyamakattha, mā sāmaggiṃ bhindittha, tumhākaṃ senāsanaṃ katampi kataṭṭhāne na ṭhassatī”ti. Sace balakkārena karontiyeva, yadā tesaṃ lajjiparisā ussannā hoti, sakkā ca hoti laddhuṃ dhammiko vinicchayo, tadā tesaṃ pesetabbaṃ “tumhākaṃ āvāsaṃ harathā”ti. Sace yāvatatiyaṃ pesite haranti, sādhu. No ce haranti, ṭhapetvā bodhiñca cetiyañca avasesasenāsanāni bhinditabbāni, no ca kho aparibhogaṃ karontehi, paṭipāṭiyā pana chadanagopānasīiṭṭhakādīni apanetvā tesaṃ pesetabbaṃ “tumhākaṃ dabbasambhāre harathā”ti. Sace haranti, sādhu. No ce haranti, atha tesu dabbasambhāresu himavassavātātapādīhi pūtibhūtesu vā corehi vā haṭesu agginā vā daḍḍhesu sīmasāmikā bhikkhū anupavajjā, na labbhā codetuṃ “tumhehi amhākaṃ dabbasambhārā nāsitā”ti vā “tumhākaṃ gīvā”ti vā. Yaṃ pana sīmasāmikehi bhikkhūhi kataṃ, taṃ sukatameva hoti. Yopi bhikkhu bahussuto vinayaññū aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ akappiyaparikkhāraṃ gahetvā vicarantaṃ disvā chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjo, so neva codetabbo na sāretabbo, na taṃ labbhā vattuṃ “ayaṃ nāma mama parikkhāro tayā nāsito, taṃ me dehī”ti.

14. In lodgings, on door panels, window shutters, and the like, even all-gem decorative work is permissible. In lodgings, nothing is to be prohibited except incompatible lodgings. Incompatible lodgings are those made by royal favorites within another’s boundary. Thus, those making such lodgings should be told, “Do not make lodgings in our boundary.” If they disregard and do it anyway, they should be told again, “Do not do this; do not obstruct our uposatha and invitation; do not break our harmony; your lodging, even if made, will not stand.” If they forcefully proceed, when their assembly of shame grows strong and a just decision can be obtained, they should be sent word, “Remove your dwelling.” If they remove it after three requests, good. If not, except for a bodhi tree or shrine, the remaining lodgings should be dismantled—not discarded, but systematically removing roofing, beams, and bricks, and sent back with, “Take your materials.” If they take them, good. If not, when those materials rot from snow, rain, wind, sun, or are stolen or burned, the boundary-owning monks are blameless; they cannot be accused, “You destroyed our materials,” or “It’s your responsibility.” What is made by the boundary-owning monks is well-made. If a learned monk, knowing the Vinaya, sees another monk using an impermissible requisite and has it cut or broken, he is blameless, neither to be accused nor reproved, nor can it be said, “This requisite of mine was destroyed by you; give it back.”

14. In a dwelling, however, on doors, door panels, window panels, and the like, even decorative work made entirely of jewels is permissible. There is nothing to be prohibited in a dwelling except for a conflicting dwelling. A conflicting dwelling is one built by those favored by the king within the boundary of others. Therefore, those who build such a dwelling should be told, “Do not build a dwelling within our boundary.” If they do not heed and continue to build, they should be told again, “Do not do this, do not create an obstacle to our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, do not break the harmony, even if your dwelling is built, it will not remain in the place where it is built.” If they build by force, when their shameless company is flourishing, and it is possible to obtain a lawful decision, then they should be sent a message, “Remove your dwelling.” If they remove it when sent a message up to three times, it is good. If they do not remove it, then, except for the Bodhi tree and the cetiya, the remaining dwellings should be dismantled, but not while they are uninhabited; rather, the roofing, rafters, bricks, and the like should be removed in order, and they should be sent a message, “Remove your building materials.” If they remove them, it is good. If they do not remove them, then if those building materials become putrid due to snow, rain, wind, heat, and the like, or are stolen by thieves, or are burned by fire, the monks who own the boundary are blameless; they cannot be accused, “You destroyed our building materials,” or “Your necks.” What has been done by the monks who own the boundary is well done. Even if a monk who is learned and knowledgeable in the Vinaya sees another monk carrying an unallowable requisite and has it cut or broken, he is blameless; he should not be accused or blamed, nor can he be told, “This is my requisite, it was destroyed by you, give it to me.”

14. In a dwelling, on doors, windows, and other parts, even if made entirely of precious materials, all coloring is allowable. In a dwelling, nothing is prohibited except for a hostile dwelling. A hostile dwelling is one built by royal favorites within the boundary of others. Therefore, those who build such dwellings should be told, “Do not build dwellings within our boundary.” If they disregard this and continue, they should be told again, “Do not do this, do not create obstacles for our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, do not cause division, your dwelling will not remain in its place.” If they persist due to their power, when their community becomes ashamed and a lawful decision can be made, they should be sent away, saying, “Take away your dwelling.” If they take it away after being told up to three times, good. If not, except for the Bodhi tree and the shrine, all other dwellings should be dismantled, but not by those who have not used them. Instead, the roofing, walls, bricks, etc., should be removed and sent to them, saying, “Take away your building materials.” If they take them, good. If not, when those materials rot due to rain, wind, sun, or are stolen or burned, the monks who own the boundary are not at fault and cannot be accused, “You have destroyed our building materials” or “You are responsible.” However, what is done by the monks who own the boundary is well done. If a learned monk who knows the Vinaya sees another monk carrying improper requisites and has them cut or destroyed, he is not at fault and should not be accused or reminded. It cannot be said, “This is my requisite, you have destroyed it, give it to me.”

3. Bhesajjādikaraṇavinicchayakathā

3. Discourse on the Judgment of Medicine and Related Matters

3. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding the Preparation of Medicines and the Like

3. The Discussion on the Preparation of Medicine and Other Matters.

15. Bhesajjakaraṇaparittapaṭisanthāresu pana bhesajjakaraṇe tāva ayaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7) – āgatāgatassa parajanassa bhesajjaṃ na kātabbaṃ, karonto dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Pañcannaṃ pana sahadhammikānaṃ kātabbaṃ bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyāti. Samasīlasaddhāpaññānañhi etesaṃ tīsu sikkhāsu yuttānaṃ bhesajjaṃ akātuṃ na labbhati. Karontena ca sace tesaṃ atthi, tesaṃ santakaṃ gahetvā yojetvā dātabbaṃ, sace natthi, attano santakaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace attanopi natthi, bhikkhācāravattena vā ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vā pariyesitabbaṃ, alabhantena gilānassa atthāya akataviññattiyāpi āharitvā kātabbaṃ.

15. In bhesajjakaraṇa, paritta, and paṭisanthāra, here is the judgment on bhesajjakaraṇa (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7): Medicine must not be prepared for outsiders coming and going; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense. But it may be prepared for the five co-religionists: a monk, nun, novice monk, novice nun, and female trainee. For these, equal in virtue, faith, and wisdom, engaged in the three trainings, it is not permissible to refrain from preparing medicine. If they have it, their own should be taken, prepared, and given; if not, one’s own should be prepared. If one has none, it should be sought through alms rounds or from relatives or supporters; if unobtainable, it may be brought and prepared for the sick without requesting, for their benefit.

15. Regarding the preparation of medicines, protective chants, and hospitality, here is the decision regarding the preparation of medicines (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7) – Medicine should not be prepared for an unrelated person who comes and goes; one who does so commits a dukkaṭa offense. However, it should be prepared for the five fellow practitioners of the Dhamma: for a monk, a bhikkhuni, a sikkhamānā, a novice, and a female novice. For these, who are of equal virtue, faith, and wisdom, and who are engaged in the three trainings, medicine must be prepared. And when preparing it, if they have any, their own medicine should be taken, compounded, and given; if they do not have any, one’s own should be prepared. If one does not have any either, it should be sought through the practice of alms-round, or from relatives or those who have invited one, and if it cannot be obtained, it should be brought even through an uninvited request for the sake of the sick one and prepared.

15. Regarding the preparation of medicine, protective chants, and courteous reception, first, here is the determination on the preparation of medicine (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.185-7): Medicine should not be prepared for people who come from outside; doing so incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, it should be prepared for five who share the Dhamma: a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, and a female novice. For these, who are virtuous, faithful, and wise, and who are devoted to the three trainings, it is not possible to refuse to prepare medicine. When preparing it, if they have their own ingredients, they should be used; if not, one’s own ingredients should be used. If one does not have any, one should search by going on alms round or asking relatives. If still not obtained, it should be brought without making a formal request for the sake of the sick person.

16. Aparesampi pañcannaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati mātu pitu tadupaṭṭhākānaṃ attano veyyāvaccakarassa paṇḍupalāsassa cāti. Paṇḍupalāso nāma yo pabbajjāpekkho yāva pattacīvaraṃ paṭiyādiyati, tāva vihāre vasati. Tesu sace mātāpitaro issarā honti na paccāsīsanti, akātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana rajjepi ṭhitā paccāsīsanti, akātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Bhesajjaṃ paccāsīsantānaṃ bhesajjaṃ dātabbaṃ, yojetuṃ ajānantānaṃ yojetvā dātabbaṃ. Sabbesaṃ atthāya sahadhammikesu vuttanayeneva pariyesitabbaṃ. Sace pana mātaraṃ vihāraṃ ānetvā jaggati, sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantena kātabbaṃ, khādanīyabhojanīyaṃ sahatthā dātabbaṃ. Pitā pana yathā sāmaṇero, evaṃ sahatthena nhāpanasambāhanādīni katvā upaṭṭhātabbo. Ye ca mātāpitaro upaṭṭhahanti paṭijagganti, tesampi evameva kātabbaṃ. Veyyāvaccakaro nāma yo vetanaṃ gahetvā araññe dārūni vā chindati, aññaṃ vā kiñci kammaṃ karoti, tassa roge uppanne yāva ñātakā na passanti, tāva bhesajjaṃ kātabbaṃ. Yo pana bhikkhunissitakova hutvā sabbakammāni karoti, tassa bhesajjaṃ kātabbameva. Paṇḍupalāsepi sāmaṇere viya paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

16. It is permissible to prepare it for five others: mother, father, their attendants, one’s own assistant, and a paṇḍupalāsa. A paṇḍupalāsa is one aspiring to ordination, living in the monastery until robes and bowl are prepared. If parents are independent and do not expect it, it is permissible not to prepare it. But if they expect it, even if they hold a kingdom, it is not permissible to refrain. Medicine must be given to those who expect it; if they do not know how to prepare it, it must be prepared and given. For all, it should be sought as stated for co-religionists. If a mother is brought to the monastery and cared for, all treatment must be done without touching, and food or drink may be given by hand. A father should be attended to like a novice, with bathing and massaging by hand. For those attending parents, the same applies. A veyyāvaccakaro is one who, for wages, cuts wood in the forest or does other tasks; when he falls ill, medicine should be prepared until his relatives see him. For one wholly dependent on a nun, medicine must be prepared. For a paṇḍupalāsa, conduct is as with a novice.

16. It is also permissible to prepare it for five others: for one’s mother, father, their attendants, one’s attendant, and a paṇḍupalāsa. Paṇḍupalāsa is the name for one who is seeking ordination and lives in the monastery until his bowl and robes are prepared. Among these, if the mother and father are wealthy and do not expect it, it is permissible not to prepare it. But if, even though they are established in the kingdom, they expect it, it is not permissible not to prepare it. Medicine should be given to those who expect medicine; for those who do not know how to compound it, it should be compounded and given. For the sake of all, it should be sought in the same way as stated for fellow practitioners of the Dhamma. If one brings one’s mother to the monastery and cares for her, all the care should be given without touching; edible and chewable food should be given with one’s own hand. The father, however, is like a novice; he should be attended to by bathing, massaging, and the like with one’s own hand. And those who attend to and care for the mother and father, for them also it should be done in the same way. Attendant (Veyyāvaccakaro) is the name for one who receives wages and cuts firewood in the forest or does any other work; when he falls ill, medicine should be prepared until his relatives are seen. But for one who is solely dependent on a monk and does all the work, medicine must be prepared. For a paṇḍupalāsa also, one should act as for a novice.

16. Medicine may also be prepared for five others: one’s mother, father, attendants, one’s own servant, and a pale-leaf ascetic. A pale-leaf ascetic is one who stays in the monastery while preparing for ordination until he obtains robes and a bowl. If one’s parents are wealthy and do not expect it, it is allowable not to prepare medicine. But if they are in a kingdom and expect it, it is not allowable to refuse. Medicine should be given to those who expect it, and if they do not know how to prepare it, it should be prepared for them. For all, the method mentioned for those who share the Dhamma should be followed. If one brings one’s mother to the monastery to care for her, all preparations should be made without touching her, and food should be given by hand. For one’s father, like a novice, bathing and massaging should be done by hand, and he should be attended to. The same applies to those who care for one’s parents. A servant is one who, for wages, cuts wood in the forest or does other work. If he falls ill before his relatives see him, medicine should be prepared. If a monk depends on a nun and does all the work, medicine should also be prepared for her. For a pale-leaf ascetic, the same applies as for a novice.

17. Aparesampi dasannaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati jeṭṭhabhātu kaniṭṭhabhātu jeṭṭhabhaginiyā kaniṭṭhabhaginiyā cūḷamātuyā mahāmātuyā cūḷapituno mahāpituno pitucchāya mātulassāti. Tesaṃ pana sabbesampi karontena tesaṃyeva santakaṃ bhesajjaṃ gahetvā kevalaṃ yojetvā dātabbaṃ. Sace pana nappahonti yācanti ca “detha no, bhante, tumhākaṃ paṭidassāmā”ti, tāvakālikaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sacepi na yācanti, “amhākaṃ bhesajjaṃ atthi, tāvakālikaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vatvā vā “yadā tesaṃ bhavissati, tadā dassantī”ti ābhogaṃ vā katvā dātabbaṃ. Sace paṭidenti, gahetabbaṃ. No ce denti, na codetabbā. Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ na kātabbaṃ.

17. It is permissible to prepare it for ten others: elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, maternal aunt, maternal grandmother, paternal uncle, paternal grandfather, paternal aunt, and maternal uncle. For all of them, only their own medicine should be taken, prepared, and given. If they cannot afford it and request, “Give us some, venerable, we will repay you,” it may be given temporarily. Even if they do not request, saying, “We have medicine; take it temporarily,” or reflecting, “When they have it, they will give it,” it may be given. If they repay, it should be accepted; if not, they should not be pressed. Except for these ten relatives, it should not be prepared for others.

17. It is also permissible to prepare it for ten others: for one’s elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, maternal aunt (younger), maternal aunt (elder), paternal uncle (younger), paternal uncle (elder), paternal aunt, and maternal uncle. But for all of these, when preparing it, only their own medicine should be taken, compounded, and given. But if they do not have enough and they ask, “Give it to us, venerable sir, we will return it to you,” it should be given temporarily. Even if they do not ask, it should be given after saying, “We have medicine, take it temporarily,” or after reflecting, “When they have it, they will give it.” If they return it, it should be accepted. If they do not give it, they should not be pressed. Except for these ten relatives, it should not be prepared for others.

17. Medicine may also be prepared for ten others: an elder brother, a younger brother, an elder sister, a younger sister, a maternal aunt, a paternal aunt, a maternal uncle, a paternal uncle, a paternal aunt, and a maternal uncle. For all these, when preparing medicine, only their own ingredients should be used. If they do not have any and ask, “Venerable, give us some, we will return it,” it should be given temporarily. If they do not ask, one should say, “We have medicine, take it temporarily,” or rely on their attention and give it. If they return it, it should be accepted. If not, they should not be accused. Except for these ten relatives, medicine should not be prepared for others.

Etesaṃ puttaparamparāya pana yāva sattamā kulaparivaṭṭā, tāva cattāro paccaye āharāpentassa akataviññatti vā bhesajjaṃ karontassa vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hoti. Sace bhātu jāyā, bhaginiyā sāmiko vā gilāno hoti, ñātakā ce, tesampi vaṭṭati. Aññātakā ce, bhātu ca bhaginiyā ca katvā dātabbaṃ “tumhākaṃ jagganaṭṭhāne dethā”ti. Atha vā tesaṃ puttānaṃ katvā dātabbaṃ “tumhākaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ dethā”ti. Etenupāyena sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabbo.

For their descendants up to the seventh generation, bringing the four supports, preparing medicine, or practicing medicine without requesting incurs neither a family-corruption offense nor a physician offense. If a brother’s wife or sister’s husband is ill, if they are relatives, it is permissible for them too. If unrelated, it should be prepared and given to the brother or sister with, “Give it at your care place.” Or it may be prepared and given to their children with, “Give it to your parents.” This method applies to all cases.

For the lineage of these, up to the seventh generation, there is no offense of making an uninvited request, or of preparing medicine, or of medical practice, or of corrupting families, for one who causes the four requisites to be brought. If the brother’s wife or the sister’s husband is ill, if they are relatives, it is permissible for them also. If they are not relatives, it should be prepared for the brother and sister and given, saying, “Give it to them to care for.” Or it should be prepared for their children and given, saying, “Give it to your parents.” By this method, the decision should be understood in all cases.

For their descendants, up to the seventh generation, if they bring the four requisites, there is no offense of making a formal request, preparing medicine, practicing medicine, or corrupting families. If a brother’s wife, a sister’s husband, or a relative falls ill, it is allowable. If it is a non-relative, the brother or sister should prepare and give it, saying, “Give it to your caretaker.” Alternatively, their children should prepare and give it, saying, “Give it to your parents.” In this way, the determination should be understood in all cases.

Tesaṃ atthāya ca sāmaṇerehi araññato bhesajjaṃ āharāpentena ñātisāmaṇerehi vā āharāpetabbaṃ, aññātakehi attano atthāya vā āharāpetvā dātabbaṃ. Tehipi “upajjhāyassa āharāmā”ti vattasīsena āharitabbaṃ. Upajjhāyassa mātāpitaro gilānā vihāraṃ āgacchanti, upajjhāyo ca disāpakkanto hoti, saddhivihārikena upajjhāyassa santakaṃ bhesajjaṃ dātabbaṃ. No ce atthi, attano bhesajjaṃ upajjhāyassa pariccajitvā dātabbaṃ. Attanopi asante vuttanayeneva pariyesitvā upajjhāyassa santakaṃ katvā dātabbaṃ. Upajjhāyenapi saddhivihārikassa mātāpitūsu evameva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Eseva nayo ācariyantevāsikesupi. Aññopi yo āgantuko vā coro vā yuddhaparājito issaro vā ñātakehi pariccatto kapaṇo vā gamiyamanusso vā gilāno hutvā vihāraṃ pavisati, sabbesaṃ apaccāsīsantena bhesajjaṃ kātabbaṃ.

For their sake, medicine should be brought from the forest by novice relatives, or by unrelated novices for one’s own use and then given. They should bring it saying, “We bring it for the preceptor,” as a duty. If a preceptor’s parents fall ill and come to the monastery while he is away, a co-resident should give the preceptor’s medicine. If none exists, one’s own should be relinquished for the preceptor and given. If one has none, it should be sought as stated, made the preceptor’s, and given. The preceptor should act similarly for a co-resident’s parents. The same applies to teacher and pupil. For a visitor, thief, defeated warrior, ruler abandoned by relatives, or wretched traveler entering the monastery ill, medicine must be prepared for all without expectation.

And for their sake, when having medicine brought from the forest by novices, it should be brought by relative novices, or by non-relatives after having it brought for one’s own sake and then giving it. And they should bring it with the attitude of duty, saying, “We are bringing it for the preceptor.” If the preceptor’s parents are ill and come to the monastery, and the preceptor is away in another direction, the co-resident should give the preceptor’s medicine. If there is none, the preceptor’s medicine should be given up from one’s own. If one does not have any either, it should be sought in the same way as stated, made as the preceptor’s, and given. The preceptor also should act in the same way towards the co-resident’s parents. The same rule applies to teachers and pupils. Any other visitor, or thief, or one defeated in battle, or a wealthy person, or one abandoned by relatives, or a beggar, or a traveler who enters the monastery being ill, medicine should be prepared for all of them without expecting anything.

For their sake, novices should be asked to bring medicine from the forest, or relatives who are novices should be asked to bring it. Non-relatives should also be asked to bring it for their own sake. They should bring it with the thought, “We are bringing it for our preceptor.” If the preceptor’s parents come to the monastery ill and the preceptor has gone to another region, the preceptor’s student should give the preceptor’s own medicine. If there is none, he should give his own medicine, relinquishing it to the preceptor. If he has none, he should search as mentioned and prepare the preceptor’s own medicine to give. The preceptor should also act in the same way toward the student’s parents. The same applies to the teacher and pupil. Also, if a visitor, a thief, a defeated soldier, a king, a relative, a poor person, or a villager comes to the monastery ill, medicine should be prepared for all without their expecting it.

18. Saddhaṃ kulaṃ hoti catūhi paccayehi upaṭṭhāyakaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa mātāpituṭṭhāniyaṃ, tatra ce koci gilāno hoti, tassatthāya vissāsena “bhesajjaṃ katvā bhante dethā”ti vadanti, neva dātabbaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Atha pana kappiyaṃ ñatvā evaṃ pucchanti “bhante, asukassa nāma rogassa kiṃ bhesajjaṃ karontī”ti, “idañcidañca gahetvā karontī”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. “Bhante, mayhaṃ mātā gilānā, bhesajjaṃ tāva ācikkhathā”ti evaṃ pucchite pana na ācikkhitabbaṃ, aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā “āvuso, asukassa nāma bhikkhuno imasmiṃ roge kiṃ bhesajjaṃ kariṃsū”ti. Idañcidañca bhesajjaṃ bhanteti. Taṃ sutvā itaro mātu bhesajjaṃ karoti, vaṭṭati. Mahāpadumatthero kira vasabharaññopi deviyā roge uppanne ekāya itthiyā āgantvā pucchito “na jānāmī”ti avatvā evameva bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ samullapesi. Taṃ sutvā tassā bhesajjamakaṃsu. Vūpasante ca roge ticīvarena tīhi ca kahāpaṇasatehi saddhiṃ bhesajjacaṅkoṭakaṃ pūretvā āharitvā therassa pādamūle ṭhapetvā “bhante, pupphapūjaṃ karothā”ti āhaṃsu. Thero “ācariyabhāgo nāma aya”nti kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā pupphapūjamakāsi. Evaṃ tāva bhesajje paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

18. If a faithful family supporting the monastic community with the four supports, standing in place of parents, has someone ill and says in trust, “Prepare and give medicine, venerable,” it should neither be given nor prepared. But if they know what is permissible and ask, “Venerable, what medicine is prepared for this disease?” it is permissible to say, “They prepare this and that.” If they ask, “Venerable, my mother is ill; tell me about medicine,” it should not be told, but a mutual discussion may be held: “Friend, what medicine was prepared for that monk’s disease?” “This and that, venerable.” Hearing this, the other prepares it for his mother—this is permissible. Elder Mahāpaduma, even when Queen Vasabha’s illness arose and a woman asked, did not say, “I don’t know,” but discussed with monks thus. Hearing it, they prepared her medicine. When the illness subsided, they filled a medicine box with three robes and three hundred coins, placed it at the elder’s feet, and said, “Venerable, make a flower offering.” The elder had it taken permissibly, saying, “This is the teacher’s share,” and made a flower offering. Thus should one act with medicine.

18. If there is a faithful family that supports the community of monks with the four requisites, like a mother and father, and if someone there is ill, and for his sake they say with trust, “Prepare medicine and give it, venerable sir,” it should neither be given nor prepared. But if, knowing what is allowable, they ask thus, “Venerable sir, for so-and-so’s illness, what medicine do they prepare?” it is permissible to say, “They take this and that and prepare it.” But if they ask, “Venerable sir, my mother is ill, please tell me the medicine,” it should not be told; rather, another conversation should be held, “Friend, for so-and-so monk’s illness, what medicine did they prepare?” “This and that medicine, venerable sir.” Hearing that, the other prepares medicine for his mother; it is permissible. It is said that Mahāpaduma Thera, even when King Vasabha’s queen was ill, when asked by a woman who came, did not say, “I do not know,” but conversed with the monks in the same way. Hearing that, they prepared medicine for her. And when the illness subsided, they filled a medicine box with three robes and three hundred kahāpaṇas, brought it, placed it at the Thera’s feet, and said, “Venerable sir, please make an offering of flowers.” The Thera, thinking, “This is the teacher’s share,” had it accepted in an allowable way and made an offering of flowers. Thus, one should act regarding medicine.

18. If a faithful family supports the Sangha with the four requisites and a mother or father falls ill, and they say, “Venerable, prepare medicine and give it,” it should not be given or prepared. However, knowing what is allowable, one may say, “For such and such a disease, such and such medicine is prepared.” If they ask, “Venerable, my mother is ill, please tell me the medicine,” one should not tell them directly, but one may discuss with another monk, “Friend, what medicine did such and such a monk prepare for this disease?” Hearing this, the other may prepare the medicine for the mother, which is allowable. The elder Mahāpaduma, when the queen of Vasabhara fell ill, was asked by a woman who came to him, but he did not say, “I do not know.” Instead, he discussed with the monks in this way. Hearing this, she prepared the medicine. When the disease subsided, she filled a medicine box with three robes and three hundred coins and placed it at the elder’s feet, saying, “Venerable, perform a flower offering.” The elder, thinking, “This is the teacher’s share,” accepted it as allowable and performed the flower offering. Thus, one should act regarding medicine.

19. Paritte pana “gilānassa parittaṃ karotha, bhante”ti vutte na kātabbaṃ, “parittaṃ bhaṇathā”ti vutte pana bhaṇitabbaṃ. Sacepissa evaṃ hoti “manussā nāma na jānanti, akariyamāne vippaṭisārino bhavissantī”ti, kātabbaṃ. “Parittodakaṃ parittasuttaṃ katvā dethā”ti vutte pana tesaṃyeva udakaṃ hatthena cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvā dātabbaṃ. Sace vihārato udakaṃ attano santakaṃ vā suttaṃ deti, dukkaṭaṃ. Manussā udakañca suttañca gahetvā nisīditvā “parittaṃ bhaṇathā”ti vadanti, kātabbaṃ. No ce jānanti, ācikkhitabbaṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ nisinnānaṃ pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvā suttañca ṭhapetvā gacchanti “parittaṃ karotha, parittaṃ bhaṇathā”ti, na pādā apanetabbā. Manussā hi vippaṭisārino honti. Antogāmepi gilānassa atthāya vihāraṃ pesenti “parittaṃ bhaṇantū”ti, bhaṇitabbaṃ. Antogāme rājagehādīsu roge vā upaddave vā uppanne pakkosāpetvā bhaṇāpenti, āṭānāṭiyasuttādīni bhaṇitabbāni. “Āgantvā gilānassa sikkhāpadāni dentu, dhammaṃ kathentu, rājantepure vā amaccagehe vā āgantvā sikkhāpadāni dentu, dhammaṃ kathentū”ti pesitepi gantvā sikkhāpadāni dātabbāni, dhammo kathetabbo. “Matānaṃ parivāratthaṃ āgacchantū”ti pakkosanti, na gantabbaṃ. “Sīvathikadassane asubhadassane ca maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmā”ti kammaṭṭhānasīsena gantuṃ vaṭṭati. “Pahāredinne matepi amaraṇādhippāyassa anāpatti vuttā”ti na ettakeneva amanussagahitassa pahāro dātabbo , tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabbaṃ, ratanasuttādīni parittāni bhaṇitabbāni, “mā sīlavantaṃ bhikkhuṃ viheṭhehī”ti dhammakathā kātabbā, āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ vā bhaṇitabbaṃ.

19. In paritta, if they say, “Venerable, make a protective chant for the sick,” it should not be made; but if they say, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be recited. If one thinks, “People don’t know; they’ll regret it if it’s not done,” it may be done. If they say, “Give protective water or thread,” their own water should be stirred by hand, the thread rubbed, and given. If monastery water or one’s own thread is given, it is a dukkaṭa. If people take water and thread, sit, and say, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be done. If they don’t know, it should be taught. If they pour water at the monks’ feet, place thread, and say, “Make and recite a protective chant,” the feet should not be withdrawn, for people would regret it. If sent to a village for a sick person’s sake, saying, “Let them recite a protective chant,” it should be recited. In a village, royal palace, or minister’s house, when illness or calamity arises and they summon to recite, Āṭānāṭiyasutta and others should be recited. If sent saying, “Come give training rules, teach Dhamma at the palace or minister’s house,” one should go, give training rules, and teach Dhamma. If summoned, “Come for the dead’s retinue,” one should not go. But going for meditation, thinking, “Seeing a cemetery or corpses, I’ll gain mindfulness of death,” is permissible. Though it’s said, “Even striking the dead with no intent to kill incurs no offense,” this alone does not justify striking one seized by a spirit; a palm leaf or protective thread should be tied on hand or foot, Ratanasutta and other protective chants recited, Dhamma taught with, “Do not harm a virtuous monk,” or the Āṭānāṭiyaparitta recited.

19. Regarding protective chants, if it is said, “Perform a protective chant for the sick one, venerable sir,” it should not be done; but if it is said, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be recited. But 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 protective water and protective thread and give it,” their own water should be stirred with the hand and the thread should be rubbed and given. If he gives water from the monastery or his own thread, there is a dukkaṭa offense. If people take water and thread and sit down and say, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be done. If they do not know, it should be taught. If people sprinkle water on the feet of the seated monks and place the thread and leave, saying, “Perform a protective chant, recite a protective chant,” the feet should not be moved. For people are remorseful. Even inside the village, they send a message to the monastery for the sake of the sick one, “Let them recite a protective chant;” it should be recited. Inside the village, in royal residences and the like, when illness or calamity arises, they summon and have them recite; the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta and the like should be recited. If they send a message, “Come and give the precepts to the sick one, teach the Dhamma, come to the royal palace or the minister’s house and give the precepts, teach the Dhamma,” one should go and give the precepts and teach the Dhamma. If they summon, “Come for the funeral procession of the dead,” one should not go. It is permissible to go with the attitude of practicing the contemplation of death, thinking, “We will gain recollection of death at the sight of the charnel ground and the sight of the foul.” It is stated that “there is no offense for one with the intention of not dying even when a blow is given,” but not merely because of this should a blow be given to one seized by a non-human; rather, a palm leaf or a protective thread should be tied on the hand or foot, protective chants such as the Ratana Sutta should be recited, the teaching of the Dhamma should be given, saying, “Do not harm a virtuous monk,” or the Āṭānāṭiya protective chant should be recited.

19. Regarding protective chants, if one is told, “Venerable, prepare a protective chant,” it should not be done. But if told, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be recited. If one thinks, “People do not know, they will be disappointed if it is not done,” it should be done. If told, “Prepare protective water or a protective thread,” one should stir the water with one’s hand and wipe the thread, then give it. If one gives water or thread from the monastery or one’s own, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If people bring water and thread and sit down, saying, “Recite a protective chant,” it should be done. If they do not know, one should instruct them. If monks are sitting and water is poured on their feet and thread is placed, and they are told, “Perform a protective chant, recite a protective chant,” the feet should not be removed. People may become disappointed. If a sick person in the village sends a message to the monastery, saying, “Let them recite a protective chant,” it should be recited. If disease or calamity arises in the village, in the royal palace, etc., they should be summoned and made to recite, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta and others. If sent with the message, “Go and give the precepts to the sick, teach the Dhamma, go to the royal palace or the ministers’ houses and give the precepts, teach the Dhamma,” one should go and give the precepts and teach the Dhamma. If summoned to attend to the dead, one should not go. However, one may go with the intention of practicing meditation on the foulness of the charnel ground or mindfulness of death. “Even if struck, there is no offense for one who does not intend to kill,” but this does not mean one should strike a spirit-possessed person. Instead, a palm leaf or protective thread should be tied to the hand or foot, and protective chants like the Ratana Sutta should be recited. A Dhamma talk should be given, saying, “Do not harm virtuous monks,” or the Āṭānāṭiya protective chant should be recited.

Idha pana āṭānāṭiyaparittassa parikammaṃ veditabbaṃ (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282). Paṭhamameva hi āṭānāṭiyasuttaṃ na bhaṇitabbaṃ, mettasuttaṃ (khu. pā. 9.1 ādayo; su. ni. 143 ādayo) dhajaggasuttaṃ (saṃ. ni. 1.249) ratanasuttanti (khu. pā. 6.1 ādayo; su. ni. 224 ādayo) imāni sattāhaṃ bhaṇitabbāni. Sace muñcati, sundaraṃ. No ce muñcati, āṭānāṭiyasuttaṃ bhaṇitabbaṃ. Taṃ bhaṇantena ca bhikkhunā piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vā na khāditabbaṃ, susāne na vasitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Amanussā otāraṃ labhanti. Parittakaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ haritūpalittaṃ kāretvā tattha parisuddhaṃ āsanaṃ paññapetvā nisīditabbaṃ. Parittakārako bhikkhu vihārato gharaṃ nentehi phalakāvudhehi parivāretvā netabbo. Abbhokāse nisīditvā na vattabbaṃ, dvāravātapānāni pidahitvā nisinnena āvudhahatthehi samparivāritena mettacittaṃ purecārikaṃ katvā vattabbaṃ, paṭhamaṃ sikkhāpadāni gāhāpetvā sīle patiṭṭhitassa parittaṃ kātabbaṃ. Evampi mocetuṃ asakkontena vihāraṃ netvā cetiyaṅgaṇe nipajjāpetvā āsanapūjaṃ kāretvā dīpe jālāpetvā cetiyaṅgaṇaṃ sammajjitvā maṅgalakathā vattabbā, sabbasannipāto ghosetabbo, vihārassa upavane jeṭṭhakarukkho nāma hoti, tattha “bhikkhusaṅgho tumhākaṃ āgamanaṃ patimānetī”ti pahiṇitabbaṃ. Sabbasannipātaṭṭhāne anāgantuṃ nāma na labhati, tato amanussagahitako “tvaṃ konāmosī”ti pucchitabbo, nāme kathite nāmeneva ālapitabbo, “itthannāma tuyhaṃ mālāgandhādīsu patti, āsanapūjāyaṃ patti, piṇḍapāte patti, bhikkhusaṅghena tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā, bhikkhusaṅghe gāravena etaṃ muñcāhī”ti mocetabbo. Sace na muñcati, devatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ “tumhe jānātha, ayaṃ amanusso amhākaṃ vacanaṃ na karoti, mayaṃ buddhaāṇaṃ karissāmā”ti parittaṃ kātabbaṃ. Etaṃ tāva gihīnaṃ parikammaṃ. Sace pana bhikkhu amanussena gahito hoti, āsanāni dhovitvā sabbasannipātaṃ ghosāpetvā gandhamālādīsu pattiṃ datvā parittaṃ bhaṇitabbaṃ, idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ parikammaṃ. Evaṃ paritte paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

Here, the preparation for the Āṭānāṭiyaparitta should be understood (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282). The Āṭānāṭiyasutta should not be recited first; the Mettasutta (khu. pā. 9.1 ff.; su. ni. 143 ff.), Dhajaggasutta (saṃ. ni. 1.249), and Ratanasutta (khu. pā. 6.1 ff.; su. ni. 224 ff.) should be recited for seven days. If released, excellent. If not, the Āṭānāṭiyasutta should be recited. The reciting monk must not eat meat or flesh nor live in a cemetery, lest spirits find an opening. The protective chant site should be smeared with cow dung, a pure seat prepared, and one should sit. The reciting monk should be escorted from the monastery to the house with armed guards wielding plank weapons. It should not be recited in the open; with doors and windows closed, surrounded by armed men, with a mind of loving-kindness foremost, it should be recited after establishing the training rules for one firm in virtue. If unable to free them thus, bring them to the monastery, lay them in the shrine courtyard, perform a seat offering, light lamps, sweep the courtyard, recite auspicious words, call a full assembly, send word to the chief tree in the monastery garden, “The monastic community awaits your arrival.” None can fail to attend a full assembly. Then ask the spirit-seized, “What is your name?” When named, address them by name: “So-and-so, you have a share in garlands and scents, in the seat offering, in alms food; the community recited great auspicious words for your benefit; release him out of respect for the community.” If they do not release, inform the devas, “Know that this spirit does not heed us; we will resort to the Buddha’s command,” and recite the protective chant. This is for laypeople’s preparation. If a monk is seized, wash seats, call a full assembly, give a share in scents and garlands, and recite the protective chant—this is the monks’ preparation. Thus should one act in protective chants.

Here, however, the preliminary practice for the Āṭānāṭiya protective chant should be known (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282). First of all, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should not be recited; the Mettā Sutta (khu. pā. 9.1 ādayo; su. ni. 143 ādayo), the Dhajagga Sutta (saṃ. ni. 1.249), and the Ratana Sutta (khu. pā. 6.1 ādayo; su. ni. 224 ādayo) – these should be recited for seven days. If he is released, it is good. If he is not released, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should be recited. And the monk reciting it should not eat rice or meat, and he should not dwell in a cemetery. Why? Non-humans find an opportunity. The place for performing the protective chant should be made clean and swept, and there a purified seat should be prepared and one should sit down. The monk performing the protective chant should be escorted from the monastery to the house by those carrying wooden weapons. He should not sit in the open air; he should sit with the doors and windows closed, surrounded by those holding weapons, with a mind of loving-kindness as his forerunner, and recite; first, he should have them take the precepts, and he should perform the protective chant for one established in virtue. Even if he is unable to release him thus, he should take him to the monastery, have him lie down in the cetiya courtyard, have an offering to the seat made, have lamps lit, have the cetiya courtyard swept, and the story of the great auspiciousness should be told; an announcement of the full assembly should be made; there is a senior tree in the monastery’s grove, there one should send a message, “The community of monks is waiting for your arrival.” One cannot but come to the place of the full assembly; then the one seized by the non-human should be asked, “What is your name?” When the name is told, he should be addressed by name, “So-and-so, there is a share for you in flowers, fragrances, and the like, a share in the offering to the seat, a share in the alms-food, the community of monks has told the great auspiciousness story for the sake of a gift for you, release this one out of respect for the community of monks.” He should be released. If he does not release him, it should be announced to the deities, “You know, this non-human does not listen to our words, we will carry out the Buddha’s command,” and the protective chant should be performed. This is the preliminary practice for householders. But if a monk is seized by a non-human, the seats should be washed, an announcement of the full assembly should be made, a share in fragrances, flowers, and the like should be given, and the protective chant should be recited; this is the preliminary practice for monks. Thus, one should act regarding protective chants.

Here, the procedure for the Āṭānāṭiya protective chant should be understood (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282). First, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should not be recited immediately. Instead, the Mettā Sutta (Khu. Pā. 9.1 ff.; Su. Ni. 143 ff.), the Dhajagga Sutta (Saṃ. Ni. 1.249), and the Ratana Sutta (Khu. Pā. 6.1 ff.; Su. Ni. 224 ff.) should be recited for seven days. If the person is released, good. If not, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should be recited. While reciting it, the monk should not eat meat or fish, nor stay in a charnel ground. Why? Spirits find an opportunity. The place for performing the protective chant should be smeared with green color, and a clean seat should be prepared there. The monk performing the protective chant should be escorted from the monastery to the house with wooden weapons. He should not sit in the open; the doors and windows should be closed, and he should sit surrounded by armed men. With a mind of loving-kindness, he should first establish the precepts and then perform the protective chant for one established in virtue. If even this does not release the person, he should be taken to the monastery and made to lie down in the shrine courtyard. Seats should be prepared, lamps lit, the shrine courtyard swept, and auspicious words spoken. The assembly should be announced, and a message should be sent to the chief tree in the monastery grove, saying, “The Sangha honors your coming.” The assembly place cannot be avoided. Then, the spirit-possessed person should be asked, “What is your name?” When the name is told, he should be addressed by name, “So-and-so, you have a share in flowers, incense, etc., a share in seat offerings, a share in alms. The Sangha has spoken auspicious words for your sake. Out of respect for the Sangha, release this.” If he does not release, the deities should be informed, “You know, this spirit does not obey us. We will act according to the Buddha’s instruction,” and the protective chant should be performed. This is the procedure for laypeople. If a monk is possessed by a spirit, the seats should be washed, the assembly announced, and a share in flowers, incense, etc., given. The protective chant should be recited. This is the procedure for monks. Thus, one should act regarding protective chants.

20. Paṭisanthāre pana ayaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7) – anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāto kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabbo? Mātāpitūnaṃ tāva dātabbo. Sacepi kahāpaṇagghanako hoti, saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ natthi. Mātāpituupaṭṭhākānaṃ veyyāvaccakarassa paṇḍupalāsassa cāti etesampi dātabbo. Tattha paṇḍupalāsassa thālake pakkhipitvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ agārikānaṃ mātāpitūnampi na vaṭṭati. Pabbajitaparibhogo hi agārikānaṃ cetiyaṭṭhāniyo. Apica anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātho nāmesa sampattassa dāmarikacorassapi issariyassapi dātabbo. Kasmā? Te hi adīyamānepi “na dentī”ti āmasitvā dīyamānepi “ucchiṭṭhakaṃ dentī”ti kujjhanti, kuddhā jīvitāpi voropenti, sāsanassapi antarāyaṃ karonti. Rajjaṃ patthayamānassa vicarato coranāgassa vatthu cettha kathetabbaṃ. Evaṃ anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāte paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

20. In paṭisanthāra, here is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7): To whom should untouched alms food be given, and to whom not? It should be given to mother and father. Even if worth a coin, there is no misuse of faith donations. It should also be given to their attendants, one’s assistant, and a paṇḍupalāsa. For a paṇḍupalāsa, it may be given even in a tray; except for him, it is not permissible for other laypeople, even parents. For what is designated for renunciants is like a shrine for laypeople. Moreover, untouched alms food should be given to a robber or ruler arriving in need. Why? If not given, they may touch it, saying, “They don’t give,” or if given, grow angry, saying, “They give leftovers,” and in anger may kill or obstruct the teaching. The story of a robber chief seeking a kingdom should be told here. Thus should one act with untouched alms food.

20. Regarding hospitality, here is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.185-7) – To whom should untouched alms-food be given, and to whom should it not be given? It should be given to one’s mother and father. Even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa, there is no falling away from faith’s gift. It should also be given to the mother’s and father’s attendants, the attendant, and the paṇḍupalāsa. There, it is permissible to give it to the paṇḍupalāsa even by placing it in a plate; except for him, it is not permissible for other householders, not even for one’s mother and father. For the consumption by a renunciant is like a cetiya for householders. However, untouched alms-food should be given even to a violent robber or a wealthy person who arrives. Why? Because even when it is not given, they are angry, thinking, “They do not give,” and even when it is given, they are angry, thinking, “They give leftovers;” being angry, they even take life, and they create an obstacle to the Dispensation. Here, the story of the robber Nāga who was wandering seeking the kingdom should be told. Thus, one should act regarding untouched alms-food.

20. Regarding courteous reception, here is the determination (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.185-7): To whom should leftover almsfood be given, and to whom should it not be given? First, it should be given to one’s parents. Even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa, there is no offense of misusing what is given out of faith. It should also be given to one’s parents’ attendants, one’s own servant, and a pale-leaf ascetic. For the pale-leaf ascetic, it may even be placed in his bowl. Except for these, leftover almsfood should not be given to householders, even their parents. What is used by monastics is like a shrine for householders. Moreover, leftover almsfood should be given even to a wealthy man, a bandit, or a king. Why? If not given, they may say, “They do not give,” and if given, they may say, “They give leftovers,” and become angry. When angry, they may even take life and create obstacles for the Dispensation. The story of the bandit Nāga, who wandered seeking kingship, should be told here. Thus, one should act regarding leftover almsfood.

Paṭisanthāro ca nāmāyaṃ kassa kātabbo, kassa na kātabbo? Paṭisanthāro nāma vihāraṃ sampattassa yassa kassaci āgantukassa vā daliddassa vā corassa vā issarassa vā kātabboyeva. Kathaṃ? Āgantukaṃ tāva khīṇaparibbayaṃ vihāraṃ sampattaṃ disvā “pānīyaṃ pivā”ti dātabbaṃ, pādamakkhanatelaṃ dātabbaṃ, kāle āgatassa yāgubhattaṃ, vikāle āgatassa sace taṇḍulā atthi, taṇḍulā dātabbā. Avelāya sampattopi “gacchāhī”ti na vattabbo, sayanaṭṭhānaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sabbaṃ apaccāsīyanteneva kātabbaṃ. “Manussā nāma catupaccayadāyakā, evaṃ saṅgahe kariyamāne punappunaṃ pasīditvā upakāraṃ karissantī”ti cittaṃ na uppādetabbaṃ. Corānaṃ pana saṅghikampi dātabbaṃ. Paṭisanthārānisaṃsadīpanatthañca coranāgavatthu, bhātarā saddhiṃ jambudīpagatassa mahānāgarañño vatthu, piturājassa rajje catunnaṃ amaccānaṃ vatthu, abhayacoravatthūti evamādīni bahūni vatthūni mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vitthārato vuttāni.

To whom should friendly greeting be made, and to whom not? Friendly greeting should be made to anyone arriving at the monastery—a visitor, a poor person, a robber, or a ruler. How? Seeing a visitor arriving at the monastery with supplies exhausted, give water, saying, “Drink water,” and offer foot-anointing oil. For one arriving timely, give gruel or rice; for one arriving untimely, if rice grains are available, give rice grains. Even one arriving at an odd hour should not be told, “Go away”; a sleeping place should be given. All should be done without expectation. Do not think, “People give the four supports; if treated kindly, they’ll repeatedly help with faith.” Even monastic property may be given to robbers. To illustrate the benefits of friendly greeting, many stories are detailed in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, like the robber chief, the great king’s journey to Jambudīpa with his brother, the four ministers in the father-king’s realm, and Abhaya the robber.

And this hospitality, to whom should it be given, and to whom should it not be given? Hospitality should be given to anyone who arrives at the monastery, whether a visitor, or a poor person, or a thief, or a wealthy person. How? A visitor who arrives at the monastery with depleted provisions should be told, “Drink water,” water should be given, oil for rubbing the feet should be given; if he arrives at the right time, gruel and rice should be given; if he arrives at the wrong time, if there is rice, rice should be given. Even if he arrives at the wrong time, he should not be told, “Go away;” a place to sleep should be given. Everything should be done without expecting anything. The thought should not arise, “People are givers of the four requisites, if hospitality is given thus, they will be pleased again and again and will be helpful.” For thieves, however, even what belongs to the Saṅgha should be given. And for the purpose of illuminating the benefits of hospitality, the story of the robber Nāga, the story of the great king Nāga who went to Jambudīpa with his brother, the story of the four ministers in the reign of his father the king, and the story of the robber Abhaya – many such stories are told in detail in the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā.

To whom should courteous reception be given, and to whom should it not be given? Courteous reception should be given to anyone who comes to the monastery, whether a visitor, a poor person, a bandit, or a king. How? First, seeing a visitor who has exhausted his resources, one should say, “Drink water,” give foot-washing water and oil, and if he comes at the right time, give gruel or rice. If he comes at the wrong time and there is rice, give rice. Even if he comes at an improper time, one should not say, “Go away,” but give a place to sleep. All should be done without their expecting it. One should not think, “People are donors of the four requisites; if we treat them well, they will help again and again.” However, even to bandits, communal property should be given. To illustrate the benefits of courteous reception, the story of the bandit Nāga, the story of the king of Mahānāgara who came to Jambudīpa with his brother, the story of the four ministers during his father’s reign, the story of the bandit Abhaya, and many other stories are told in detail in the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā.

Tatrāyaṃ ekavatthudīpanā – sīhaḷadīpe kira abhayo nāma coro pañcasataparivāro ekasmiṃ ṭhāne khandhāvāraṃ bandhitvā samantā tiyojanaṃ ubbāsetvā vasati. Anurādhapuravāsino kadambanadiṃ na uttaranti, cetiyagirimagge janasañcāro upacchinno. Athekadivasaṃ coro “cetiyagiriṃ vilumpissāmī”ti agamāsi. Ārāmikā disvā dīghabhāṇakaabhayattherassa ārocesuṃ. Thero “sappiphāṇitādīni atthī”ti pucchi. “Atthi, bhante”ti. “Corānaṃ detha”. “Taṇḍulā atthī”ti. “Atthi, bhante, saṅghassatthāya āhaṭā taṇḍulā ca pakkasākañca goraso cā”ti. “Bhattaṃ sampādetvā corānaṃ dethā”ti. Ārāmikā tathā kariṃsu. Corā bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā “kenāyaṃ paṭisanthāro kato”ti pucchiṃsu. “Amhākaṃ ayyena abhayattherenā”ti. Corā therassa santikaṃ gantvā vanditvā āhaṃsu “mayaṃ ’saṅghassa ca cetiyassa ca santakaṃ acchinditvā gahessāmā’ti āgatā, tumhākaṃ pana iminā paṭisanthārena mayaṃ pasannā, ajja paṭṭhāya vihāre dhammikārakkhā amhākaṃ āyattā hotu, nāgarā āgantvā dānaṃ dentu, cetiyaṃ vandantū”ti. Tato paṭṭhāya ca nāgare dānaṃ dātuṃ āgacchante nadītīreyeva paccuggantvā rakkhantā vihāraṃ nenti, vihārepi dānaṃ dentānaṃ rakkhaṃ katvā tiṭṭhanti. Tepi bhikkhūnaṃ bhuttāvasesaṃ corānaṃ denti. Gamanakālepi te corā nadītīraṃ pāpetvā nivattanti.

Here is an illustration of one story: In Sri Lanka, a robber named Abhaya, with five hundred followers, set up camp in a place, terrorizing a three-yojana radius around it. Anurādhapura residents dared not cross the Kadamba River, and travel to Cetiyagiri ceased. One day, the robber went to plunder Cetiyagiri. The monastery workers saw him and informed Elder Abhaya, the Long Reciter. The elder asked, “Is there ghee, molasses, or the like?” “Yes, venerable,” they said. “Give it to the robbers.” “Are there rice grains?” “Yes, venerable, rice grains, cooked vegetables, and beef brought for the community.” “Prepare rice and give it to the robbers.” The workers did so. The robbers ate and asked, “Who made this friendly greeting?” “Our master, Elder Abhaya.” The robbers went to the elder, paid homage, and said, “We came to steal the community’s and shrine’s property, but your friendly greeting has won us over. From today, lawful protection of the monastery is our responsibility. Let townsfolk come, give alms, and honor the shrine.” From then on, they met townsfolk giving alms at the riverbank, escorted them to the monastery, guarded those giving alms, and the monks gave the robbers their leftovers. When leaving, the robbers escorted them to the riverbank and returned.

Here is an illustration with one story – it is said that in Sri Lanka, a robber named Abhaya, with a retinue of five hundred, established a camp in one place and terrorized an area of three yojanas around. The inhabitants of Anurādhapura did not cross the Kadamba River, and the movement of people on the Cetiyagiri road was cut off. Then one day, the robber went, thinking, “I will plunder Cetiyagiri.” The monastery attendants saw him and informed Dīghabhāṇaka Abhaya Thera. The Thera asked, “Are there ghee, molasses, and the like?” “There are, venerable sir.” “Give them to the robbers.” “Are there rice grains?” “There are, venerable sir, rice grains brought for the Saṅgha, cooked vegetables, and cow products.” “Prepare a meal and give it to the robbers.” The monastery attendants did so. The robbers ate the meal and asked, “By whom was this hospitality given?” “By our master, Abhaya Thera.” The robbers went to the Thera, paid homage, and said, “We came thinking, ‘We will seize the property of the Saṅgha and the cetiya without destroying them,’ but we are pleased with this hospitality of yours. From today, let the lawful protection of the monastery be under our control, let the citizens come and give alms, and let them pay homage to the cetiya.” From then on, when the citizens came to give alms, they met them at the riverbank, protected them, and took them to the monastery; even in the monastery, they stood guard while they gave alms. And they gave the leftovers of the monks’ meals to the robbers. Even at the time of departure, the robbers escorted them to the riverbank and returned.

Here is the explanation of a single incident: In Sri Lanka, it is said that there was a robber named Abhaya with a retinue of five hundred men. He established a stronghold in one place, terrorizing the surrounding area for three yojanas. The inhabitants of Anurādhapura did not cross the Kadamba River, and the movement of people on the road to Cetiyagiri was cut off. One day, the robber thought, “I will plunder Cetiyagiri,” and set out. The monastery workers saw him and informed the elder Abhaya, the Dīghabhāṇaka. The elder asked, “Do we have honey, ghee, etc.?” They replied, “Yes, Venerable.” He said, “Give it to the robbers.” He then asked, “Do we have rice?” They replied, “Yes, Venerable, the rice, cooked vegetables, and milk have been brought for the Saṅgha.” The elder said, “Prepare a meal and give it to the robbers.” The monastery workers did as instructed. The robbers ate the meal and asked, “Who has shown us such hospitality?” They replied, “Our elder, Venerable Abhaya.” The robbers went to the elder, paid homage, and said, “We came intending to seize the belongings of the Saṅgha and the Cetiya, but because of your hospitality, we are pleased. From now on, let the protection of the monastery be our responsibility. Let the townspeople come and give alms, and let them pay homage to the Cetiya.” From that day onward, when the townspeople came to give alms, the robbers would meet them at the riverbank, escort them to the monastery, and guard them while they offered alms. They also gave the leftover food from the monks to the robbers. When it was time to leave, the robbers would escort them back to the riverbank and then return.

Athekadivasaṃ bhikkhusaṅghe khīyanakakathā uppannā “thero issaravatāya saṅghasantakaṃ corānaṃ adāsī”ti. Thero sannipātaṃ kārāpetvā āha “corā ’saṅghassa pakativaṭṭañca cetiyasantakañca acchinditvā gaṇhissāmā’ti āgamiṃsu, atha tesaṃ mayā ’etaṃ na harissantī’ti ettako nāma paṭisanthāro kato, taṃ sabbampi ekato sampiṇḍetvā agghāpetha, tena kāraṇena aviluttaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ ekato sampiṇḍetvā agghāpethā”ti. Tato sabbampi therena dinnakaṃ cetiyaghare ekaṃ varapotthakacittattharaṇaṃ na agghati. Tato āhaṃsu “therena kato paṭisanthāro sukato, codetuṃ vā sāretuṃ vā na labbhati, gīvā vā avahāro vā natthī”ti. Evaṃ mahānisaṃso paṭisanthāroti sallakkhetvā kattabbo paṇḍitena bhikkhunāti.

One day, a dispute arose in the monastic community: “The elder, out of lordly habit, gave community property to robbers.” The elder called an assembly and said, “The robbers came to steal the community’s regular goods and the shrine’s property. I made such-and-such a friendly greeting so they would not take it. Assess all I gave together, then assess the unplundered goods together.” What the elder gave did not equal even one ornate book-cover cloth in the shrine room. They said, “The elder’s friendly greeting was well-made; it cannot be faulted or reproved; there is no liability or loss.” Thus, a wise monk should reflect on the great benefit of friendly greeting and act accordingly.

Then one day, a complaint arose in the community of monks, “The Thera, due to his authority, gave the Saṅgha’s property to the robbers.” The Thera convened an assembly and said, “The robbers came thinking, ‘We will seize the Saṅgha’s regular duties and the cetiya’s property without destroying them,’ and I gave them this much hospitality, thinking, ‘They will not steal this.’ Gather all of that together and estimate its value; gather together and estimate the value of the goods that were not plundered because of that.” Then all that the Thera had given was not worth a single fine cloth painting in the cetiya house. Then they said, “The hospitality given by the Thera was well done; there is no reason to accuse or blame him, there is no neck or theft.” Thus, understanding that hospitality is of great benefit, it should be done by a wise monk.

One day, a rumor arose among the Saṅgha: “The elder, acting like a lord, gave the Saṅgha’s belongings to the robbers.” The elder convened an assembly and said, “The robbers came intending to seize the Saṅgha’s provisions and the Cetiya’s belongings. To prevent them from doing so, I showed them such hospitality. Gather all that was given and assess its value. For this reason, gather the undamaged goods and assess their value.” When everything given by the elder was gathered, it was found that even a single precious book cover or cushion in the Cetiya house was not equal in value. They said, “The elder’s hospitality was well done. There is no fault to accuse or blame him for. There is no fault in his neck or shoulders.” Thus, a wise monk should recognize the great benefit of hospitality and act accordingly.

The Discourse on the Decision Regarding the Preparation of Medicines and the Like is concluded.

4. Viññattivinicchayakathā

4. Discourse on the Judgment of Requests

4. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Requests

4. Discussion on Requests (Viññatti)

21. Viññattīti yācanā. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.342) – mūlacchejjāya purisaṃ yācituṃ na vaṭṭati, “sahāyatthāya kammakaraṇatthāya purisaṃ dethā”ti yācituṃ vaṭṭati, purisena kattabbaṃ hatthakammasaṅkhātaṃ purisattakaraṃ yācituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Hatthakammañhi kiñci vatthu na hoti, tasmā taṃ ṭhapetvā migaluddakamacchabandhanakādīnaṃ sakakammaṃ avasesaṃ sabbaṃ kappiyaṃ. “Kiṃ, bhante, āgatāttha kena kammenā”ti pucchite vā apucchite vā yācituṃ vaṭṭati, viññattipaccayā doso natthi. Migaluddakādayo pana sakakammaṃ na yācitabbā, “hatthakammaṃ dethā”ti aniyametvāpi na yācitabbā. Evaṃ yācitā hi te “sādhu, bhante”ti bhikkhū uyyojetvā migepi māretvā āhareyyuṃ. Niyametvā pana “vihāre kiñci kattabbaṃ atthi, tattha hatthakammaṃ dethā”ti yācitabbā, phālanaṅgalādīni upakaraṇāni gahetvā kasituṃ vā vapituṃ vā lāyituṃ vā gacchantaṃ sakakiccapasutampi kassakaṃ vā aññaṃ vā kiñci hatthakammaṃ yācituṃ vaṭṭateva. Yo pana vighāsādo vā añño vā koci nikkammo niratthakakathaṃ kathento niddāyanto vā viharati, evarūpaṃ ayācitvāpi “ehi re idaṃ vā idaṃ vā karohī”ti yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati.

21. Viññatti means requesting. Here is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.342): It is not permissible to request a person for root-cutting, but it is permissible to request, “Give a person for companionship or work.” Requesting manual labor that a person can do is certainly permissible. Since manual labor is not a specific thing, except for hunters, fishermen, and the like doing their own tasks, all other work is permissible. When asked or unasked, “Venerable, why have you come, for what task?” it is permissible to request; there is no fault from making a request. Hunters and the like must not be requested for their own tasks, nor even vaguely, “Give manual labor.” If requested thus, they might say, “Very well, venerable,” dismiss the monks, and bring killed game. Instead, specify, “There is work at the monastery; give manual labor there,” and request it. Even a farmer or anyone busy with their own task, going to plow, sow, or reap with tools like a plow, may be requested for manual labor.

21. Request (Viññatti) means asking. Herein is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.342) – It is not permissible to ask for a person for the purpose of cutting off the root; it is permissible to ask, “Give a person for assistance, for doing work.” It is indeed permissible to ask for a person’s work, which is known as manual labor. For manual labor is not any specific object; therefore, except for that, all the rest is allowable, the work of hunters, fishermen, and the like. Whether asked or not asked, “Venerable sir, what work have you come for?” it is permissible to ask; there is no fault due to the cause of the request. However, hunters and the like should not be asked for their own work; they should not be asked even without specifying, “Give manual labor.” For if they are asked thus, they might say, “Very well, venerable sir,” send the monks away, and even kill and bring animals. But one should ask, specifying, “There is some work to be done in the monastery, give manual labor for that.” It is permissible to ask even a farmer or anyone else who is engaged in his own work, going to plow, sow, or reap, taking plows and other implements, for any kind of manual labor. But for one who is an eater of scraps or anyone else who is idle, telling useless stories, or sleeping in the monastery, it is permissible to have him do whatever one wishes, even without asking, saying, “Come here, do this or that.”

21. Viññatti means a request. Here is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.342): It is not permissible to ask a person to cut down a tree at the root, but it is permissible to ask, “Give a person for the purpose of friendship or for work.” It is permissible to ask a person to perform manual labor, such as work done by hand. Manual labor does not involve any specific object, so except for that, all other work, such as hunting, fishing, and trapping, is permissible. Whether asked or not, it is permissible to make a request, and there is no fault in making a request. However, hunters and others should not be asked to perform their own work, nor should they be asked without specifying, “Give manual labor.” If asked in this way, they might say, “Very well, Venerable,” and after dismissing the monks, they might kill animals and bring them. But if specified, “There is something to be done in the monastery, give manual labor there,” it is permissible to ask. If a farmer or someone else, engaged in their own work, is seen plowing, sowing, or reaping, it is permissible to ask them to perform some manual labor. However, if someone is lazy, indulges in idle talk, or is sleeping, it is permissible to tell them, “Come here, do this or that,” as one wishes.

Hatthakammassa pana sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanatthaṃ imaṃ nayaṃ kathenti. Sace hi bhikkhu pāsādaṃ kāretukāmo hoti, thambhatthāya pāsāṇakoṭṭakānaṃ gharaṃ gantvā vattabbaṃ “hatthakammaṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati upāsakā”ti. “Kiṃ kātabbaṃ, bhante”ti? “Pāsāṇatthambhā uddharitvā dātabbā”ti. Sace te uddharitvā vā denti, uddharitvā nikkhitte attano thambhe vā denti, vaṭṭati. Athāpi vadanti “amhākaṃ, bhante, hatthakammaṃ kātuṃ khaṇo natthi, aññaṃ uddharāpetha, tassa mūlaṃ dassāmā”ti, uddharāpetvā “pāsāṇatthambhe uddhaṭamanussānaṃ mūlaṃ dethā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Eteneva upāyena pāsādadārūnaṃ atthāya vaḍḍhakīnaṃ santikaṃ, iṭṭhakatthāya iṭṭhakavaḍḍhakīnaṃ, chadanatthāya gehacchādakānaṃ, cittakammatthāya cittakārānanti yena yena attho hoti, tassa tassa atthāya tesaṃ tesaṃ sippakārakānaṃ santikaṃ gantvā hatthakammaṃ yācituṃ vaṭṭati, hatthakammayācanavasena ca mūlacchejjāya vā bhattavetanānuppadānena vā laddhampi sabbaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Araññato āharāpentena ca sabbaṃ anajjhāvutthakaṃ āharāpetabbaṃ.

To illustrate that all manual labor is permissible, they explain this method: If a monk wishes to build a palace, he should go to stone-cutters’ homes for pillars and say, “It is permissible to obtain manual labor, laypeople.” “What is to be done, venerable?” “Stones for pillars must be extracted and given.” If they extract and give, or give their own extracted pillars, it is permissible. If they say, “Venerable, we have no time to do manual labor; have another extract them, and we’ll pay the cost,” it is permissible to have them extracted and say, “Give the cost to the men who extracted the stone pillars.” By this method, one may go to carpenters for palace wood, brickmakers for bricks, roofers for roofing, or painters for painting—requesting manual labor from each craftsperson for each need is permissible. What is obtained through requesting manual labor, whether by root-cutting or providing food and wages, may all be accepted. When having it brought from the forest, all must be brought unclaimed.

However, to illustrate the all-allowability of manual labor, they tell this method. If a monk wishes to have a mansion built, he should go to the house of stone-cutters for pillars and say, “It is permissible to receive manual labor, lay followers.” “What should be done, venerable sir?” “Stone pillars should be extracted and given.” If they extract and give them, or give their own pillars that have been extracted and placed aside, it is permissible. But if they say, “Venerable sir, we do not have time to do manual labor, have others extract them, we will give the price for that,” it is permissible to have them extracted and say, “Give the price for the men who extracted the stone pillars.” By the same method, for mansion wood, one should go to the carpenters; for bricks, to the brick-makers; for roofing, to the roofers; for painting, to the painters; for whatever is needed, for the sake of that, one should go to those respective craftsmen and ask for manual labor; and whatever is obtained by asking for manual labor, whether by cutting off the root or by giving food and wages, all is permissible to accept. And when having it brought from the forest, everything that is not inhabited should be brought.

To explain the permissibility of all manual labor, this method is described. If a monk wishes to build a pavilion, he should go to the house of stonecutters and say, “Lay devotees, it is permissible to obtain manual labor.” If they ask, “What is to be done, Venerable?” he should say, “Extract and give stone pillars.” If they extract and give them, or extract and place them on their own pillars, it is permissible. Even if they say, “Venerable, we have no time to do manual labor, have someone else extract them, and we will pay the wages,” it is permissible to have someone else extract them and then say, “Give the wages to the people who extracted the stone pillars.” In the same way, for the purpose of building materials, one may go to carpenters, for bricks to brickmakers, for roofing to roofers, for painting to painters, and so on, and ask for manual labor. Through requesting manual labor, it is permissible to obtain wages for cutting at the root or for providing food. Everything obtained in this way may be taken. If bringing things from the forest, everything must be brought without staying overnight.

22. Na kevalañca pāsādaṃ kāretukāmena, mañcapīṭhapattaparissāvanadhamakaraṇacīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenapi dārulohasuttādīni labhitvā te te sippakārake upasaṅkamitvā vuttanayeneva hatthakammaṃ yācitabbaṃ. Hatthakammayācanavasena ca mūlacchejjāya vā bhattavetanānuppadānena vā laddhampi sabbaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Sace pana kātuṃ na icchanti, bhattavetanaṃ paccāsīsanti, akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbaṃ, bhikkhācāravattena taṇḍulādīni pariyesitvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Hatthakammavasena pattaṃ kāretvā tatheva pācetvā navapakkassa pattassa puñchanatelatthāya antogāmaṃ paviṭṭhena “bhikkhāya āgato”ti sallakkhetvā yāguyā vā bhatte vā ānīte hatthena patto pidhātabbo. Sace upāsikā “kiṃ, bhante”ti pucchati, “navapakko patto, puñchanatelena attho”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace sā “dehi, bhante”ti pattaṃ gahetvā telena puñchitvā yāguyā vā bhattassa vā pūretvā deti, viññatti nāma na hoti, gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

22. Not only for one wishing to build a palace, but also for one wishing to make a bed, seat, bowl strainer, bellows, or robe, obtaining wood, metal, thread, or the like and approaching craftspeople, manual labor should be requested as stated. What is obtained through requesting manual labor, whether by root-cutting or providing food and wages, may all be accepted. If they do not wish to do it and expect food and wages, impermissible coins or the like must not be given; rice grains or the like sought through alms rounds may be given. Having a bowl made and baked through manual labor, entering a village for oil to wipe a new bowl, thinking, “I’ve come for alms,” if gruel or rice is brought, the bowl should be covered by hand. If a laywoman asks, “What, venerable?” say, “It’s a new bowl; I need wiping oil.” If she takes it, wipes it with oil, fills it with gruel or rice, and gives it, it is not a request and may be accepted.

22. Not only when wishing to have a mansion built, but also when wishing to have couches, seats, bowl strainers, water strainers, robes, and the like made, having obtained wood, metal, thread, and the like, one should approach those respective craftsmen and ask for manual labor in the same way as stated. And whatever is obtained by asking for manual labor, whether by cutting off the root or by giving food and wages, all is permissible to accept. But if they do not wish to do it and expect food and wages, unallowable gold coins and the like should not be given; it is permissible to seek rice and the like through the practice of alms-round and give it. Having had a bowl made by means of manual labor and having it baked in the same way, one who enters the village for oil for wiping the newly baked bowl should, thinking, “I have come for alms,” cover the bowl with his hand when gruel or rice is brought. If the laywoman asks, “What is it, venerable sir?” one should say, “It is a newly baked bowl, I need oil for wiping it.” If she says, “Give it, venerable sir,” takes the bowl, wipes it with oil, and fills it with gruel or rice and gives it, it is not a request; it is permissible to accept it.

22. Not only for building a pavilion, but even for making a bed, chair, bowl cover, water strainer, or robe, having obtained wood, metal, thread, etc., one should approach the respective craftsmen and request manual labor in the manner described. Through requesting manual labor, it is permissible to obtain wages for cutting at the root or for providing food. If they do not wish to work but expect food wages, unallowable money, etc., should not be given. It is permissible to seek rice, etc., through alms and give it. Having a bowl made through manual labor and similarly having it cooked, when entering the village for the purpose of wiping and oiling a new bowl, one should consider, “I have come for alms.” When gruel or rice is brought, the bowl should be covered with the hand. If a laywoman asks, “What is it, Venerable?” one should say, “It is a new bowl; there is a need for oil and a wipe.” If she says, “Give it, Venerable,” takes the bowl, wipes it with oil, fills it with gruel or rice, and gives it, there is no request, and it is permissible to take it.

23. Bhikkhū pageva piṇḍāya caritvā āsanasālaṃ gantvā āsanaṃ apassantā tiṭṭhanti. Tatra ce upāsakā bhikkhū ṭhite disvā sayameva āsanāni āharāpenti, nisīditvā gacchantehi āpucchitvā gantabbaṃ, anāpucchā gatānampi naṭṭhaṃ gīvā na hoti, āpucchitvā gamanaṃ pana vattaṃ. Sace bhikkhūhi “āsanāni āharathā”ti vuttehi āhaṭāni honti, āpucchitvāva gantabbaṃ, anāpucchā gatānaṃ vattabhedo ca naṭṭhañca gīvā. Attharaṇakojavakādīsupi eseva nayo.

23. Monks going for alms early, arriving at the dining hall and not seeing seats, stand. If laypeople see the monks standing and bring seats themselves, the monks should sit, ask permission, and leave; even if they leave without asking, there is no liability for loss—it is proper conduct to ask before leaving. If the monks say, “Bring seats,” and they are brought, they must ask before leaving; leaving without asking breaches conduct and incurs liability for loss. The same applies to mats, rugs, and the like.

23. The monks, having already gone for alms, go to the assembly hall and stand, not seeing seats. If lay followers, seeing the monks standing, themselves have seats brought, when leaving after sitting, they should leave after asking; even for those who have left without asking, there is no neck for what is lost, but leaving after asking is the duty. If the seats have been brought when told by the monks, “Bring seats,” they should leave only after asking; for those who have left without asking, there is a breach of duty and the neck for what is lost. The same rule applies to floor coverings, blankets, and the like.

23. Monks, after walking for alms, go to the assembly hall and stand if they do not see a seat. If lay devotees see the monks standing, they themselves bring seats. After sitting, when leaving, one should ask permission. If one leaves without asking, there is no fault in the neck, but asking permission before leaving is the proper practice. If the monks say, “Bring seats,” and they are brought, one should ask permission before leaving. If one leaves without asking, there is a breach of proper conduct and a fault in the neck. The same applies to mats, cushions, etc.

Makkhikā bahukā honti, “makkhikabījaniṃ āharathā”ti vattabbaṃ, pucimandasākhādīni āharanti, kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbāni. Āsanasālāyaṃ udakabhājanaṃ rittaṃ hoti, “dhamakaraṇaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti na vattabbaṃ. Dhamakaraṇañhi rittabhājane pakkhipanto bhindeyya, “nadiṃ vā taḷākaṃ vā gantvā udakaṃ āharā”ti pana vattuṃ vaṭṭati, “gehato āharā”ti neva vattuṃ vaṭṭati, na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjituṃ. Āsanasālāya vā araññe vā bhattakiccaṃ karontehi tattha jātakaṃ anajjhāvutthakaṃ yaṃ kiñci uttaribhaṅgārahaṃ pattaṃ vā phalaṃ vā sace kiñci kammaṃ karontaṃ āharāpeti, hatthakammavasena āharāpetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabbaṃ. Ayaṃ tāva purisattakare nayo.

If flies are numerous, say, “Bring a fly whisk”; if they bring neem branches or the like, have it made permissible and accept it. If the dining hall’s water vessel is empty, do not say, “Take the bellows”; it might break an empty vessel. But saying, “Go to the river or lake and bring water,” is permissible; neither saying, “Bring it from home,” nor using what is brought from there is permissible. When eating in the dining hall or forest, if one has an unclaimed fruit or bowl-worthy item brought by someone doing some task, it may be brought and used through manual labor; but shameless monks or novices must not be made to do manual labor. This is the method for human effort.

If there are many flies, one should say, “Bring a fly whisk;” they bring branches of the pūcimanda tree and the like; they should be made allowable and accepted. If the water container in the assembly hall is empty, one should not say, “Take the water strainer.” For one placing the water strainer in an empty container might break it; but it is permissible to say, “Go to the river or the pond and bring water;” it is not permissible to say, “Bring it from the house,” nor is it permissible to use what has been brought. When performing the meal duty in the assembly hall or in the forest, if someone brings any fruit or leaf that has grown there, is not inhabited, and is suitable for offering, or a bowl, it is permissible to have it brought by means of manual labor and use it; but shameless monks or novices should not be made to do manual labor. This is the method regarding a person’s work.

There are many flies. One should say, “Bring fly repellent.” They bring neem branches, etc. Having made them allowable, one should accept them. If the water vessel in the assembly hall is empty, one should not say, “Take the water strainer.” Placing the water strainer in an empty vessel might break it. However, it is permissible to say, “Go to the river or pond and fetch water.” One should not say, “Bring water from the house,” nor should one use water brought from the house. When performing meal duties in the assembly hall or the forest, if one has something brought that is not overnight, such as a bowl, fruit, or anything else that is allowable, it is permissible to have it brought through manual labor and use it. However, shameless monks or novices should not be asked to perform manual labor. This is the method regarding manual labor.

24. Goṇaṃ pana aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhānato āharāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, āharāpentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānatopi mūlacchejjāya yācituṃ na vaṭṭati, tāvakālikanayena sabbattha vaṭṭati. Evaṃ āharāpitañca goṇaṃ rakkhitvā jaggitvā sāmikā paṭicchāpetabbā. Sacassa pādo vā siṅgaṃ vā bhijjati vā nassati vā, sāmikā ce sampaṭicchanti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce sampaṭicchanti, gīvā hoti. Sace “tumhākaṃyeva demā”ti vadanti, na sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. “Vihārassa demā”ti vutte pana “ārāmikānaṃ ācikkhatha jagganatthāyā”ti vattabbā.

24. An ox must not be brought from an unrelated, uninvited place; one who has it brought incurs a dukkaṭa. Even from relatives or supporters, requesting it for root-cutting is not permissible; it is permissible everywhere temporarily. An ox brought thus must be guarded, cared for, and returned to its owners. If its foot or horn breaks or it is lost, if the owners accept it, good; if not, there is liability. If they say, “We give it to you,” it must not be accepted. If they say, “We give it to the monastery,” say, “Tell the monastery workers to care for it.”

24. However, it is not permissible to have an ox brought from an unrelated and uninvited place; one who has it brought commits a dukkaṭa offense. Even from a related and invited place, it is not permissible to ask by cutting off the root; in all cases, the temporary method is permissible. And an ox that has been brought thus should be protected and cared for, and the owners should be made to take it back. If its foot or horn is broken or lost, if the owners accept it, this is good. If they do not accept it, there is a neck. If they say, “We give it to you,” it should not be accepted. But if it is said, “We give it to the monastery,” they should be told, “Tell the monastery attendants for the purpose of caring for it.”

24. It is not permissible to have an ox brought from an unknown or unrestricted place. Doing so incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Even from a known or restricted place, it is not permissible to ask for an ox to be cut at the root, but it is permissible temporarily everywhere. Having brought the ox, one should guard and care for it and return it to the owner. If its hoof or horn breaks or is lost, and the owner accepts it, that is good. If not, there is a fault in the neck. If they say, “We give it to you,” one should not accept it. If they say, “We give it to the monastery,” one should say, “Inform the monastery workers to take care of it.”

25. “Sakaṭaṃ dethā”tipi aññātakaappavārite vattuṃ na vaṭṭati, viññatti eva hoti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne pana vaṭṭati, tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭati, kammaṃ pana katvā puna dātabbaṃ. Sace nemiādīni bhijjanti, pākatikāni katvā dātabbaṃ, naṭṭhe gīvā hoti. “Tumhākameva demā”ti vutte dārubhaṇḍaṃ nāma sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Esa nayo vāsipharasukuṭhārīkudālanikhādanesu valliādīsu ca parapariggahitesu. Garubhaṇḍappahonakesuyeva valliādīsu viññatti hoti, na tato oraṃ.

25. Saying, “Give a cart,” to unrelated, uninvited people is not permissible—it is a request, incurring a dukkaṭa. From relatives or supporters, it is permissible temporarily for a task, and it must be returned after use. If the rim or the like breaks, it must be repaired and returned; if lost, there is liability. If they say, “We give it to you,” a wooden item may be accepted. The same applies to axes, hatchets, spades, hoes, and vines or other owned items. Only with heavy goods sufficient for these vines does it become a request, not with less.

25. It is also not permissible to say to an unrelated and uninvited person, “Give a cart;” it is a request, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. However, in a related and invited place, it is permissible; a temporary one is permissible, but after the work is done, it should be given back. If the rims and the like are broken, they should be made as they were before and given back; if lost, there is a neck. If it is said, “We give it to you,” it is permissible to accept wooden articles. The same rule applies to axes, hatchets, adzes, spades, digging sticks, and creepers and the like that are possessed by others. There is a request only in the case of heavy articles and sufficient creepers and the like, not less than that.

25. It is not permissible to say, “Give a cart,” to an unknown or unrestricted person. Doing so constitutes a request and incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, it is permissible from a known or restricted place temporarily. After using it, it should be returned. If the rim, etc., breaks, it should be repaired and given back. If lost, there is a fault in the neck. If they say, “We give it to you,” it is permissible to accept wooden goods. The same applies to axes, hoes, spades, digging sticks, vines, etc., that belong to others. For heavy goods, such as vines, a request is permissible, but not beyond that.

26. Anajjhāvutthakaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Rakkhitagopitaṭṭhāneyeva hi viññatti nāma vuccati. Sā dvīsu paccayesu sabbena sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati. Senāsanapaccaye pana “āhara dehī”ti viññattimattameva na vaṭṭati, parikathobhāsanimittakammāni vaṭṭanti. Tattha uposathāgāraṃ vā bhojanasālaṃ vā aññaṃ vā kiñci senāsanaṃ icchato “imasmiṃ vata okāse evarūpaṃ senāsanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vā “yutta”nti vā “anurūpa”nti vātiādinā nayena vacanaṃ parikathā nāma. Upāsakā tumhe kuhiṃ vasathāti. Pāsāde, bhanteti. “Kiṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pana upāsakā pāsādo na vaṭṭatī”ti evamādivacanaṃ obhāso nāma. Manusse disvā rajjuṃ pasāreti, khīle ākoṭāpeti, “kiṃ idaṃ, bhante”ti vutte “idha āvāsaṃ karissāmā”ti evamādikaraṇaṃ pana nimittakammaṃ nāma. Gilānapaccaye pana viññattipi vaṭṭati, pageva parikathādīni.

26. Any unclaimed item may be brought. A request is only so-called in a guarded, protected place. In two supports, it is wholly impermissible. In lodging support, merely saying, “Bring, give,” as a request is not permissible; indirect talk, indication, and symbolic acts are permissible. For one desiring an uposatha hall, dining hall, or any lodging, saying, “It’s permissible to make such a lodging in this place,” or “It’s suitable,” or “It’s appropriate,” is parikathā. Asking laypeople, “Where do you live?” “In a palace, venerable.” “Don’t monks deserve a palace too, laypeople?”—this is obhāso. Seeing people, stretching a rope, or having stakes driven, and when asked, “What’s this, venerable?” saying, “We’ll make a dwelling here”—this is nimittakamma. In medicine support, even a request is permissible, let alone indirect talk and the like.

26. It is permissible to have anything that is not inhabited brought. For a request is said to be only in a place that is protected and guarded. That is not permissible at all in two cases. However, in the case of a dwelling, only the request, “Bring, give,” is not permissible; indirect speech, hinting, and making a sign are permissible. Therein, for one desiring an Uposatha hall, a dining hall, or any other dwelling, saying, “In this place, it is permissible to build such a dwelling,” or “It is suitable,” or “It is appropriate,” and the like, is called indirect speech (parikathā). “Lay followers, where do you live?” “In a mansion, venerable sir.” “But, lay followers, is a mansion not permissible for monks?” Such a statement is called hinting (obhāso). Seeing people, he stretches out a rope, has pegs hammered in; when asked, “What is this, venerable sir?” saying, “We will build a dwelling here,” and the like, is called making a sign (nimittakammaṃ). However, in the case of illness, even a request is permissible, let alone indirect speech and the like.

26. It is permissible to have anything brought that is not overnight. A request is called such only in a guarded and protected place. It is entirely impermissible in two cases. In the case of lodging, it is not permissible to say, “Bring and give,” merely as a request, but discussions, hints, and indicative actions are permissible. There, if one desires a Uposatha hall, a dining hall, or any other lodging, saying, “In this place, such a lodging is permissible,” or “It is suitable,” or “It is appropriate,” etc., is called a discussion. If lay devotees ask, “Where do you live, Venerable?” and one replies, “In the pavilion,” and they say, “Do the lay devotees not have a pavilion for the monks?” such talk is called a hint. Seeing people, stretching a rope, or driving a stake, and when asked, “What is this, Venerable?” replying, “I will build a residence here,” such actions are called indicative actions. In the case of illness, even a request is permissible, let alone discussions, etc.

5. Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathā

5. Discourse on the Judgment of Supporting Families

5. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Supporting One’s Relatives

5. Discussion on Supporting Families (Kulasaṅgaha)

27. Kulasaṅgahoti pupphaphalādīhi kulānaṃ saṅgaho kulasaṅgaho. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.431) – kulasaṅgahatthāya mālāvacchādīni ropetuṃ vā ropāpetuṃ vā siñcituṃ vā siñcāpetuṃ vā pupphāni ocinituṃ vā ocināpetuṃ vā ganthituṃ vā ganthāpetuṃ vā na vaṭṭati. Tattha akappiyavohāro kappiyavohāro pariyāyo obhāso nimittakammanti imāni pañca jānitabbāni.

27. Kulasaṅgaho means supporting families with flowers, fruits, and the like. Here is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.431): For supporting families, planting or having planted flower shrubs, watering or having them watered, picking or having flowers picked, stringing or having them strung is not permissible. Five things should be known here: impermissible speech, permissible speech, indirect talk, indication, and symbolic acts.

27. Supporting one’s relatives (Kulasaṅgaho) is the supporting of families with flowers, fruits, and the like. Herein is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.431) – For the purpose of supporting one’s relatives, it is not permissible to plant or have planted, to water or have watered, to pluck or have plucked, to string or have strung flower garlands and the like. Therein, these five should be known: unallowable expression, allowable expression, indirect speech, hinting, and making a sign.

27. Kulasaṅgaha means supporting families with flowers, fruits, etc. Here is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.431): For the purpose of supporting families, it is not permissible to plant or have planted, water or have watered, pick or have picked, or arrange or have arranged garlands or floral decorations. There, five things should be understood: unallowable speech, allowable speech, indirect speech, hints, and indicative actions.

28. Tattha akappiyavohāro nāma allaharitānaṃ koṭṭanaṃ koṭṭāpanaṃ, āvāṭassa khaṇanaṃ khaṇāpanaṃ, mālāvacchassa ropanaṃ ropāpanaṃ, āḷiyā bandhanaṃ bandhāpanaṃ, udakassa secanaṃ secāpanaṃ, mātikāya sammukhakaraṇaṃ, kappiyaudakasiñcanaṃ, hatthapādamukhadhovananahānodakasiñcanaṃ. Kappiyavohāro nāma “imaṃ rukkhaṃ jāna, imaṃ āvāṭaṃ jāna, imaṃ mālāvacchaṃ jāna, ettha udakaṃ jānā”tiādivacanaṃ sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇañca. Pariyāyo nāma “paṇḍitena mālāvacchādayo ropāpetabbā, nacirasseva upakārāya saṃvattantī”tiādivacanaṃ. Obhāso nāma kudālakhaṇittādīni ca mālāvacche ca gahetvā ṭhānaṃ. Evaṃ ṭhitañhi sāmaṇerādayo disvā “thero kārāpetukāmo”ti gantvā karonti. Nimittakammaṃ nāma kudālakhaṇittivāsipharasuudakabhājanāni āharitvā samīpe ṭhapanaṃ.

28. Herein, akappiyavohāro is cutting or having cut fresh green plants, digging or having dug a pit, planting or having planted a flower shrub, binding or having bound with a strap, pouring or having poured water, facing clay directly, watering with permissible water, or watering for washing hands, feet, or face. Kappiyavohāro is saying, “Know this tree, know this pit, know this flower shrub, know this water,” and straightening dry clay. Pariyāyo is saying, “A wise person should have flower shrubs planted; they soon become helpful.” Obhāso is standing with a spade, hoe, or flower shrub. Seeing this, novices or others think, “The elder wants it done,” and go do it. Nimittakamma is bringing a spade, hoe, axe, or water vessel and placing it nearby.

28. Therein, unallowable expression (akappiyavohāro) is the pounding or having pounded of fresh green things, the digging or having dug of a pit, the planting or having planted of flower garlands, the tying or having tied of a bund, the sprinkling or having sprinkled of water, the leveling of the bed, the sprinkling of allowable water, the sprinkling of water for washing hands, feet, and face, and bathing water. Allowable expression (kappiyavohāro) is saying, “Know this tree, know this pit, know this flower garland, know the water here,” and the like, and straightening the dry bed. Indirect speech (Pariyāyo) is saying, “Wise people should have flower garlands and the like planted, they soon become helpful,” and the like. Hinting (Obhāso) is standing with a spade, a digging stick, and the like, and flower garlands. For when novices and the like see one standing thus, they go and do it, thinking, “The Thera wishes to have it done.” Making a sign (Nimittakammaṃ) is bringing a spade, a digging stick, an axe, a hatchet, and water containers and placing them nearby.

28. There, unallowable speech means cutting or having cut fresh greens, digging or having dug a pit, planting or having planted a floral decoration, tying or having tied a garland, sprinkling or having sprinkled water, preparing a water channel, sprinkling allowable water, or washing hands, feet, or face with water. Allowable speech means saying, “Know this tree, know this pit, know this floral decoration, know the water here,” etc., and straightening with dry soil. Indirect speech means saying, “A wise person should plant floral decorations, etc., as they will soon be beneficial.” Hints mean taking a spade, hoe, etc., and a floral decoration and standing in a place. Thus, when novices, etc., see this, they think, “The elder wishes to have it done,” and do it. Indicative actions mean bringing a spade, hoe, axe, water vessel, etc., and placing them nearby.

29. Imāni pañcapi kulasaṅgahatthāya ropanaropāpanādīsu na vaṭṭanti. Phalaparibhogatthāya kappiyākappiyavohāradvayameva na vaṭṭati, itarattayaṃ vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “kappiyavohāropi vaṭṭati, yañca attano paribhogatthāya vaṭṭati, taṃ aññapuggalassa vā saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā atthāyapi vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ārāmatthāya pana vanatthāya chāyatthāya ca akappiyavohāramattameva na vaṭṭati, sesaṃ vaṭṭati. Na kevalañca sesaṃ, yaṃ kiñci mātikampi ujuṃ kātuṃ kappiyaudakaṃ siñcituṃ nahānakoṭṭhakaṃ katvā nahāyituṃ hatthapādamukhadhovanaudakāni ca tattha chaḍḍetumpi vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana kurundiyañca “kappiyapathaviyaṃ sayaṃ ropetumpi vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ārāmādiatthāya pana ropitassa vā ropāpitassa vā phalaṃ paribhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati.

29. These five are not permissible for planting and the like to support families. For fruit use, only the two—impermissible and permissible speech—are not permissible; the other three are permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Permissible speech is permissible too, and what is permissible for one’s own use is permissible for another person, the community, or a shrine.” For a monastery, forest, or shade, only impermissible speech is not permissible; the rest is permissible. Not only the rest, but straightening any clay, watering with permissible water, making a bathing tank to bathe, and discarding water for washing hands, feet, or face there is permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundiya, it is said, “Planting oneself in permissible ground is permissible.” Fruit from what is planted or had planted for a monastery or the like may also be used.

29. These five are not permissible in planting, having planted, and the like, for the purpose of supporting one’s relatives. For the purpose of consuming the fruit, only the two, unallowable expression and allowable expression, are not permissible; the other three are permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is stated, “Even allowable expression is permissible; and what is permissible for one’s own consumption is also permissible for the sake of another person, the Saṅgha, or the cetiya.” But for the sake of a monastery, a forest, or shade, only unallowable expression is not permissible; the rest is permissible. And not only the rest, but it is also permissible to straighten any bed, to sprinkle allowable water, to build a bathing hut and bathe, and even to discard the water for washing hands, feet, and face there. In the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundi, however, it is stated, “It is permissible to plant even oneself on allowable ground.” And it is permissible to consume the fruit of what has been planted or had planted for the sake of a monastery and the like.

29. These five are not permissible for planting, having planted, etc., for the purpose of supporting families. For the purpose of enjoying fruits, both allowable and unallowable speech are impermissible, but the other three are permissible. However, the Mahāpaccariya states, “Allowable speech is also permissible, and what is permissible for one’s own enjoyment is also permissible for the benefit of another person, the Saṅgha, or the Cetiya.” For the purpose of a monastery or for shade, only unallowable speech is impermissible; the rest is permissible. Not only the rest, but even preparing a water channel, sprinkling allowable water, making a bathing area and bathing, or discarding water for washing hands, feet, or face is permissible. However, the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundi state, “It is permissible to plant even on allowable ground oneself.” For the purpose of a monastery, etc., it is permissible to enjoy the fruit of what has been planted or had planted.

30. Ayaṃ pana ādito paṭṭhāya vitthārena āpattivinicchayo – kuladūsanatthāya akappiyapathaviyaṃ mālāvacchaṃ ropentassa pācittiyañceva dukkaṭañca, tathā akappiyavohārena ropāpentassa. Kappiyapathaviyaṃ ropanepi ropāpanepi dukkaṭameva. Ubhayatrāpi sakiṃ āṇattiyā bahūnampi ropane ekameva sapācittiyadukkaṭaṃ vā suddhadukkaṭaṃ vā hoti. Paribhogatthāya kappiyabhūmiyaṃ vā akappiyabhūmiyaṃ vā kappiyavohārena ropāpane anāpatti. Ārāmādiatthāyapi akappiyapathaviyaṃ ropentassa vā akappiyavacanena ropāpentassa vā pācittiyaṃ. Ayaṃ pana nayo mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ na suṭṭhu vibhatto, mahāpaccariyaṃ pana vibhattoti.

30. Here is the detailed judgment of offenses from the start: For corrupting families, planting a flower shrub in impermissible ground incurs a pācittiya and dukkaṭa; so does having it planted with impermissible speech. Planting or having it planted in permissible ground incurs only a dukkaṭa. In both, commanding once to plant many incurs one offense—either a pācittiya with dukkaṭa or a plain dukkaṭa. For use, having it planted in permissible or impermissible ground with permissible speech incurs no offense. For a monastery or the like, planting in impermissible ground or having it planted with impermissible speech incurs a pācittiya. This method is not well distinguished in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā but is distinguished in the Mahāpaccariya.

30. However, this is the decision on offenses in detail from the beginning – For one who plants a flower garland on unallowable ground for the purpose of corrupting families, there is a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa, and likewise for one who has it planted with an unallowable expression. Even in planting or having it planted on allowable ground, there is only a dukkaṭa. In both cases, even for planting many with a single command, there is only one offense, either a pācittiya with a dukkaṭa or a simple dukkaṭa. For the purpose of consumption, whether on allowable ground or unallowable ground, there is no offense in planting or having it planted with an allowable expression. Even for the sake of a monastery and the like, there is a pācittiya for one who plants on unallowable ground or has it planted with an unallowable expression. This method, however, is not well distinguished in the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, but it is distinguished in the Mahāpaccariya.

30. From the beginning, here is the detailed ruling on offenses: For the purpose of harming a family, planting a floral decoration on unallowable ground incurs a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, having it planted through unallowable speech also incurs a pācittiya. Planting or having it planted on allowable ground incurs only a dukkaṭa. In both cases, whether planting once or many times after a single command, it is either one offense with pācittiya and dukkaṭa or only a dukkaṭa. For the purpose of enjoyment, planting or having it planted on allowable or unallowable ground through allowable speech incurs no offense. For the purpose of a monastery, etc., planting on unallowable ground or having it planted through unallowable speech incurs a pācittiya. This ruling is not well explained in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, but it is well explained in the Mahāpaccariya.

Siñcanasiñcāpane pana akappiyaudakena sabbattha pācittiyaṃ, kuladūsanaparibhogatthāya dukkaṭampi. Kappiyena tesaṃyeva dvinnaṃ atthāya dukkaṭaṃ, paribhogatthāya cettha kappiyavohārena siñcāpane anāpatti. Āpattiṭṭhāne pana dhārāvacchedavasena payogabahulatāya ca āpattibahulatā veditabbā.

In watering or having watered with impermissible water, a pācittiya applies everywhere; for corrupting families or use, a dukkaṭa too. With permissible water for those two purposes, a dukkaṭa applies; for use with permissible speech, there is no offense. Where an offense applies, multiple offenses arise from breaking the stream or repeated actions.

Regarding sprinkling and having it sprinkled, with unallowable water, there is a pācittiya everywhere, and also a dukkaṭa for the purpose of corrupting families and consumption. With allowable water, there is a dukkaṭa for the sake of those same two; for the purpose of consumption, there is no offense here in sprinkling or having it sprinkled with an allowable expression. However, in the place of offense, the multiplicity of offenses should be understood according to the breaking of the stream and the multiplicity of efforts.

In watering or having watered, using unallowable water incurs a pācittiya everywhere. For the purpose of harming a family or for enjoyment, it also incurs a dukkaṭa. Using allowable water for the same two purposes incurs a dukkaṭa. For the purpose of enjoyment, watering through allowable speech incurs no offense. In the case of offenses, due to the variety of methods and the frequency of actions, many offenses should be understood.

Kulasaṅgahatthāya ocinane pupphagaṇanāya dukkaṭapācittiyāni, aññattha pācittiyāneva. Bahūni pana pupphāni ekapayogena ocinanto payogavasena kāretabbo. Ocināpane kuladūsanatthāya sakiṃ āṇatto bahumpi ocināti, ekameva sapācittiyadukkaṭaṃ, aññatra pācittiyameva.

For picking to support families, counting flowers incurs a dukkaṭa and pācittiya; elsewhere, only a pācittiya. Picking many flowers in one action should be judged by the action. Having many picked with one command for corrupting families incurs one pācittiya with dukkaṭa; elsewhere, only a pācittiya.

For plucking for the purpose of supporting one’s relatives, there are dukkaṭa and pācittiya offenses according to the number of flowers; elsewhere, there are only pācittiya offenses. But for one who plucks many flowers with a single effort, he should be made to do it according to the effort. For having it plucked, for one who is commanded once for the purpose of corrupting families, even if he plucks many, there is only one offense, either a pācittiya with a dukkaṭa; elsewhere, there is only a pācittiya.

For the purpose of supporting families, picking flowers incurs dukkaṭa and pācittiya offenses; otherwise, only pācittiya. If many flowers are picked in one action, the offense should be assessed according to the action. Having flowers picked for the purpose of harming a family, if commanded once, even if many are picked, incurs only one offense with pācittiya and dukkaṭa; otherwise, only pācittiya.

31. Ganthanaganthāpanesu pana sabbāpi cha pupphavikatiyo veditabbā – ganthimaṃ gopphimaṃ vedhimaṃ veṭhimaṃ pūrimaṃ vāyimanti. Tattha ganthimaṃ nāma sadaṇḍakesu vā uppalapadumādīsu aññesu vā dīghavaṇṭesu pupphesu daṭṭhabbaṃ. Daṇḍakena vā daṇḍakaṃ, vaṇṭena vā vaṇṭaṃ ganthetvā katameva hi ganthimaṃ. Taṃ bhikkhussa vā bhikkhuniyā vā kātumpi akappiyavacanena kārāpetumpi na vaṭṭati, “evaṃ jāna, evaṃ kate sobheyya, yathā etāni pupphāni na vikiriyanti, tathā karohī”tiādinā pana kappiyavacanena kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati.

31. In stringing or having strung, six flower arrangements should be known: ganthimaṃ, gopphimaṃ, vedhimaṃ, veṭhimaṃ, pūrimaṃ, and vāyimaṃ. Herein, ganthimaṃ is seen in stemmed flowers like lotuses or others with long stalks. Stringing stem to stem or stalk to stalk is ganthimaṃ. A monk or nun must not make it or have it made with impermissible speech; but with permissible speech like, “Know this, it’d look good made thus, so the flowers don’t scatter,” it may be had made.

31. Regarding stringing and having it strung, all six flower arrangements should be known – ganthima, gopphima, vedhima, veṭhima, pūrima, and vāyima. Therein, ganthima (knotted) should be understood in the case of flowers with stalks, such as water lilies, lotuses, and the like, or other flowers with long stems. For only what is made by knotting stalk with stalk or stem with stem is ganthima. It is not permissible for a monk or a bhikkhuni to make it or to have it made with an unallowable expression; but it is permissible to have it made with an allowable expression, saying, “Know thus, it would be beautiful if made thus, do it so that these flowers do not scatter,” and the like.

31. In tying or having tied, all six types of flower arrangements should be understood: tied, bundled, strung, wrapped, filled, and blown. There, tied refers to flowers with long stalks, such as lotuses or others, where a stalk is tied to another stalk or a stalk to a stalk, making it tied. It is not permissible for a monk or nun to make this or have it made through unallowable speech. However, it is permissible to have it made through allowable speech, saying, “Know this, make it so that these flowers do not scatter, etc.”

Gopphimaṃ nāma suttena vā vākādīhi vā vassikapupphādīnaṃ ekatovaṇṭikaubhatovaṇṭikamālāvasena gopphanaṃ, vākaṃ vā rajjuṃ vā diguṇaṃ katvā tattha avaṇṭakāni nīpapupphādīni pavesetvā paṭipāṭiyā bandhanti, etampi gopphimameva. Sabbaṃ purimanayeneva na vaṭṭati.

Gopphimaṃ is threading with string or bark, like jasmine flowers, into single- or double-stalked garlands, or doubling bark or rope and inserting stalkless flowers like screwpine in sequence—this too is gopphimaṃ. All follows the prior method and is not permissible.

Gopphima (bunched) is the bunching of jasmine flowers and the like with thread or bark and the like, in the manner of single-stemmed or double-stemmed garlands; they make the bark or cord double and insert stemless nīpa flowers and the like there and tie them in order; this is also gopphima. All is not permissible in the same way as before.

Bundled refers to flowers like jasmine, with single or double stalks, bundled together with thread or bark, etc., or with bark or rope doubled and flowers without stalks, such as blue lotuses, inserted and tied in sequence. This is also bundled. All of this is not permissible as before.

Vedhimaṃ nāma savaṇṭakāni vassikapupphādīni vaṇṭe, avaṇṭakāni vakulapupphādīni attano chiddesu sūcitālahīrādīhi vinivijjhitvā āvunanti, etaṃ vedhimaṃ nāma. Taṃ purimanayeneva na vaṭṭati. Keci pana kadalikkhandhamhi kaṇṭake vā tālahīrādīni vā pavesetvā tattha pupphāni vinivijjhitvā ṭhapenti, keci kaṇṭakasākhāsu, keci pupphachattapupphakūṭāgārakaraṇatthaṃ chatte ca bhittiyañca pavesetvā ṭhapitakaṇṭakesu, keci dhammāsanavitāne baddhakaṇṭakesu, keci kaṇikārapupphādīni salākāhi vijjhanti, chattādhichattaṃ viya karonti, taṃ atioḷārikameva. Pupphavijjhanatthaṃ pana dhammāsanavitāne kaṇṭakampi bandhituṃ kaṇṭakādīhi vā ekapupphampi vijjhituṃ puppheyeva vā pupphaṃ pavesetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Jālavitānavedikanāgadantakapupphapaṭicchakatālapaṇṇaguḷakādīnaṃ pana chiddesu asokapiṇḍiyā vā antaresu pupphāni pavesetuṃ na doso. Na hetaṃ vedhimaṃ hoti. Dhammarajjuyampi eseva nayo.

Vedhimaṃ is piercing stalked jasmine flowers at the stalk or stalkless bakula flowers at their holes with a needle or palm fiber—this is vedhimaṃ. It follows the prior method and is not permissible. Some insert palm fiber or the like into a banana stem and pierce flowers there; some on thorny branches; some for flower umbrellas or peaked roofs on umbrellas or walls; some on thorns tied to a Dhamma seat canopy; some pierce kaṇikāra flowers with sticks, making them like stacked umbrellas—this is too coarse. For piercing flowers, tying thorns to a Dhamma seat canopy, piercing even one flower with a thorn, or inserting a flower into another is not permissible. But there is no fault in inserting flowers into holes or gaps in a net canopy, railing, crocodile teeth, flower cover, or palm-leaf ball, or into an asoka cluster. This is not vedhimaṃ. The same applies to a Dhamma rope.

Vedhima (pierced) is when jasmine flowers and the like with stems are pierced at the stems, and stemless vakula flowers and the like are strung after being pierced with needles, palm leaf strips, and the like, at their own holes; this is called vedhima. That is not permissible in the same way as before. Some, however, insert thorns or palm leaf strips and the like into a plantain trunk and pierce flowers there and place them; some on thorny branches; some for the purpose of making flower umbrellas and flower pavilions, on umbrellas and walls, on thorns placed there; some pierce kaṇikāra flowers and the like with sticks, making them like umbrella upon umbrella; that is very elaborate. However, it is not permissible to tie even a thorn on a Dhamma seat’s canopy for the purpose of piercing flowers, or to pierce even a single flower with thorns and the like, or to insert a flower into a flower. But there is no fault in inserting asoka clusters or flowers between the holes of a net canopy, a lattice, a snake’s hood, a flower receptacle, a palm leaf ball, and the like. This is not vedhima. The same rule applies to a Dhamma cord.

Strung refers to flowers with stalks, such as jasmine, strung through their stalks, or flowers without stalks, such as bakula, pierced with needles, etc., and threaded. This is called strung. It is not permissible as before. Some insert needles, etc., into banana stems or thorns and place flowers there; some place them on thorny branches; some insert them into canopies or walls for making flower canopies or pavilions; some tie thorns to the Dhamma seat canopy; some pierce kanikāra flowers with sticks, making them like umbrellas or double umbrellas. This is too elaborate. For the purpose of piercing flowers, it is not permissible to tie thorns to the Dhamma seat canopy or to pierce even a single flower with thorns, etc., or to insert one flower into another. However, there is no fault in inserting flowers into the holes of net canopies, railings, elephant tusks, screens, palm leaves, balls, etc. The same applies to the Dhamma rope.

Veṭhimaṃ nāma pupphadāmapupphahatthakesu daṭṭhabbaṃ. Keci hi matthakadāmaṃ karontā heṭṭhā ghaṭakākāraṃ dassetuṃ pupphehi veṭhenti, keci aṭṭha aṭṭha vā dasa dasa vā uppalapupphādīni suttena vā vākena vā daṇḍakesu bandhitvā uppalahatthake vā padumahatthake vā karonti, taṃ sabbaṃ purimanayeneva na vaṭṭati. Sāmaṇerehi uppāṭetvā thale ṭhapitauppalādīni kāsāvena bhaṇḍikampi bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati. Tesaṃyeva pana vākena vā daṇḍakena vā bandhituṃ aṃsabhaṇḍikaṃ vā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Aṃsabhaṇḍikaṃ nāma khandhe ṭhapitakāsāvassa ubho ante āharitvā bhaṇḍikaṃ katvā tasmiṃ pasibbake viya pupphāni pakkhipanti, ayaṃ vuccati aṃsabhaṇḍikā, etaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Daṇḍakehi paduminipaṇṇaṃ vijjhitvā uppalādīni paṇṇena veṭhetvā gaṇhanti, tatrāpi pupphānaṃ upari paduminipaṇṇameva bandhituṃ vaṭṭati, heṭṭhā daṇḍakaṃ pana bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati.

Veṭhimaṃ is seen in flower garlands and flower handheld fans. Some, making a head garland, wrap flowers below to show a knob shape; some tie eight or ten lotus flowers with thread or bark to sticks, making lotus or water-lily handheld fans—all this follows the prior method and is not permissible. Lotus flowers uprooted by novices and placed on dry land must not be tied into a bundle with a robe; but tying them with bark or a stick into a shoulder bundle is permissible. A shoulder bundle is when both ends of a robe placed on the shoulder are brought together into a bundle, and flowers are inserted like in a sack—this is called a shoulder bundle and is permissible to make. Piercing a water-lily leaf with sticks and wrapping lotuses or the like with the leaf is taken; there, wrapping with a water-lily leaf above the flowers is permissible, but binding with a stick below is not permissible.

Veṭhima (wrapped) should be understood in the case of flower garlands and flower bunches. For some, when making a head garland, wrap it with flowers to show a knob-like shape below; some tie eight or ten water lilies and the like with thread or bark on the stalks and make water lily bunches or lotus bunches; all of that is not permissible in the same way as before. It is not permissible to tie even a bundle with a yellow robe of water lilies and the like that have been uprooted by novices and placed on the ground. However, it is permissible to tie them with their own bark or stalks and make a shoulder bundle. A shoulder bundle is when the two ends of a yellow robe placed on the shoulder are brought together and made into a bundle, and flowers are placed in it like in a pouch; this is called a shoulder bundle; it is permissible to make this. They pierce a lotus leaf with stalks and take water lilies and the like after wrapping them with the leaf; there also, only the lotus leaf should be tied on top of the flowers, but it is not permissible to tie the stalk below.

Veṭhimaṃ refers to what is seen in flower garlands and flower bouquets. Some, while making a head garland, arrange flowers below in the shape of a pot, while others tie eight or ten lotus flowers or similar flowers with a string or bark to sticks, creating a lotus bouquet or a paduma bouquet. All of this is not permissible as per the previous method. Novices should not pluck flowers and place them on the ground, nor should they tie them with a robe. However, they may tie them with bark or sticks or make a shoulder bouquet. A shoulder bouquet is made by bringing both ends of the robe placed on the shoulder together, forming a bundle, and placing flowers inside like a pouch. This is called a shoulder bouquet, and it is permissible. They may pierce lotus leaves with sticks, wrap flowers with leaves, and hold them. In this case, only the lotus leaves may be tied above the flowers, but the stick below should not be tied.

Pūrimaṃ nāma mālāguṇe ca pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yo hi mālāguṇena cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā vedikaṃ vā parikkhipanto puna ānetvā purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmeti, ettāvatā pūrimaṃ nāma hoti, ko pana vādo anekakkhattuṃ parikkhipantassa. Nāgadantakantarehi pavesetvā haranto olambakaṃ katvā puna nāgadantakaṃ parikkhipati, etampi pūrimaṃ nāma. Nāgadantake pana pupphavalayaṃ pavesetuṃ vaṭṭati. Mālāguṇehi pupphapaṭaṃ karonti, tatrāpi ekameva mālāguṇaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭati. Puna paccāharato pūrimameva hoti. Taṃ sabbaṃ purimanayeneva na vaṭṭati. Mālāguṇehi pana bahūhipi kataṃ pupphadāmaṃ labhitvā āsanamatthakādīsu bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Atidīghaṃ pana mālāguṇaṃ ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvā puna itarassa bhikkhuno dātuṃ vaṭṭati, tenapi tatheva kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

Pūrimaṃ is seen in garland strings and flower cloths. One who, encircling a shrine, bodhi tree, or railing with a garland string, brings it back and exceeds the starting point—this is pūrimaṃ; how much more so for one encircling it multiple times. Inserting it through crocodile teeth gaps, making a hanging loop, and again encircling the crocodile teeth—this too is pūrimaṃ. Inserting a flower ring into crocodile teeth is permissible. They make a flower cloth with garland strings; there, carrying just one garland string is permissible. Bringing it back again is pūrimaṃ. All this follows the prior method and is not permissible. But binding a flower garland made with many strings, obtained from others, to the top of a seat or the like is permissible. A very long garland string, carried once and encircled, may be given to another monk; he too may do the same—this is permissible.

Pūrima (filled) should be understood in the case of flower strings and flower cloths. For one who, encircling a cetiya, a Bodhi tree, or a platform with a flower string, again brings it and crosses the original place, by this much it is called pūrima; what to say of one who encircles it many times. Taking it between the snake’s hoods and making a hanging garland, he again encircles the snake’s hood; this is also called pūrima. However, it is permissible to insert a flower ring into the snake’s hood. They make a flower cloth with flower strings; there also, it is permissible to take only one flower string. For one who brings it back, it is pūrima. All of that is not permissible in the same way as before. However, it is permissible to take a flower garland made by many with flower strings and tie it on the head of a seat and the like. But it is permissible to take a very long flower string, encircle it once, and give it to another monk; he also is permissible to do the same.

Pūrimaṃ refers to what is seen in garland strands and flower arrangements. If someone encircles a cetiya, bodhi tree, or railing with a garland strand and then brings it back, passing the original spot, this is called pūrimaṃ. How much more so if one encircles it multiple times? If one enters the gaps of an elephant tusk, hangs it, and then encircles the elephant tusk again, this is also called pūrimaṃ. However, it is permissible to place a flower garland within the gaps of an elephant tusk. Garland strands are used to make flower arrangements, and only one garland strand may be carried at a time. If one brings it back again, it becomes pūrimaṃ. All of this is not permissible as per the previous method. However, it is permissible to tie a flower garland made with many garland strands to seats, headrests, etc. If a garland strand is too long, it may be carried once, encircled, and then given to another monk, and this is also permissible.

Vāyimaṃ nāma pupphajālapupphapaṭapuppharūpesu daṭṭhabbaṃ. Cetiye pupphajālaṃ karontassa ekamekamhi jālachiddake dukkaṭaṃ. Bhittichattabodhitthambhādīsupi eseva nayo. Pupphapaṭaṃ pana parehi pūritampi vāyituṃ na labbhati. Gopphimapuppheheva hatthiassādirūpakāni karonti, tānipi vāyimaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhanti. Purimanayeneva sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati. Aññehi kataparicchede pana pupphāni ṭhapentena hatthiassādirūpakampi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana kaḷambakena aḍḍhacandakena ca saddhiṃ aṭṭha pupphavikatiyo vuttā.

Vāyimaṃ is seen in flower nets, flower cloths, and flower figures. Making a flower net for a shrine incurs a dukkaṭa for each net hole. The same applies to walls, umbrellas, bodhi pillars, and the like. Even a flower cloth filled by others must not be woven. Making elephant or horse figures with threaded flowers also falls under vāyimaṃ. All this follows the prior method and is not permissible. But placing flowers in a designated space made by others, even forming elephant or horse figures, is permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya, eight flower arrangements are listed, including kaḷambaka and aḍḍhacandaka.

Vāyima (woven) should be understood in the case of flower nets, flower cloths, and flower figures. For one making a flower net on a cetiya, there is a dukkaṭa in each net hole. The same rule applies to walls, umbrellas, Bodhi trees, pillars, and the like. However, it is not permissible to weave a flower cloth even if it is filled by others. They make figures of elephants, horses, and the like with bunched flowers; those also stand in the place of vāyima. All is not permissible in the same way as before. However, one placing flowers in a design made by others is permissible to make even a figure of an elephant, a horse, and the like. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, eight flower arrangements are stated, along with kaḷambaka and aḍḍhacandaka.

Vāyimaṃ refers to what is seen in flower nets, flower arrangements, and flower decorations. For one making a flower net on a cetiya, there is a dukkaṭa offense for each hole in the net. The same applies to walls, umbrellas, bodhi trees, and pillars. However, one may not blow on a flower arrangement prepared by others. Flowers like gopphima are used to make shapes of elephants, horses, etc., and these also fall under vāyimaṃ. All of this is not permissible as per the previous method. However, if others have prepared the flowers, one may place them and make shapes of elephants, horses, etc. In the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, eight types of flower decorations are mentioned along with kaḷambaka and aḍḍhacandaka.

32. Tattha kaḷambakoti aḍḍhacandakantare ghaṭikadāmaolambako vutto. Aḍḍhacandakoti aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepo. Tadubhayampi pūrimeyeva paviṭṭhaṃ. Kurundiyaṃ pana “dve tayo mālāguṇe ekato katvā pupphadāmakaraṇampi vāyimaṃyevā”ti vuttaṃ. Tampi idha pūrimaṭṭhāneyeva paviṭṭhaṃ. Na kevalañca pupphadāmameva, piṭṭhamayadāmampi geṇḍukapupphadāmampi kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kharapattadāmampi sikkhāpadassa sādhāraṇattā bhikkhūnampi bhikkhunīnampi neva kātuṃ, na kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, pūjānimittaṃ pana kappiyavacanaṃ sabbattha vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Pariyāyaobhāsanimittakammāni vaṭṭantiyeva.

32. Herein, kaḷambako refers to a hanging garland with a knob in a crescent gap. Aḍḍhacandako is a crescent-shaped garland string encircling. Both fall under pūrimaṃ. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “Making a flower garland by combining two or three garland strings is also vāyimaṃ”—this too falls under pūrimaṃ here. Not only flower garlands, but flour garlands and ball-flower garlands are mentioned in the Kurundiya. A rough-leaf garland, due to the training rule’s generality, must not be made or had made by monks or nuns; but for an offering, permissible speech may be used everywhere—this is permissible. Indirect talk, indication, and symbolic acts are permissible.

32. Therein, kaḷambaka (cluster) is said to be a knob garland and a hanging garland between the half-moons. Aḍḍhacandaka (half-moon) is the encircling of a flower string in the shape of a half-moon. Both of those are included in pūrima. In the Kurundi, however, it is stated, “Making a flower garland by joining two or three flower strings together is also vāyima.” That also is included here in the place of pūrima. And not only a flower garland, but also a garland made of flour and a garland of flower balls are stated in the Kurundi. Even a garland of kharapattas, due to being common to the precept, is not permissible for monks or bhikkhunis to make or to have made; however, allowable expression is permissible everywhere for the purpose of worship. Indirect speech, hinting, and making a sign are indeed permissible.

32. Here, kaḷambako refers to a garland hanging between half-moon shapes. Aḍḍhacandako refers to the arrangement of garland strands in the shape of a half-moon. Both of these are included in pūrimaṃ. Kurundiyaṃ states, “Two or three garland strands may be combined to make a flower garland, which is also vāyimaṃ.” This is also included in pūrimaṃ here. Not only flower garlands, but garlands made of piṭṭha, geṇḍuka flowers, and even garlands made of rough leaves are called kurundiyaṃ. Due to the shared nature of the training rule, neither monks nor nuns may make or have such garlands made. However, for the purpose of offering, it is permissible to speak of what is allowable. Rituals and symbolic acts are permissible.

Yo haritvā vā harāpetvā vā pakkositvā vā pakkosāpetvā vā sayaṃ vā upagatānaṃ yaṃ kiñci attano santakaṃ pupphaṃ kulasaṅgahatthāya deti, tassa dukkaṭaṃ, parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭameva. Theyyacittena deti, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Esa nayo saṅghikepi. Ayaṃ pana viseso – senāsanatthāya niyamitaṃ issaravatāya dadato thullaccayanti.

One who gives his own flowers to support families—whether carrying, having carried, summoning, having summoned, or giving to those approaching—incurs a dukkaṭa. Giving another’s incurs a dukkaṭa. Giving with theft intent is judged by the goods’ value. The same applies to monastic property. The difference is: giving what is designated for lodgings out of lordly habit incurs a thullaccaya.

One who gives any of his own flowers to those who have come themselves, or have been brought, or have been summoned, or have been caused to be summoned, for the purpose of supporting one’s relatives, for him there is a dukkaṭa; if he gives what belongs to another, there is a dukkaṭa. If he gives with the intention of stealing, he should be made to do it according to the value of the goods. The same rule applies to what belongs to the Saṅgha. However, this is the distinction – for one who gives what is designated for a dwelling due to his authority, there is a thullaccaya.

If one carries, has carried, summons, or has summoned, and gives any flower belonging to oneself to those who have come for the sake of family connection, there is a dukkaṭa offense. If one gives what belongs to others, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. If one gives with a thieving mind, one should be dealt with as a thief. The same applies to what belongs to the Saṅgha. However, there is a distinction: if one gives something reserved for lodging with the intention of ownership, it is a thullaccaya offense.

33. Pupphaṃ nāma kassa dātuṃ vaṭṭati, kassa na vaṭṭatīti? Mātāpitūnaṃ tāva haritvāpi harāpetvāpi pakkositvāpi pakkosāpetvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati , sesañātakānaṃ pakkosāpetvāva. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāya, maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāya vā kassacipi dātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Mātāpitūnañca harāpentena ñātisāmaṇereheva harāpetabbaṃ. Itare pana yadi sayameva icchanti, vaṭṭati. Sammatena pupphabhājakena pupphabhājanakāle sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kurundiyaṃ pana “sampattagihīnaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ”, mahāpaccariyaṃ “cūḷakaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Asammatena apaloketvā dātabbaṃ. Ācariyupajjhāyesu sagāravā sāmaṇerā bahūni pupphāni āharitvā rāsiṃ katvā ṭhapenti, therā pātova sampattānaṃ saddhivihārikādīnaṃ upāsakādīnaṃ vā “tvaṃ idaṃ gaṇha, tvaṃ idaṃ gaṇhā”ti denti, pupphadānaṃ nāma na hoti. “Cetiyaṃ pūjessāmā”ti gahetvā gacchantāpi pūjaṃ karontāpi tattha tattha sampattānaṃ cetiyapūjanatthāya denti, etampi pupphadānaṃ nāma na hoti. Upāsake akkapupphādīhi pūjente disvā “vihāre kaṇikārapupphādīni atthi, upāsakā tāni gahetvā pūjethā”ti vattumpi vaṭṭati. Bhikkhū pupphapūjaṃ katvā divātaraṃ gāmaṃ paviṭṭhe “kiṃ, bhante, atidivā paviṭṭhatthā”ti pucchanti, “vihāre pupphāni bahūni, pūjaṃ akarimhā”ti vadanti. Manussā “bahūni kira vihāre pupphānī”ti punadivase pahūtaṃ khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ gahetvā vihāraṃ gantvā pupphapūjañca karonti dānañca denti, vaṭṭati.

33. To whom may flowers be given, and to whom not? To parents, they may be given by carrying, having carried, summoning, or having summoned; to other relatives, only by having summoned. This is for honoring objects; for adornment or honoring private parts and the like, they must not be given to anyone. For parents, having them carried must be by relative novices. For others, if they wish it themselves, it is permissible. By an appointed flower distributor, half may be given to novices present at distribution time—this is permissible. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “Half to present laypeople”; in the Mahāpaccariya, “A small amount may be given”—this is permissible. Without appointment, it should be given without prior notice. When preceptors or teachers, out of respect, have novices bring many flowers and pile them up, the elders give them in the morning to co-residents or laypeople present, saying, “You take this, you take that”—this is not flower giving. Even those taking them to honor a shrine, honoring it, or giving them here and there to those present for shrine honoring—this is not flower giving. Seeing laypeople honoring with impermissible flowers, saying, “There are kaṇikāra flowers and the like in the monastery; take them and honor,” is permissible. Monks, after making a flower offering, enter a village late, and when asked, “Venerable, why enter so late?” say, “There were many flowers in the monastery; we made an offering.” People say, “There are many flowers in the monastery,” and next day bring abundant food and drink, make a flower offering, and give alms—this is permissible.

33. To whom is it permissible to give a flower, and to whom is it not permissible? It is permissible to give it to one’s mother and father, even after bringing it, or having it brought, or summoning, or causing to be summoned; to the remaining relatives, only after summoning. And that is for the purpose of worshiping objects; but it is not permissible to give it to anyone for the purpose of adornment or for the worship of a Shiva lingam and the like. And when having it brought for the mother and father, it should be brought only by relative novices. But if others wish it themselves, it is permissible. It is permissible to give half a share to the novices who arrive at the time of distributing flowers by the appointed flower distributor. In the Kurundi, however, it is stated, “Half a share to the householders who arrive,” and in the Mahāpaccariya, “It is permissible to give a small amount.” By one who is not appointed, it should be given after looking around. Virtuous novices, respecting their teachers and preceptors, bring many flowers and place them in a heap; the elders, to the co-residents and the like, or to the lay followers and the like, who arrive early, say, “You take this, you take this,” and give them; it is not called giving flowers. Even those who go, thinking, “We will worship the cetiya,” and are worshiping, give them to those who arrive here and there for the purpose of worshiping the cetiya; this also is not called giving flowers. Seeing lay followers worshiping with akkapupphas and the like, it is permissible to say, “There are kaṇikāra flowers and the like in the monastery, lay followers, take them and worship.” When the monks, having made an offering of flowers, enter the village during the day, they ask, “Why, venerable sirs, have you entered so late in the day?” “There are many flowers in the monastery, we made an offering.” People, thinking, “There are many flowers in the monastery,” on the following day, take abundant edible and chewable food, go to the monastery, make an offering of flowers, and give alms; it is permissible.

33. To whom may flowers be given, and to whom may they not be given? First, flowers may be given to one’s parents by carrying, having carried, summoning, or having summoned. For other relatives, they may only be given by summoning. However, flowers may not be given for the purpose of decoration, worship of sivaliṅga, etc. When having flowers carried to one’s parents, only novice relatives should be asked to carry them. If others wish to do so themselves, it is permissible. A designated flower distributor may give half of the flowers to novices who arrive during the flower distribution time. Kurundiyaṃ states, “Half may be given to laypeople who arrive,” while Mahāpaccariyaṃ states, “A small amount may be given.” If not designated, permission should be sought before giving. Respectful novices bring many flowers, pile them up, and place them. In the morning, elders distribute them to their pupils, lay devotees, etc., saying, “You take this, you take that.” This is not considered giving flowers. Those who take flowers saying, “We will worship the cetiya,” and give them to those they meet along the way for the purpose of cetiya worship, this is also not considered giving flowers. If lay devotees are seen worshipping with akka flowers, etc., it is permissible to say, “There are kaṇikāra flowers, etc., in the monastery; take them and worship.” If monks, after performing flower worship, enter the village late and are asked, “Why have you entered so late, venerable sir?” and they reply, “There were many flowers in the monastery; we performed worship,” and people, hearing this, bring much food the next day and go to the monastery to perform flower worship and give alms, this is permissible.

34. Manussā “mayaṃ, bhante, asukadivasaṃ nāma pūjessāmā”ti pupphavāraṃ yācitvā anuññātadivase āgacchanti, sāmaṇerehi ca pageva pupphāni ocinitvā ṭhapitāni honti, te rukkhesu pupphāni apassantā “kuhiṃ, bhante, pupphānī”ti vadanti, sāmaṇerehi ocinitvā ṭhapitāni, tumhe pana pūjetvā gacchatha, saṅgho aññaṃ divasaṃ pūjessatīti. Te pūjetvā dānaṃ datvā gacchanti, vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana kurundiyañca “therā sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhanti, sace sayameva tāni pupphāni tesaṃ denti, vaṭṭati. Therehi pana ’sāmaṇerehi ocinitvā ṭhapitānī’ti ettakameva vattabba”nti vuttaṃ. Sace pana pupphavāraṃ yācitvā anocitesu pupphesu yāgubhattādīni ādāya āgantvā sāmaṇere “ocinitvā dethā”ti vadanti, ñābhisāmaṇerānaṃyeva ocinitvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Aññātake ukkhipitvā rukkhasākhāya ṭhapenti, na orohitvā palāyitabbaṃ, ocinitvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati . Sace pana koci dhammakathiko “bahūni upāsakā vihāre pupphāni, yāgubhattādīni ādāya gantvā pupphapūjaṃ karothā”ti vadati, tasseva na kappatīti mahāpaccariyañca kurundiyañca vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “etaṃ akappiyaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti avisesena vuttaṃ.

34. People say, “Venerable, we’ll honor on such-and-such a day,” request a flower turn, and come on the permitted day. Novices have already picked and set aside flowers. Not seeing flowers on the trees, they say, “Where are the flowers, venerable?” “Picked and set aside by novices; you honor and go—the community will honor another day.” They honor, give alms, and leave—this is permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundiya, it is said, “Elders cannot have novices give them; if they give those flowers themselves, it is permissible. Elders should only say, ‘Picked and set aside by novices.’” If, requesting a flower turn and bringing gruel or rice without the flowers picked, they say to novices, “Pick and give,” only relative novices may pick and give—this is permissible. Unrelated ones lift and place them on a tree branch, not descending and fleeing; picking and giving is permissible. If a Dhamma teacher says, “Laypeople, there are many flowers in the monastery; bring gruel or rice and make a flower offering,” it is not permissible for him—this is said in the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundiya. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is broadly said, “This is impermissible and not allowed.”

34. People say, “We, venerable sir, will worship on such-and-such a day,” ask for a flower turn, and come on the permitted day; and the novices have already plucked the flowers and placed them; they, not seeing flowers on the trees, say, “Where are the flowers, venerable sir?” “They have been plucked and placed by the novices, but you worship and go, the Saṅgha will worship on another day.” They worship, give alms, and go; it is permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundi, however, it is stated, “The elders cannot have them given by the novices; if they themselves give those flowers to them, it is permissible. But the elders should only say, ‘They have been plucked and placed by the novices.’” But if, having asked for a flower turn, when the flowers have not been plucked, they come with gruel, rice, and the like and say to the novices, “Pluck and give them,” it is permissible to pluck and give them only to relative novices. They lift non-relatives and place them on the branch of a tree; one should not climb down and flee; it is permissible to pluck and give them. But if a Dhamma preacher says, “There are many flowers in the monastery, lay followers, take gruel, rice, and the like, go, and make an offering of flowers,” it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundi that it is not allowable for him. In the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, however, it is stated without distinction, “This is unallowable, it is not permissible.”

34. If people request a flower day, saying, “We will worship on such and such a day,” and come on the appointed day, novices should first collect and set aside the flowers. If they do not see flowers on the trees and ask, “Where are the flowers, venerable sir?” the novices should say, “We have collected and set them aside; you may worship and go; the Saṅgha will worship on another day.” They worship, give alms, and leave; this is permissible. Mahāpaccariyaṃ and Kurundiyaṃ state, “Elders may not have novices distribute flowers. If they give the flowers themselves, it is permissible. However, elders should only say, ‘The novices have collected and set them aside.’” If people request a flower day and come with rice gruel, etc., without having collected flowers, and say to the novices, “Collect and give them,” only senior novices may collect and give them. They may place them on tree branches without descending or running away; it is permissible to collect and give them. If a Dhamma speaker says, “Many lay devotees have brought flowers to the monastery; take rice gruel, etc., and go perform flower worship,” this is not permissible, as stated in Mahāpaccariyaṃ and Kurundiyaṃ. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is stated generally, “This is not allowable.”

35. Phalampi attano santakaṃ vuttanayeneva mātāpitūnañca sesañātīnañca dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kulasaṅgahatthāya pana dentassa vuttanayeneva attano santake parasantake saṅghike senāsanatthāya niyamite ca dukkaṭādīni veditabbāni. Attano santakaṃyeva gilānamanussānaṃ vā sampattaissarānaṃ vā khīṇaparibbayānaṃ vā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, phaladānaṃ na hoti. Phalabhājakenapi sammatena saṅghassa phalabhājanakāle sampattamanussānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati, asammatena apaloketvā dātabbaṃ. Saṅghārāmepi phalaparicchedena vā rukkhaparicchedena vā katikā kātabbā “tato gilānamanussānaṃ vā aññesaṃ vā phalaṃ yācantānaṃ yathāparicchedena cattāri pañca phalāni dātabbāni, rukkhā vā dassetabbā ’ito gahetuṃ labbhatī”’ti. “Idha phalāni sundarāni, ito gaṇhathā”ti evaṃ pana na vattabbaṃ. Attano santakaṃ sirīsacuṇṇaṃ vā aññaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci kasāvaṃ kulasaṅgahatthāya deti, dukkaṭaṃ. Parasantakādīsupi vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – saṅghassa rakkhitagopitāpi rukkhachalli garubhaṇḍamevāti. Mattikadantakaṭṭhaveḷupaṇṇesupi garubhaṇḍūpagaṃ ñatvā cuṇṇe vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.

35. Fruit, too, may be given to parents and other relatives by the stated method. For supporting families, giving one’s own, another’s, monastic property, or that designated for lodgings incurs dukkaṭa and the like as stated. Only one’s own may be given to sick people, rulers arriving, or those with exhausted supplies—this is not fruit giving. By an appointed fruit distributor, half may be given to people present at distribution time; without appointment, it should be given without prior notice. In a monastic garden, a pact may be made by fruit or tree designation: “From this, four or five fruits should be given to sick people or others requesting, as designated, or trees shown with, ‘It may be taken from here.’” Saying, “The fruits here are fine; take from here,” is not permissible. Giving one’s own sirisa powder or any astringent to support families incurs a dukkaṭa. For another’s or the like, the judgment is as stated. The difference is: even guarded, protected monastic tree bark is heavy goods. For clay, tooth sticks, or bamboo leaves, considered heavy goods, the judgment is as stated for powder.

35. It is permissible to give one’s own fruit in the same way as stated to one’s mother and father and the remaining relatives. However, for one who gives for the purpose of supporting one’s relatives, dukkaṭa and the like should be understood in the same way as stated, regarding one’s own, another’s, the Saṅgha’s, and what is designated for a dwelling. It is permissible to give only one’s own to sick people, or to wealthy people who arrive, or to those with depleted provisions; it is not giving fruit. Even by the appointed fruit distributor, it is permissible to give half a share to the people who arrive at the time of distributing the Saṅgha’s fruit; by one who is not appointed, it should be given after looking around. Even in the Saṅgha’s monastery, an agreement should be made by dividing the fruit or by dividing the trees, “From that, four or five fruits should be given to sick people or others who ask for fruit, as agreed, or trees should be shown, ‘It is permissible to take from here.’” But one should not say, “The fruits here are beautiful, take from here.” One who gives his own sirīsa powder or any other astringent for the purpose of supporting one’s relatives, there is a dukkaṭa. Regarding what belongs to another and the like, the decision should be understood in the same way as stated. However, this is the distinction – even the bark of a tree that is protected and guarded by the Saṅgha is a heavy article. The decision regarding powder should be understood in the same way as stated, knowing that clay, tooth-sticks, bamboo, and leaves are also included as heavy articles.

35. Fruits may also be given to one’s parents and other relatives as previously described. If given for the sake of family connection, the offenses of dukkaṭa, etc., should be understood as before, whether the fruit belongs to oneself, others, or the Saṅgha, or is reserved for lodging. It is permissible to give one’s own fruits to sick people, visiting owners, or those with exhausted resources; this is not considered giving fruit. A designated fruit distributor may give half of the fruits to people who arrive during the fruit distribution time; if not designated, permission should be sought before giving. In monastery gardens, a boundary should be set for fruits or trees, stating, “When sick people or others request fruits, four or five fruits should be given according to the boundary, or trees should be shown, saying, ‘You may take from here.’” However, one should not say, “Here are beautiful fruits; take from here.” If one gives one’s own sirīsa powder or any other dye for the sake of family connection, it is a dukkaṭa offense. The same applies to what belongs to others, etc., as previously described. However, there is a distinction: even trees protected and guarded by the Saṅgha are considered heavy goods. The same applies to clay, tooth sticks, bamboo, and leaves, which should be understood as heavy goods. The judgment for powder should be understood as previously described.

36. Jaṅghapesaniyanti gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakammaṃ vuccati, taṃ na kātabbaṃ. Gihīnañhi sāsanaṃ gahetvā gacchantassa pade pade dukkaṭaṃ. Taṃ kammaṃ nissāya laddhabhojanaṃ bhuñjantassapi ajjhohāre ajjhohāre dukkaṭaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ sāsanaṃ aggahetvāpi pacchā “ayaṃ dāni so gāmo, handa naṃ sāsanaṃ ārocemī”ti maggā okkamantassapi pade pade dukkaṭaṃ. Sāsanaṃ ārocetvā laddhabhojanaṃ bhuñjato purimanayeneva dukkaṭaṃ. Sāsanaṃ aggahetvā āgatena pana “bhante, tasmiṃ gāme itthannāmassa kā pavattī”ti pucchiyamānena kathetuṃ vaṭṭati, pucchitapañhe doso natthi. Pañcannaṃ pana sahadhammikānaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ paṇḍupalāsassa attano veyyāvaccakarassa sāsanaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭati, gihīnañca kappiyasāsanaṃ, tasmā “mama vacanena bhagavato pāde vandathā”ti vā “cetiyaṃ paṭimaṃ bodhiṃ saṅghattheraṃ vandathā”ti vā “cetiye gandhapūjaṃ karothā”ti vā “pupphapūjaṃ karothā”ti vā “bhikkhū sannipātetha, dānaṃ dassāma, dhammaṃ desāpayissāmā”ti vā īdisesu sāsanesu kukkuccaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Kappiyasāsanāni hi etāni, na gihīnaṃ gihikammapaṭisaṃyuttānīti. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehi uppannapaccayā pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na kappanti. Abhūtārocanarūpiyasaṃvohārehi uppannapaccayasadisāva honti.

36. Jaṅghapesaniya means carrying messages for laypeople—this must not be done. Carrying a layperson’s message, a dukkaṭa is incurred step by step. Eating food obtained by that task incurs a dukkaṭa per morsel. Even without taking a message first, later thinking, “This is that village; I’ll deliver the message,” and stepping off the path incurs a dukkaṭa step by step. Delivering the message and eating food obtained incurs a dukkaṭa as before. Returning without taking a message, when asked, “Venerable, what news of so-and-so in that village?” it is permissible to tell—there is no fault in answering questions. Messages may be carried for the five co-religionists, parents, a paṇḍupalāsa, or one’s assistant, and permissible messages for laypeople; thus, saying, “In my name, pay homage to the Blessed One’s feet,” or “Honor the shrine, image, bodhi tree, or senior monk,” or “Make a scent offering at the shrine,” or “Make a flower offering,” or “Gather monks; we’ll give alms and have Dhamma taught”—in such messages, there is no need for scruple. These are permissible messages, not tied to laypeople’s worldly tasks. Gains from these eight family-corrupting acts are not permissible for the five co-religionists. They are like gains from false speech or money dealings.

36. Carrying messages for laypeople (Jaṅghapesaniya) is called doing the work of a messenger for laypeople; that should not be done. For one who goes carrying a message for laypeople, there is a dukkaṭa at every step. For one who eats the food obtained due to that work, there is a dukkaṭa at every mouthful. Even if one did not take the message at first, but later, thinking, “Now this is that village, come, let me announce the message,” there is a dukkaṭa at every step even for one who steps off the path. For one who eats the food obtained after announcing the message, there is a dukkaṭa in the same way as before. However, for one who has come without taking a message, it is permissible to tell when asked, “Venerable sir, what is the news of so-and-so in that village?” there is no fault in an asked question. However, it is permissible to carry a message for the five fellow practitioners of the Dhamma, for one’s mother and father, for the paṇḍupalāsa, and for one’s attendant, and an allowable message for laypeople; therefore, one should not be scrupulous about messages such as, “In my name, pay homage at the feet of the Blessed One,” or “Pay homage to the cetiya, the image, the Bodhi tree, and the Saṅgha elder,” or “Make an offering of fragrance at the cetiya,” or “Make an offering of flowers,” or “Assemble the monks, we will give alms, we will have the Dhamma taught.” For these are allowable messages, not connected with the worldly affairs of laypeople. However, the requisites obtained by these eight corrupting actions of families are not allowable even for the five fellow practitioners of the Dhamma. They are like the requisites obtained by false reporting and dealing in gold.

36. Jaṅghapesaniya refers to acting as a messenger for laypeople or delivering messages, which should not be done. For one who takes a message from laypeople and goes, there is a dukkaṭa offense at every step. If one eats food obtained through such an act, there is a dukkaṭa offense with every mouthful. Even if one initially does not take the message but later thinks, “This is the village; let me deliver the message,” and steps off the path, there is a dukkaṭa offense at every step. If one delivers the message and eats the obtained food, there is a dukkaṭa offense as before. However, if one is asked after returning, “Venerable sir, what is the news in that village?” it is permissible to speak; there is no offense in answering questions. For five types of righteous people—parents, a yellow-robed attendant, one’s own servant, and laypeople—it is permissible to deliver messages. Therefore, there is no need for concern in messages such as, “Pay homage to the Blessed One’s feet on my behalf,” “Worship the cetiya, bodhi tree, or Saṅgha elders,” “Perform incense worship at the cetiya,” “Perform flower worship,” “Gather the monks; we will give alms and request Dhamma teaching,” etc. These are allowable messages, not related to laypeople’s household duties. However, these eight types of family-destroying actions are not permissible even for the five righteous people. They are similar to the results of false accusations and improper dealings.

Pabbājanīyakammakato pana yasmiṃ gāme vā nigame vā kuladūsakakammaṃ kataṃ, yasmiñca vihāre vasati, neva tasmiṃ gāme vā nigame vā carituṃ labhati, na vihāre vasituṃ. Paṭippassaddhakammenapi ca tena yesu kulesu pubbe kuladūsakakammaṃ kataṃ, tato uppannapaccayā na gahetabbā, āsavakkhayapattenapi na gahetabbā, akappiyāva honti. “Kasmā na gaṇhathā”ti pucchitena “pubbe evaṃ katattā”ti vutte sace vadanti “na mayaṃ tena kāraṇena dema, idāni sīlavantatāya demā”ti, gahetabbā. Pakatiyā dānaṭṭhāneyeva kuladūsakakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, tato pakatidānameva gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ vaḍḍhetvā denti, taṃ na vaṭṭati. Yasmā ca pucchitapañhe doso natthi, tasmā aññampi bhikkhuṃ pubbaṇhe vā sāyanhe vā antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ koci puccheyya “kasmā, bhante, carathā”ti. Yenatthena carati, taṃ ācikkhitvā “laddhaṃ na laddha”nti vutte sace na laddhaṃ, “na laddha”nti vatvā yaṃ so deti, taṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

One under an act of banishment cannot roam or live in the village, town, or monastery where the family-corrupting act was done. Even after the act is revoked, gains from families where such acts were previously done must not be taken, even by an arahant—they remain impermissible. When asked, “Why don’t you take?” and told, “Because it was done before,” if they say, “We don’t give for that reason; we give now for your virtue,” it may be taken. If the family-corrupting act was done at a natural alms place, only natural alms may be taken from there; augmented gifts are not permissible. Since there is no fault in answering questions, if someone asks a monk entering a village morning or evening, “Venerable, why do you roam?” telling the purpose and, when asked, “Did you get it?” saying, “I didn’t,” and taking what is then given is permissible.

But for one who has been subjected to the act of expulsion, in whatever village or town the corrupting action of families was done, and in whatever monastery he lives, he is not allowed to wander in that village or town, nor to live in the monastery. And even with the act of reinstatement, the requisites obtained from those families in which the corrupting action of families was done before are not to be accepted; even by one who has attained the destruction of the āsavas, they are not to be accepted, they are unallowable. If asked, “Why do you not accept?” and told, “Because it was done thus before,” if they say, “We do not give because of that, now we give because of virtuousness,” they should be accepted. The corrupting action of families is done in the place of regular giving; therefore, only the regular giving is permissible to accept. What they give in addition is not permissible. And since there is no fault in an asked question, therefore, if someone asks another monk who has entered a house in the morning or in the evening, “Why, venerable sir, are you wandering?” having told the reason for which he is wandering, when asked, “Did you obtain it or not?” if he did not obtain it, saying, “I did not obtain it,” it is permissible to accept what he gives.

A monk who has been subjected to the banishment act (pabbājanīyakamma) cannot stay in the village or town where the family-destroying act was performed, nor in the monastery where he resides. Even if the act is lifted, he should not accept offerings from families where he previously performed the family-destroying act, even after attaining the destruction of the taints; they remain unallowable. If asked, “Why do you not accept?” and he replies, “Because of what was done before,” and they say, “We do not give because of that reason; now we give because of your virtuous conduct,” he may accept. If the family-destroying act was done at a place of regular offerings, only the regular offering may be accepted. What is given excessively is not permissible. Since there is no offense in answering questions, if another monk enters the village in the morning or evening and is asked, “Why do you wander, venerable sir?” he should explain his purpose. If asked, “Have you received anything?” and he has not, he may say, “I have not,” and accept what is given.

37. “Na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya araññe vatthabbaṃ, yo vaseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya piṇḍāya caritabbaṃ…pe… na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya caṅkamitabbaṃ…pe… na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya ṭhātabbaṃ…pe… na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya nisīditabbaṃ…pe… na ca, bhikkhave, paṇidhāya seyyā kappetabbā, yo kappeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (pārā. 223 ādayo) vuttattā “evaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.223) araññe vasantaṃ maṃ jano arahatte vā sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vā sambhāvessati, tato lokassa sakkato bhavissāmi garukato mānito pūjito”ti evaṃ patthanaṃ katvā araññe na vasitabbaṃ. Evaṃ paṇidhāya “araññe vasissāmī”ti gacchantassa padavāre padavāre dukkaṭaṃ, tathā araññe kuṭikaraṇacaṅkamananisīdananivāsanapārupanādīsu sabbakiccesu payoge payoge dukkaṭaṃ, tasmā evaṃ araññe na vasitabbaṃ. Evaṃ vasanto hi sambhāvanaṃ labhatu vā mā vā, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Yo pana samādinnadhutaṅgo “dhutaṅgaṃ rakkhissāmī”ti vā “gāmante me vasato cittaṃ vikkhipati, araññaṃ sappāya”nti cintetvā vā “addhā araññe tiṇṇaṃ vivekānaṃ aññataraṃ pāpuṇissāmī”ti vā “araññaṃ pavisitvā arahattaṃ apāpuṇitvā na nikkhamissāmī”ti vā “araññavāso nāma bhagavatā pasattho, mayi ca araññe vasante bahū sabrahmacārī gāmantaṃ hitvā āraññakā bhavissantī”ti vā evaṃ anavajjavāsaṃ vasitukāmo hoti, teneva vasitabbaṃ. Piṇḍāya carantassapi “abhikkantādīni saṇṭhapetvā piṇḍāya carissāmī”ti nivāsanapārupanakiccato pabhuti yāva bhojanapariyosānaṃ, tāva payoge payoge dukkaṭaṃ, sambhāvanaṃ labhatu vā mā vā, dukkaṭameva. Khandhakavattasekhiyavattaparipūraṇatthaṃ pana sabrahmacārīnaṃ diṭṭhānugatiāpajjanatthaṃ vā pāsādikehi abhikkamapaṭikkamādīhi piṇḍāya pavisanto anupavajjo viññūnaṃ. Caṅkamanādīsupi eseva nayo.

37. “Monks, you must not dwell in the forest with an aim; one who does incurs a dukkaṭa. Monks, you must not go for alms with an aim… nor walk back and forth… nor stand… nor sit… nor lie down with an aim; one who does incurs a dukkaṭa” (pārā. 223 ff.). Thus (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.223), one must not dwell in the forest aiming, “People will regard me as an arahant or trainee, and I’ll be honored, respected, revered, and worshipped.” Going to the forest with such an aim incurs a dukkaṭa step by step; so does every effort in building a hut, walking, sitting, dwelling, or dressing there—a dukkaṭa per effort. Thus, one must not dwell in the forest this way. Dwelling thus, whether gaining regard or not, incurs a dukkaṭa. But one who, having taken up ascetic practices, thinks, “I’ll maintain my ascetic practices,” or “Living in a village scatters my mind; the forest suits me,” or “Surely in the forest I’ll attain one of the three isolations,” or “I’ll enter the forest and not leave without attaining arahantship,” or “Forest dwelling is praised by the Blessed One, and if I dwell there, many co-practitioners will leave villages to become forest-dwellers”—such a blameless dweller should dwell there. For one going for alms, aiming, “I’ll arrange my approach and such and go for alms,” from dressing to finishing eating incurs a dukkaṭa per effort, whether gaining regard or not—just a dukkaṭa. But entering for alms to fulfill duties, training rules, or emulate co-practitioners with graceful approach and retreat is blameless to the wise. The same applies to walking and the like.

37. “And, monks, one should not dwell in the forest with a wish; whoever dwells, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. And, monks, one should not wander for alms with a wish… and, monks, one should not walk back and forth with a wish… and, monks, one should not stand with a wish… and, monks, one should not sit with a wish… and, monks, one should not prepare a bed with a wish; whoever prepares, there is an offense of dukkaṭassā” (pārā. 223 ādayo) it is stated; therefore, one should not dwell in the forest, making a wish thus: “People will regard me, dwelling thus (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.223) in the forest, as an arahant or as being on the path of a sekkha; then I will be honored, respected, revered, and worshiped by the world.” Thus, with such a wish, for one who goes, thinking, “I will dwell in the forest,” there is a dukkaṭa at every step; likewise, in all actions in the forest, such as building a hut, walking meditation, sitting, dressing, covering, and the like, there is a dukkaṭa at every effort; therefore, one should not dwell in the forest thus. For one who dwells thus, whether he obtains regard or not, commits a dukkaṭa. But one who has undertaken an ascetic practice, thinking, “I will protect the ascetic practice,” or “When I dwell near a village, my mind is distracted, the forest is suitable,” or “Indeed, in the forest, I will attain one of the three kinds of seclusion,” or “Having entered the forest, I will not leave without attaining arahantship,” or “Dwelling in the forest is praised by the Blessed One, and when I dwell in the forest, many fellow practitioners of the holy life will leave the village vicinity and become forest-dwellers,” one who wishes to dwell thus in a blameless dwelling, he should dwell. Even for one wandering for alms, thinking, “I will wander for alms after arranging the proper going forth and the like,” from the action of dressing and covering to the end of the meal, there is a dukkaṭa at every effort; whether he obtains regard or not, there is a dukkaṭa. But one who enters for alms with proper going forth, returning, and the like, for the purpose of fulfilling the duties of the Khandhakas and the Sekhiyas, or for the purpose of following the example of his fellow practitioners of the holy life, is blameless to the wise. The same rule applies to walking meditation and the like.

37. “Monks, one should not dwell in the forest with the intention, ‘If I dwell there, people will consider me an arahant or a trainee, and I will be respected, honored, revered, and worshipped by the world.’ If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense. One should not wander for alms with such an intention… one should not walk… one should not stand… one should not sit… one should not lie down with such an intention. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Pārā. 223, etc.). Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest with the intention, “If I dwell in the forest, people will consider me an arahant or a trainee, and I will be respected, honored, revered, and worshipped by the world.” If one goes to the forest with such an intention, there is a dukkaṭa offense at every step. Similarly, in building a hut, walking, sitting, dressing, etc., in the forest, there is a dukkaṭa offense at every action. Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest in this way. Whether or not one gains recognition, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, if one has undertaken the dhutaṅga practice, thinking, “I will observe the dhutaṅga,” or “Living near the village distracts my mind; the forest is suitable,” or “I will surely attain one of the three types of seclusion in the forest,” or “I will not leave the forest until I attain arahantship,” or “The Blessed One praised forest dwelling, and if I dwell in the forest, many fellow monks will leave the village and become forest dwellers,” or if one wishes to dwell blamelessly, one should dwell accordingly. For one wandering for alms, from the time of preparing the robe and bowl until the end of the meal, there is a dukkaṭa offense at every action, whether or not one gains recognition. However, for the sake of fulfilling the Khandhaka and Sekhiya training rules or setting an example for fellow monks, one who enters for alms with proper conduct is blameless in the eyes of the wise. The same applies to walking, etc.

The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Supporting One’s Relatives is concluded.

6. Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathā

6. Discourse on the Judgment of Fish and Meat

6. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Fish and Meat

6. Discussion on the Judgment of Fish and Meat

38. Macchamaṃsesu pana macchaggahaṇena sabbampi jalajaṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha akappiyaṃ nāma natthi. Maṃsesu pana manussahatthiassasunakhaahisīhabyagghadīpiacchataracchānaṃ vasena dasa maṃsāni akappiyāni. Tattha manussamaṃse thullaccayaṃ, sesesu dukkaṭaṃ. Iti imesaṃ manussādīnaṃ dasannaṃ maṃsampi aṭṭhipi lohitampi cammampi lomampi sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati. Vasāsu pana ekā manussavasāva na vaṭṭati. Khīrādīsu akappiyaṃ nāma natthi. Imesu pana akappiyamaṃsesu aṭṭhiādīsu vā yaṃ kiñci ñatvā vā añatvā vā khādantassa āpattiyeva. Yadā jānāti, tadā desetabbā. “Apucchitvāva khādissāmī”ti gaṇhato paṭiggahaṇepi dukkaṭaṃ, “pucchitvā khādissāmī”ti gaṇhato anāpatti. Uddissakataṃ pana jānitvā khādantasseva āpatti, pacchā jānanto āpattiyā na kāretabbo (mahāva. aṭṭha. 281).

38. In macchamaṃsa, the term “fish” includes all aquatic creatures. Therein, nothing is impermissible. In meats, ten are impermissible: human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena. For human meat, a thullaccaya applies; for the rest, a dukkaṭa. Thus, for these ten, including human and others, bones, blood, skin, and hair—all are impermissible. Among fats, only human fat is impermissible. In milk and the like, nothing is impermissible. Eating any of these impermissible meats, bones, or the like, knowingly or unknowingly, incurs an offense. When known, it must be confessed. Taking it thinking, “I’ll eat without asking,” incurs a dukkaṭa at acceptance; taking it thinking, “I’ll ask and eat,” incurs no offense. Eating what is prepared for a purpose, knowing it, incurs an offense; knowing it afterward does not require an offense judgment (mahāva. aṭṭha. 281).

38. Regarding fish and meat, by the taking of fish, everything that lives in water is stated. Therein, there is nothing unallowable. However, among meats, the meats of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas are unallowable, according to the ten kinds of meat. Therein, regarding human meat, there is a thullaccaya; regarding the rest, there is a dukkaṭa. Thus, regarding these ten, humans and the like, all of their meat, bones, blood, skin, and hair is not permissible. However, among fats, only human fat is not permissible. Regarding milk and the like, there is nothing unallowable. However, regarding these unallowable meats, whether one eats any of their bones and the like knowingly or unknowingly, there is an offense. When he knows, it should be confessed. From taking it, thinking, “I will eat it without asking,” there is a dukkaṭa even in accepting; from taking it, thinking, “I will eat it after asking,” there is no offense. However, there is an offense only for one who eats knowing it was intentionally prepared; one who comes to know later should not be made to do it due to the offense (mahāva. aṭṭha. 281).

38. Regarding fish and meat, all aquatic creatures are included under fish. There is nothing unallowable in this regard. However, among meats, ten types are unallowable: human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena meat. Among these, human meat incurs a thullaccaya offense, while the others incur a dukkaṭa offense. Thus, the meat, bones, blood, skin, and hair of these ten, including humans, are not permissible. Among fats, only human fat is not permissible. Milk, etc., have nothing unallowable. If one knowingly or unknowingly consumes any of these unallowable meats, bones, etc., there is an offense. When one realizes it, one should confess. If one takes it thinking, “I will eat without asking,” there is a dukkaṭa offense even at the time of receiving. If one takes it thinking, “I will eat after asking,” there is no offense. If one knowingly eats what was specifically prepared (uddissakataṃ), there is an offense, but if one realizes it afterward, one should not be made to confess (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 281).

Tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.410) uddissakataṃ nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya vadhitvā sampāditaṃ macchamaṃsaṃ. Ubhayampi hi uddissakataṃ na vaṭṭati. Tampi adiṭṭhaṃ asutaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ vaṭṭati. Tikoṭiparisuddhañhi macchamaṃsaṃ bhagavatā anuññātaṃ adiṭṭhaṃ asutaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ. Tattha adiṭṭhaṃ nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya migamacche vadhitvā gayhamānaṃ adiṭṭhaṃ. Asutaṃ nāma bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya migamacche vadhitvā gahitanti asutaṃ. Aparisaṅkitaṃ pana diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ sutaparisaṅkitaṃ tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitañca ñatvā tabbipakkhato jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Idha bhikkhū passanti manusse jālavāgurādihatthe gāmato vā nikkhamante araññe vā vicarante. Dutiyadivase ca nesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhiharanti. Te tena diṭṭhena parisaṅkanti “bhikkhūnaṃ nu kho atthāya kata”nti, idaṃ diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ, etaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana te manussā “kasmā, bhante, na gaṇhathā”ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā “nayidaṃ, bhante, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ vā atthāya kata”nti vadanti, kappati.

Herein (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.410), uddissakataṃ means fish or meat killed and prepared for monks. Both, when prepared for a purpose, are impermissible. What is unseen, unheard, and unsuspected is permissible. The Blessed One allowed fish and meat pure in three ways: unseen, unheard, and unsuspected. Herein, adiṭṭhaṃ means not seeing game or fish killed and taken for monks. Asutaṃ means not hearing that game or fish were killed and taken for monks. Aparisaṅkitaṃ is known by contrast to what is seen and suspected, heard and suspected, or suspected apart from both. How? Monks see people leaving a village or roaming the forest with nets or traps. The next day, entering that village for alms, they are offered fish or meat alms. They suspect from what they saw, “Was this done for monks?”—this is diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ and must not be taken. What is not so suspected is permissible. If the people, asked, “Venerable, why don’t you take?” hear the reason and say, “Venerable, this wasn’t done for monks; it was done for ourselves or royal officials,” it is permissible.

Therein (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.410), intentionally prepared (uddissakataṃ) means fish and meat killed and prepared for the sake of monks. For both fish and meat that are intentionally prepared are not permissible. But that which is not seen, not heard, and not suspected is permissible. For fish and meat that are pure in three aspects have been allowed by the Blessed One: not seen, not heard, and not suspected. Therein, not seen (adiṭṭhaṃ) means not having seen animals or fish being killed and taken for the sake of monks. Not heard (asutaṃ) means not having heard that animals or fish have been killed and taken for the sake of monks. Not suspected (aparisaṅkitaṃ), however, should be understood in contrast to seen and suspected, heard and suspected, and free from both, knowing them. How? Here, monks see people with nets, snares, and the like in their hands, either leaving the village or wandering in the forest. And on the second day, those same people offer them alms-food with fish and meat when they enter that village for alms. They suspect, due to what they have seen, “Was it prepared for the sake of monks?” This is seen and suspected (diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ); this is not permissible to accept. What is not suspected thus is permissible. But if those people ask, “Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept?” and, having heard that matter, say, “This, venerable sirs, was not prepared for the sake of monks; it was prepared by us for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials and the like,” it is allowable.

Here (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.410), uddissakataṃ refers to fish or meat specifically prepared for monks. Both are not permissible. However, what is unseen, unheard, and unsuspected is permissible. The Buddha allowed fish and meat that is pure in three ways: unseen, unheard, and unsuspected. Unseen means not seeing animals or fish being killed for monks. Unheard means not hearing that animals or fish were killed for monks. Unsuspected means not suspecting that it was prepared for monks, based on what is seen or heard, or being free from both. How? Here, monks see people leaving the village with nets, traps, etc., or wandering in the forest. The next day, when the monks enter the village for alms, they are offered fish and meat. They suspect, “Was this prepared for monks?” This is seen suspicion, and it should not be taken. What is free from such suspicion is permissible. If those people ask, “Why do you not take it, venerable sir?” and, hearing the reason, say, “This was not prepared for monks; it was prepared for ourselves or for royal purposes,” it is permissible.

Na heva kho bhikkhū passanti, apica kho suṇanti “manussā kira jālavāgurādihatthā gāmato vā nikkhamanti, araññe vā vicarantī”ti. Dutiyadivase ca tesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhiharanti. Te tena sutena parisaṅkanti “bhikkhūnaṃ nu kho atthāya kata”nti, idaṃ sutaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma, etaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana te manussā “kasmā, bhante, na gaṇhathā”ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā “nayidaṃ, bhante, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ vā atthāya kata”nti vadanti, kappati.

Monks do not see but hear, “People with nets or traps reportedly leave the village or roam the forest.” The next day, entering that village for alms, they are offered fish or meat alms. They suspect from what they heard, “Was this done for monks?”—this is sutaparisaṅkitaṃ and must not be taken. What is not so suspected is permissible. If the people, asked, “Venerable, why don’t you take?” hear the reason and say, “Venerable, this wasn’t done for monks; it was done for ourselves or royal officials,” it is permissible.

The monks do not actually see, but they hear, “People, it is said, are going out from the village with nets, snares, and so on in their hands, or they are wandering in the forest.” And on the second day, when those monks enter that village for alms, people offer them almsfood with meat and fish. They are suspicious because of what they heard, thinking, “Surely this was prepared for the sake of the monks.” This is called doubt based on hearing; it is not allowable to accept this. Only that which is free from such doubt is allowable. But if those people ask, “Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept it?”, and having heard their explanation, say, “This, venerable sirs, was not prepared for the sake of the monks; we prepared it for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials or others,” then it is allowable.

The monks do not see it themselves, but they hear that people, carrying nets, traps, and the like, leave the village or wander in the forest. On the second day, when those monks enter the village for alms, they bring back meat mixed with almsfood. Hearing this, they suspect, “Was this done for the monks?” This is called sutaparisaṅkitaṃ (suspicion based on hearing), and it is not permissible to accept it. What is not suspected in this way is permissible. However, if those people, when asked, “Why don’t you accept it, venerable ones?” and upon hearing the reason, say, “This was not done for the monks, but for our own purposes or for the king’s use,” then it is permissible.

Na heva kho pana bhikkhū passanti na suṇanti, apica kho tesaṃ taṃ gāmaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭhānaṃ pattaṃ gahetvā samacchamaṃsaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ abhisaṅkharitvā abhiharanti. Te parisaṅkanti “bhikkhūnaṃ nu kho atthāya kata”nti, idaṃ tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma, etampi gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ evaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana te manussā “kasmā, bhante, na gaṇhathā”ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā “nayidaṃ, bhante, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya kataṃ, amhehi attano atthāya vā rājayuttādīnaṃ vā atthāya kataṃ, pavattamaṃsaṃ vā kappiyameva labhitvā bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya sampādita”nti vadanti, kappati. Matānaṃ petakiccatthāya maṅgalādīnaṃ vā atthāya katepi eseva nayo. Yaṃ yañhi bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akataṃ, yattha ca nibbematiko hoti, taṃ sabbaṃ kappati.

Monks neither see nor hear, but entering that village for alms, their bowl is taken, fish or meat alms prepared, and offered. They suspect, “Was this done for monks?”—this is tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ and must not be taken. What is not so suspected is permissible. If the people, asked, “Venerable, why don’t you take?” hear the reason and say, “Venerable, this wasn’t done for monks; it was done for ourselves or royal officials, or it’s permissible meat obtained and prepared for monks,” it is permissible. The same applies to what is done for the dead’s rites or auspicious events. Whatever is not done solely for monks, where there is no doubt, is all permissible.

However, the monks neither see nor hear, but when they enter that village for alms, someone takes their bowls, prepares almsfood with meat and fish, and offers it to them. They are suspicious, thinking, “Surely this was prepared for the sake of the monks.” This is called doubt unrelated to both; it is also not allowable to accept this. Only that which is free from such doubt is allowable. But if those people ask, “Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept it?”, and having heard their explanation, say, “This, venerable sirs, was not prepared for the sake of the monks; we prepared it for our own sake or for the sake of royal officials or others, or having obtained allowable already-existing meat, we prepared it for the sake of the monks,” then it is allowable. The same principle applies even if it was prepared for the sake of deceased relatives’ merit-making ceremonies or for auspicious occasions. Whatever is not prepared solely for the sake of the monks, and where one is free from doubt, all that is allowable.

The monks neither see nor hear it themselves, but when they enter the village for alms, they take their bowls and bring back meat mixed with almsfood. They suspect, “Was this done for the monks?” This is called tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ (suspicion based on both seeing and hearing), and it is also not permissible to accept it. What is not suspected in this way is permissible. However, if those people, when asked, “Why don’t you accept it, venerable ones?” and upon hearing the reason, say, “This was not done for the monks, but for our own purposes or for the king’s use, or it is permissible meat obtained and prepared for the monks,” then it is permissible. The same applies to meat prepared for funeral rites or for auspicious occasions. Whatever is not specifically made for the monks and is free from doubt is entirely permissible.

39. Sace pana ekasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhūnaṃ uddissakataṃ hoti, te ca attano atthāya katabhāvaṃ na jānanti, aññe jānanti. Ye jānanti, tesaṃ na vaṭṭati, itaresaṃ pana vaṭṭati. Aññe na jānanti, teyeva jānanti, tesaṃyeva na vaṭṭati, aññesaṃ vaṭṭati. Tepi “amhākaṃ atthāya kata”nti jānanti, aññepi “etesaṃ atthāya kata”nti jānanti, sabbesampi na vaṭṭati. Sabbe na jānanti, sabbesampi vaṭṭati. Pañcasu hi sahadhammikesu yassa vā tassa vā atthāya uddissakataṃ sabbesaṃ na kappati.

39. If in one monastery meat is prepared for monks, and some monks don’t know it was done for them while others do, it is impermissible for those who know, permissible for those who don’t. If some don’t know and only they know, it is impermissible only for them, permissible for others. If they know, “It was done for us,” and others know, “It was done for them,” it is impermissible for all. If all don’t know, it is permissible for all. What is prepared for any of the five co-religionists is impermissible for all.

39. But if in a certain monastery, food is prepared with specific monks in mind, and they do not know that it was prepared for their sake, but others do, then it is not allowable for those who know, but it is allowable for the others. If the others do not know, and only they know, then it is not allowable for them, but it is allowable for the others. If they know that it was prepared for their sake, and others also know that it was prepared for their sake, then it is not allowable for all of them. If none of them know, then it is allowable for all of them. For among the five fellow practitioners, food prepared with any one of them in mind is not allowable for all of them.

39. If in a monastery, something is designated for the monks, but they do not know whether it was made for their use, while others know, it is not permissible for those who know, but it is permissible for the others. If others do not know, but those who know do, it is not permissible for them, but it is permissible for the others. If they know, “This was made for us,” and others also know, “This was made for them,” it is not permissible for any of them. If no one knows, it is permissible for all. For among five co-religionists, whatever is designated for the benefit of one or the other is not permissible for all.

Sace pana koci ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ uddissa pāṇaṃ vadhitvā tassa pattaṃ pūretvā deti, so ca attano atthāya katabhāvaṃ jānaṃyeva gahetvā aññassa bhikkhuno deti, so taṃ tassa saddhāya paribhuñjati, kassa āpattīti? Dvinnampi anāpatti. Yañhi uddissa kataṃ, tassa abhuttatāya anāpatti, itarassa ajānanatāya. Kappiyamaṃsassa hi paṭiggahaṇe āpatti natthi, uddissakatañca ajānitvā bhuttassa pacchā ñatvā āpattidesanākiccaṃ nāma natthi. Akappiyamaṃsaṃ pana ajānitvā bhuttena pacchā ñatvāpi āpatti desetabbā. Uddissakatañhi ñatvā bhuñjatova āpatti, akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyeva, tasmā āpattibhīrukena rūpaṃ sallakkhentenapi pucchitvāva maṃsaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Paribhogakāle “pucchitvā paribhuñjissāmī”ti vā gahetvā pucchitvāva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Duviññeyyattā. Acchamaṃsampi hi sūkaramaṃsasadisaṃ hoti, dīpimaṃsādīni ca migamaṃsādisadisāni, tasmā pucchitvā gahaṇameva vattanti vadanti.

If someone kills a creature for one monk, fills his bowl, and gives it, and he, knowing it was done for him, takes it and gives it to another monk, who eats it in faith, whose is the offense? Neither has an offense. For what was prepared for him, there is no offense since he didn’t eat it; for the other, no offense since he didn’t know. Accepting permissible meat incurs no offense, and eating prepared meat unknowingly, learning it afterward, requires no confession. But eating impermissible meat unknowingly, learning it afterward, requires confession of the offense. One fearing offenses, even observing its form, should accept meat only after asking. At eating time, taking it thinking, “I’ll ask and eat,” or asking and then eating is proper. Why? Because it’s hard to discern. Bear meat resembles pork, leopard meat and the like resemble game—so accepting after asking is proper, they say.

But if someone kills a living being with a specific monk in mind and fills his bowl and gives it, and he, knowing that it was prepared for his sake, accepts it and gives it to another monk, and that monk consumes it out of faith in him, whose is the offense? There is no offense for either of them. For the one for whom it was specifically prepared, there is no offense because he did not consume it, and for the other, because he did not know. There is no offense in accepting allowable meat, and for one who has consumed food prepared with a specific individual in mind without knowing, there is no requirement to confess an offense after knowing. However, if one consumes unallowable meat without knowing, one must confess the offense even after knowing. For one who consumes food prepared with a specific individual in mind, knowing it, there is an offense; for one who consumes unallowable meat without knowing, there is also an offense. Therefore, one who fears offense should, even while assessing the appearance, accept meat only after asking. At the time of consumption, one should accept it thinking, “I will consume it after asking,” and consume it only after asking. Why? Because it is difficult to discern. Buffalo meat, for instance, is similar to pork, and leopard meat and others are similar to deer meat and others. Therefore, it is said that the proper practice is to accept only after asking.

If someone kills a living being for the sake of a particular monk, fills his bowl, and gives it to him, and that monk, knowing it was made for him, accepts it and gives it to another monk, who consumes it out of faith, whose offense is it? There is no offense for either. For the one for whom it was designated, there is no offense because he did not consume it, and for the other, there is no offense because he did not know. There is no offense in receiving permissible meat, and if one consumes something designated without knowing it, there is no need for confession afterward. However, if one consumes impermissible meat without knowing it and later finds out, confession is required. For if one consumes knowing it was designated, there is an offense, and if one consumes impermissible meat without knowing, there is still an offense. Therefore, one who fears offense should carefully consider and ask before accepting meat. At the time of consumption, one should either ask before consuming or ask after accepting and then consume. Why? Because it is difficult to discern. For example, fresh meat resembles pork, and dried meat resembles venison, so one should ask before accepting.

7. Anāmāsavinicchayakathā

7. Discourse on the Judgment of the Untouchable

7. The Discussion on the Determination of What is Not to be Touched

7. Discussion on the Judgment Regarding What Should Not Be Touched

40. Anāmāsanti na parāmasitabbaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281) – yasmā mātā vā hotu dhītā vā bhaginī vā, itthī nāma sabbāpi brahmacariyassa pāribanthikāva anāmāsā ca, tasmā “ayaṃ me mātā, ayaṃ me dhītā, ayaṃ me bhaginī”ti gehassitapemena āmasatopi dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ. Imaṃ pana bhagavato āṇaṃ anussarantena sacepi nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātaraṃ passati, neva hatthena parāmasitabbā, paṇḍitena pana bhikkhunā nāvā vā phalakaṃ vā kadalikkhandho vā dārukkhandho vā upasaṃharitabbo. Tasmiṃ asati kāsāvampi upasaṃharitvā purato ṭhapetabbaṃ, “ettha gaṇhāhī”ti pana na vattabbā. Gahite “parikkhāraṃ kaḍḍhāmī”ti kaḍḍhantena gantabbaṃ. Sace pana bhāyati, purato purato gantvā “mā bhāyī”ti samassāsetabbā. Sace bhāyamānā puttassa sahasā khandhe vā abhiruhati, hatthe vā gaṇhāti, na “apehi mahallike”ti niddhunitabbā, thalaṃ pāpetabbā. Kaddame laggāyapi kūpe patitāyapi eseva nayo. Tatrāpi hi yottaṃ vā vatthaṃ vā pakkhipitvā hatthena gahitabhāvaṃ ñatvā uddharitabbā, na tveva āmasitabbā.

40. Anāmāsa means not to be touched. Here is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281): Since a mother, daughter, or sister—any woman—is an obstacle to the holy life and untouchable, touching with household affection, thinking, “This is my mother, daughter, sister,” incurs a dukkaṭa. Recalling the Blessed One’s command, if one sees a mother swept away by a river current, she must not be touched by hand. A wise monk should offer a boat, plank, banana stem, or wooden log. If none is available, a robe should be offered and placed before her; saying, “Take this,” is not permissible. When taken, thinking, “I’ll pull the requisite,” pull and go. If she is afraid, go ahead and reassure her, “Don’t be afraid.” If, in fear, she suddenly climbs on her son’s shoulder or grabs his hand, she must not be shaken off, saying, “Get off, old woman”—she should be brought to shore. The same applies if stuck in mud or fallen in a pit. There too, a rope or cloth should be offered, and, knowing it’s held, she should be lifted—not touched.

40. Anāmāsa means that which should not be touched. Here is the determination (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.281): whether it be a mother, a daughter, or a sister, any woman is a hindrance to the holy life and is not to be touched. Therefore, even touching one’s mother, daughter, or sister with familiar affection, thinking, “This is my mother, this is my daughter, this is my sister,” is said to be a దుక్కట (dukkaṭa) offense. But a wise monk, remembering this command of the Blessed One, even if he sees his mother being swept away by the current of a river, should not touch her with his hand. However, a boat, a plank, a banana trunk, or a log should be offered by the wise monk. If these are not available, even his outer robe should be offered and placed in front of her, but he should not say, “Take hold of this.” When she has taken hold, he should pull her, thinking, “I am pulling the requisites.” But if she is afraid, he should go in front of her and reassure her, saying, “Do not be afraid.” If, being afraid, she suddenly climbs on her son’s shoulders or grasps his hands, he should not shake her off, saying, “Go away, old woman,” but should bring her to dry land. The same principle applies if she is stuck in mud or has fallen into a well. There too, having thrown in a rope or a cloth, and knowing that she has grasped it with her hand, he should pull her out, but he should not touch her.

40. Anāmāsa means what should not be touched. Here is the judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281): Since a woman, whether mother, daughter, or sister, is entirely a hindrance to the holy life and should not be touched, even touching her with affection, thinking, “This is my mother, this is my daughter, this is my sister,” is declared to be a wrongdoing. Remembering this instruction of the Blessed One, even if one sees one’s mother being swept away by a river current, one should not touch her with one’s hand. A wise monk should instead bring a boat, a plank, a banana trunk, or a piece of wood. If these are not available, one should throw the robe towards her and place it in front, but one should not say, “Take this.” If she grabs it, one should pull her out, saying, “I am pulling the accessory.” If she is afraid, one should go ahead and reassure her, saying, “Do not be afraid.” If, out of fear, she suddenly climbs onto one’s shoulder or grabs one’s hand, one should not shake her off, saying, “Go away, old woman,” but should bring her to safety. The same applies if she is stuck in mud or has fallen into a well. In such cases, one should throw a rope or cloth, and after knowing she has grasped it, pull her out, but one should not touch her.

Na kevalañca mātugāmassa sarīrameva anāmāsaṃ, nivāsanapārupanampi ābharaṇabhaṇḍampi antamaso tiṇaṇḍupakaṃ vā tālapaṇṇamuddikaṃ vā upādāya anāmāsameva. Tañca kho nivāsanapāvuraṇaṃ piḷandhanatthāya ṭhapitameva. Sace pana nivāsanaṃ vā pārupanaṃ vā parivattetvā cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapeti, vaṭṭati. Ābharaṇabhaṇḍesu pana sīsapasādhanadantasūciādikappiyabhaṇḍaṃ “imaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ dema, gaṇhathā”ti dīyamānaṃ sipāṭikāsūciādiupakaraṇatthāya gahetabbaṃ. Suvaṇṇarajatamuttādimayaṃ pana anāmāsameva, dīyamānampi na gahetabbaṃ. Na kevalañca etāsaṃ sarīrūpagameva anāmāsaṃ, itthisaṇṭhānena kataṃ kaṭṭharūpampi dantarūpampi ayarūpampi loharūpampi tipurūpampi potthakarūpampi sabbaratanarūpampi antamaso piṭṭhamayarūpampi anāmāsameva. Paribhogatthāya pana “idaṃ tumhākaṃ hotū”ti labhitvā ṭhapetvā sabbaratanamayaṃ avasesaṃ bhinditvā upakaraṇārahaṃ upakaraṇe, paribhogārahaṃ paribhoge upanetuṃ vaṭṭati.

Not only a woman’s body is untouchable; her undergarments, outer garments, adornments, even a grass ring or palm-leaf ring, are untouchable. This applies to undergarments and outer garments placed for adornment. If an undergarment or outer garment is turned and placed at the feet for robe use, it is permissible. Among adornments, permissible items like head ornaments or tooth needles, offered with, “Venerable, we give this to you; take it,” may be taken for use as a sewing box or needle. But gold, silver, or pearl items are untouchable and must not be taken even if offered. Not only what touches their body is untouchable; a wooden figure, ivory figure, iron figure, bronze figure, tin figure, book figure, or any gem figure—even a flour figure—in a woman’s shape is untouchable. For use, obtained with, “Let this be yours,” and set aside, all except gem-made items may be broken and used for suitable tools or purposes—this is permissible.

And it is not only the body of a woman that is not to be touched, but also her clothing, ornaments, and even up to a grass ring or a palm-leaf ring are not to be touched. And that clothing and adornment are only placed there for adornment. But if she exchanges her lower garment or upper garment and places it at his feet for the purpose of a robe, it is allowable. Among ornaments, however, allowable items such as hair ornaments, toothpicks, and so on, when offered saying, “Venerable sir, we give this to you, please accept it,” should be accepted for the purpose of a case, needle, and so on. But gold, silver, pearls, and so on are not to be touched, and even if offered, they should not be accepted. And it is not only things associated with their bodies that are not to be touched; a figure made in the likeness of a woman, whether made of wood, ivory, iron, brass, lead, a picture, or any kind of precious stone, even if made of flour, is not to be touched. However, if received thinking, “Let this be for your use,” and placed down, all precious stone figures and the rest can be broken and used for suitable purposes as requisites or for suitable consumption.

Not only is a woman’s body not to be touched, but also her clothing, ornaments, and even a blade of grass or a palm leaf. However, clothing and ornaments placed for the purpose of covering are permissible. If one turns the clothing or robe inside out and places it at one’s feet for the purpose of making a robe, it is permissible. As for ornaments, if they are given, saying, “Venerable one, we give this to you, take it,” one may accept them for the purpose of using them as tools, such as a needle or a pin. But gold, silver, pearls, and the like should not be touched, even if offered. Not only are objects associated with a woman’s body not to be touched, but also anything shaped like a woman, whether made of wood, ivory, metal, clay, leather, or even painted on a wall, should not be touched. However, if such objects are received for use, saying, “This is for you,” one may break them into pieces suitable for tools or use.

41. Yathā ca itthirūpakaṃ, evaṃ sattavidhaṃ dhaññampi anāmāsameva. Tasmā khettamajjhena gacchantena tatthajātakampi dhaññaphalaṃ na āmasantena gantabbaṃ. Sace gharadvāre vā antarāmagge vā dhaññaṃ pasāritaṃ hoti, passena ca maggo atthi, na maddantena gantabbaṃ. Gamanamagge asati maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gantabbaṃ. Antaraghare dhaññassa upari āsanaṃ paññapetvā denti, nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati. Keci āsanasālāya dhaññaṃ ākiranti, sace sakkā hoti harāpetuṃ, harāpetabbaṃ. No ce, ekamantaṃ dhaññaṃ amaddantena pīṭhakaṃ paññapetvā nisīditabbaṃ. Sace okāso na hoti, manussā dhaññamajjheyeva paññapetvā denti, nisīditabbaṃ. Tatthajātakāni muggamāsādīni aparaṇṇānipi tālapanasādīni vā phalāni kīḷantena na āmasitabbāni. Manussehi rāsikatesupi eseva nayo. Araññe pana rukkhato patitāni phalāni “anupasampannānaṃ dassāmī”ti gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati.

41. Just as a woman’s figure, seven kinds of grain are untouchable. Thus, passing through a field, even grain fruit born there must not be touched while going. If grain is spread at a house door or on a path, and there is a side path, it must not be trodden on while going. If no path exists, resolve it as a path and go. In a village, if a seat is offered over grain, sitting is permissible. Some scatter grain in a dining hall; if it can be removed, it should be. If not, set a seat aside without treading and sit. If no space exists, and people offer it amid grain, sit. Mung beans and the like born there, or other grains like palm or coconut, must not be touched while playing. The same applies to piled grain. In the forest, fruit fallen from trees may be taken, thinking, “I’ll give it to non-ordained ones.”

41. Just as a female figure, so also the seven kinds of grain are not to be touched. Therefore, when walking through the middle of a field, one should walk without touching the grain that has grown there. If grain is spread out at the door of a house or in the middle of a village road, and there is a path to the side, one should not walk on it. If there is no path to walk on, one should determine a path and walk. If a seat is offered on top of the grain inside the house, it is allowable to sit. Some people scatter grain in the seating hall; if it is possible to have it removed, it should be removed. If not, a small platform should be set up without crushing the grain to one side, and one should sit. If there is no space, and people offer a seat right in the middle of the grain, one should sit. Beans, black gram, and other pulses that have grown there, or fruits such as palmyra and jackfruit, should not be touched while playing. The same principle applies to those piled up by people. However, fruits that have fallen from a tree in the forest may be taken thinking, “I will give them to those who are not fully ordained.”

41. Just as a woman’s form should not be touched, so too the seven kinds of grain should not be touched. Therefore, when walking through a field, one should not touch any grain or fruit growing there. If grain is spread out at a house door or along the path, and there is a way to pass by without stepping on it, one should not tread on it. If there is no path, one should walk mindfully without stepping on the grain. If inside a house, grain is spread out and a seat is offered, one may sit. Some people scatter grain in a hall; if it is possible to have it removed, it should be removed. If not, one should prepare a seat without stepping on the grain and sit. If no space is available, and people offer a seat in the middle of the grain, one may sit. Growing crops like beans and sesame, as well as fruits like palm and plantain, should not be touched for play. The same applies to heaps of grain gathered by people. In the forest, however, fruits fallen from trees may be taken with the intention of giving them to the unordained.

42. Muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho silā pavāḷaṃ rajataṃ jātarūpaṃ lohitaṅko masāragallanti imesu dasasu ratanesu muttā adhotā aviddhā yathājātāva āmasituṃ vaṭṭati, sesā anāmāsāti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “muttā dhotāpi adhotāpi anāmāsā, bhaṇḍamūlatthāya ca sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati, kuṭṭharogassa bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Antamaso jātiphalikaṃ upādāya sabbopi nīlapītādivaṇṇabhedo maṇi dhotaviddhavaṭṭito anāmāso, yathājāto pana ākaramutto pattādibhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ, tampi mahāpaccariyaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Pacitvā kato kācamaṇiyeveko vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Veḷuriyepi maṇisadisova vinicchayo.

42. Among the ten gems—pearl, jewel, beryl, conch, stone, coral, silver, gold, ruby, emerald—muttā (pearl), unwashed and unpierced as naturally born, may be touched; the rest are untouchable, they say—not to be taken. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Pearl, washed or unwashed, is untouchable and must not be accepted for goods’ value; but for leprosy medicine, it is permissible”—this is reasonable. Even natural crystal, all colors like blue or yellow, pierced or round, is untouchable as maṇi (jewel); but raw from the mine may be accepted for bowl or goods’ value, it is said—this too is rejected in the Mahāpaccariya. Only cooked glass jewel is permissible, it is said. For veḷuriya (beryl), the judgment is like jewel.

42. Among these ten precious substances – pearl, jewel, beryl, conch, stone, coral, silver, gold, ruby, and cat’s eye – pearls, undrilled and unpierced, just as they are, are allowable to be touched; the rest are said to be untouchable, but that should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Pearls, whether washed or unwashed, are untouchable, and they are not allowable to be accepted for the price of goods, but they are allowable for the purpose of medicine for leprosy,” and that is correct. Even up to nutmeg, all jewels of different colors, such as blue and yellow, that are washed, pierced, and polished, are untouchable; but those that are just as they are, released from the mine, are said to be allowable to be accepted for the price of bowls and other goods, but that too is rejected in the Mahāpaccariya. It is said that only the glass jewel made by heating is allowable. The determination of beryl is also similar to that of jewels.

42. Among the ten gems—pearls, gems, coral, conch, crystal, coral, silver, gold, ruby, and cat’s eye—pearls that are unwashed and unstrung may be touched in their natural state, but the rest should not be touched and should not be accepted. Mahāpaccariya states, “Pearls, whether washed or unwashed, should not be touched, and they should not be accepted for the purpose of trade, but they may be accepted for medicinal purposes for skin diseases.” This is appropriate. Even a blue or yellow gem, if washed and strung, should not be touched, but if it is in its natural state and extracted from a mine, it may be accepted for the purpose of making bowls and the like. This is also stated in Mahāpaccariya, but it is rejected. Only a glass gem made by melting is permissible. The same judgment applies to coral.

Saṅkho dhamanasaṅkho ca dhotaviddho ca ratanamisso anāmāso, pānīyasaṅkho dhotopi adhotopi āmāsova. Sesañca añjanādibhesajjatthāyapi bhaṇḍamūlatthāyapi sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Silā dhotaviddhā ratanasaṃyuttā muggavaṇṇāva anāmāsā, sesā satthakanighaṃsanādiatthāya gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Ettha ca ratanasaṃyuttāti suvaṇṇena saddhiṃ yojetvā pacitvā katāti vadanti. Pavāḷaṃ dhotaviddhaṃ anāmāsaṃ, sesaṃ āmāsañca bhaṇḍamūlatthañca sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ . Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “dhotampi adhotampi sabbaṃ anāmāsañca na ca sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ.

Saṅkho (conch) for blowing or pierced with gems is untouchable; a drinking conch, washed or unwashed, is touchable. The rest may be accepted for eye salve or goods’ value too. Silā (stone), pierced with gems or mung-bean colored, is untouchable; others may be taken for sharpening tools or the like. Herein, ratanasaṃyuttā means made by combining with gold and cooking, they say. Pavāḷaṃ (coral), pierced, is untouchable; the rest is touchable and may be accepted for goods’ value, they say—not to be taken. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Washed or unwashed, all is untouchable and must not be accepted”—this is reasonable.

A conch, a blowing conch, washed and pierced, and mixed with precious stones, is untouchable; a water conch, whether washed or unwashed, is touchable. And the rest are allowable to be accepted even for the purpose of medicine such as collyrium and for the price of goods. A stone, washed, pierced, and combined with precious stones, and of the color of mung beans, is untouchable; the rest are allowable to be taken for the purpose of sharpening knives and so on. Here, “combined with precious stones” is said to mean joined with gold and made by heating. Coral, washed and pierced, is untouchable; the rest are said to be touchable and allowable to be accepted for the price of goods, but that should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Whether washed or unwashed, all are untouchable and are not allowable to be accepted,” and that is correct.

Conch—both the vein conch and the washed and strung conch—are considered gems and should not be touched, but a drinking conch, whether washed or unwashed, may be touched. The rest may be accepted for medicinal purposes or for trade. Crystal, when washed and strung, is considered a gem and should not be touched, but the rest may be taken for sharpening tools and the like. Here, ratanasaṃyuttā means it is joined with gold and melted together. Coral, when washed and strung, should not be touched, but the rest may be touched and accepted for trade. Mahāpaccariya states, “Whether washed or unwashed, all coral should not be touched and should not be accepted.” This is appropriate.

Rajatañca jātarūpañca katabhaṇḍampi akatabhaṇḍampi sabbena sabbaṃ bījato paṭṭhāya anāmāsañca asampaṭicchanīyañca. Uttararājaputto kira suvaṇṇacetiyaṃ kārāpetvā mahāpadumattherassa pesesi. Thero “na kappatī”ti paṭikkhipi. Cetiyaghare suvaṇṇapadumasuvaṇṇabubbuḷakādīni honti, etānipi anāmāsāni. Cetiyagharagopakā pana rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne ṭhitā , tasmā tesaṃ keḷāpayituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Kurundhiyaṃ pana tampi paṭikkhittaṃ, suvaṇṇacetiye kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettakameva anuññātaṃ. Ārakūṭalohampi jātarūpagatikameva anāmāsanti sabbaṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ. Senāsanaparibhoge pana sabbopi kappiyo, tasmā jātarūparajatamayā sabbepi senāsanaparikkhārā āmāsā, bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne ratanamaṇḍape karonti phalikatthambhe ratanadāmapaṭimaṇḍite, tattha sabbūpakaraṇāni bhikkhūnaṃ paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭanti. Lohitaṅkamasāragallā dhotaviddhā anāmāsā, itare āmāsā, bhaṇḍamūlatthāya ca sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “dhotāpi adhotāpi sabbaso anāmāsā, na ca sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭantī”ti paṭikkhittaṃ.

Rajata (silver) and jātarūpa (gold), made or unmade goods, from seed onward, are all untouchable and unacceptable. A northern prince made a gold shrine and sent it to Elder Mahāpaduma; the elder rejected it, saying, “It’s not permissible.” Gold lotuses and bubbles in a shrine room are untouchable. But shrine guardians at a silver disposal site may play with them, it is said. In the Kurundiya, this too is rejected; only rubbish may be removed from a gold shrine—this alone is allowed. Copper brick kilns follow gold’s rule—all commentaries call them untouchable. In lodging use, all are permissible; thus, all lodging requisites made of gold or silver are touchable. At a Dhamma or Vinaya explanation site, they make gem pavilions with crystal pillars and gem-garland images—all tools there may be cared for by monks. Lohitaṅka (ruby) and masāragalla (emerald), pierced, are untouchable; others are touchable and may be accepted for goods’ value, it is said. In the Mahāpaccariya, “Washed or unwashed, all are untouchable and must not be accepted,” is rejected.

Both silver and gold, whether made into goods or not, are entirely untouchable and unacceptable from the very seed. It is said that Prince Uttararāja, having built a golden cetiya, sent it to Mahāpadumatthera. The Thera rejected it, saying, “It is not allowable.” In the cetiya house, there are golden lotuses, golden bubbles, and so on; these too are untouchable. But the caretakers of the cetiya house are in the position of those who discard money, therefore it is said to be allowable to make them play. However, in the Kurundiyaṃ, even that is rejected; only removing rubbish from the golden cetiya is allowed. Even brass and iron are said to be in the category of gold and are untouchable in all commentaries. However, all are allowable in the context of dwelling requisites; therefore, all dwelling requisites made of gold and silver are touchable. In the place where the monks recite the Dhamma and Vinaya, they make a pavilion of precious stones, with crystal pillars adorned with garlands of precious stones; there, all the implements are allowable for the monks to look after. Ruby and cat’s eye, washed and pierced, are untouchable; the others are touchable and are said to be allowable to be accepted for the price of goods. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is rejected, saying, “Whether washed or unwashed, they are entirely untouchable and are not allowable to be accepted.”

Silver and gold, whether made into objects or not, should not be touched or accepted, starting from the raw material. It is said that Prince Uttararāja had a golden stupa made and sent it to Mahāpaduma Thera. The Thera rejected it, saying, “It is not permissible.” In a stupa house, there are golden lotuses and golden bubbles, and these should not be touched. The caretakers of the stupa house stand in the place where silver is discarded, so they may play with it. Kurundhiya also rejects this, stating that only the gold covering of the stupa may be removed. Iron ore and the like are treated like gold and should not be touched. As for monastery furnishings, all are permissible, so all monastery accessories made of gold and silver may be touched. Monks may use gem pavilions for explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya, and all accessories there may be used by monks. Ruby and cat’s eye, when washed and strung, should not be touched, but the rest may be touched and accepted for trade. Mahāpaccariya states, “Whether washed or unwashed, all should not be touched and should not be accepted.” This is rejected.

43. Sabbaṃ āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ anāmāsaṃ, bhaṇḍamūlatthāya dīyamānampi na sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. Satthavaṇijjā nāma na vaṭṭati. Suddhadhanudaṇḍopi dhanujiyāpi patodopi tomaropi aṅkusopi antamaso vāsipharasuādīnipi āvudhasaṅkhepena katāni anāmāsāni. Sace kenaci vihāre satti vā tomaro vā ṭhapito hoti, vihāraṃ jaggantena “harantū”ti sāmikānaṃ pesetabbaṃ. Sace na haranti, taṃ acālentena vihāro paṭijaggitabbo. Yuddhabhūmiyaṃ pana patitaṃ asiṃ vā sattiṃ vā tomaraṃ vā disvā pāsāṇena vā kenaci vā asiṃ bhinditvā satthakatthāya gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Itarānipi viyojetvā kiñci satthakatthāya, kiñci kattaradaṇḍādiatthāya gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Idaṃ gaṇhathā”ti dīyamānaṃ pana vināsetvā “kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ karissāmī”ti sabbampi sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati.

43. All āvudha (weapons) goods are untouchable; even offered for goods’ value, they must not be accepted. Weapon trade is not permissible. A plain bow stick, bowstring, goad, lance, hook—even axes or hatchets—counted as weapons are untouchable. If a spear or lance is placed in a monastery, caring for the monastery, send word to the owners, “Remove it.” If they don’t, care for the monastery without moving it. Seeing a sword, spear, or lance fallen on a battlefield, breaking the sword with a stone or something and taking it for a knife is permissible. Others, separated, may be taken—some for a knife, some for a staff or the like. Offered with, “Take this,” destroying it and thinking, “I’ll make it permissible goods,” all may be accepted—this is permissible.

43. All weapon implements are untouchable, and even if offered for the price of goods, they should not be accepted. The trade of weapons is not allowable. Even a simple bow and arrow, a bowstring, a goad, a spear, a hook, even up to knives, axes, and so on, made as weapons, are untouchable. If a spear or a lance is placed in a monastery by someone, the caretakers should be sent to say, “Take it away.” If they do not take it away, the monastery should be looked after without moving it. However, if one sees a sword, a spear, or a lance fallen on a battlefield, one may break the sword with a stone or something else and take it for the purpose of a knife. The others too may be disassembled and something taken for the purpose of a knife, and something for the purpose of a handle for a cutter and so on. However, if offered saying, “Take this,” it may be accepted entirely, thinking, “I will destroy it and make it into an allowable implement.”

43. All weapons should not be touched, and even if offered for trade, they should not be accepted. Trading in weapons is not permissible. Even a pure bow, arrow, goad, spear, or even a sword and shield are considered weapons and should not be touched. If a weapon like a spear or lance is left in a monastery, the caretaker should send for the owners to take it away. If they do not take it, the monastery should be guarded without moving it. On a battlefield, if one sees a fallen sword, spear, or lance, one may break it with a stone or something else and take it for the purpose of making a tool. Other weapons may also be disassembled and taken for making tools or staffs. If offered, saying, “Take this,” one may destroy it and accept it, saying, “I will make it into a permissible tool.”

Macchajālapakkhijālādīnipi phalakajālikādīnipi saraparittāṇānipi sabbāni anāmāsāni, paribhogatthāya labbhamānesu pana jālaṃ tāva “āsanassa vā cetiyassa vā upari bandhissāmi, chattaṃ vā veṭhessāmī”ti gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Saraparittāṇaṃ sabbampi bhaṇḍamūlatthāya sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Parūparodhanivāraṇañhi etaṃ, na uparodhakaranti. Phalakaṃ “dantakaṭṭhabhājanaṃ karissāmī”ti gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

Fishnets, birdnets, arrow guards—all are untouchable. For use, if obtained, a net may be taken, thinking, “I’ll tie it above a seat or shrine, or wrap an umbrella.” All arrow guards may be accepted for goods’ value. This prevents harm, not causes it. A plank may be taken, thinking, “I’ll make a toothpick holder.”

Fish nets, bird nets, and so on, and screen nets and so on, and all protections for arrows are untouchable. But among those obtained for the purpose of use, a net may be taken thinking, “I will tie it over a seat or a cetiya, or I will wrap a parasol.” All protections for arrows are allowable to be accepted for the price of goods. For this is to prevent obstruction, not to cause obstruction. A plank may be taken thinking, “I will make a container for tooth-cleaning sticks.”

Fishing nets, bird nets, wooden frames, and protective coverings should not be touched, but if obtained for use, one may take a net, saying, “I will tie it over a seat or a stupa, or use it as a parasol.” Protective coverings may be accepted for trade. This is for the purpose of preventing harm, not causing harm. A wooden board may be taken, saying, “I will make it into a toothpick container.”

Cammavinaddhāni vīṇābheriādīni anāmāsāni. Kurundiyaṃ pana “bherisaṅghāṭopi vīṇāsaṅghāṭopi tucchapokkharampi mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ āropitacammampi vīṇādaṇḍakopi sabbaṃ anāmāsa”nti vuttaṃ. Onahituṃ vā onahāpetuṃ vā vādetuṃ vā vādāpetuṃ vā na labbhatiyeva. Cetiyaṅgaṇe pūjaṃ katvā manussehi chaḍḍitaṃ disvāpi acāletvāva antarantare sammajjitabbaṃ, kacavarachaḍḍanakāle pana kacavaraniyāmeneva haritvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Bhaṇḍamūlatthāya sampaṭicchitumpi vaṭṭati, paribhogatthāya labbhamānesu pana vīṇādoṇikañca bheripokkharañca dantakaṭṭhabhājanaṃ karissāma, cammaṃ satthakakosakanti evaṃ tassa tassa parikkhārassa upakaraṇatthāya gahetvā tathā tathā kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

Leather-bound lutes, drums, and the like are untouchable. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “Drum frames, lute frames, empty gourds, leather on a mouth rim, lute sticks—all are untouchable.” They must not be strung, had strung, played, or had played. Seeing them discarded after a shrine courtyard offering, sweep around them intermittently without moving them; at rubbish disposal time, take them aside with rubbish rules—this is permissible, says the Mahāpaccariya. They may be accepted for goods’ value; for use, if obtained, a lute trough or drum gourd may be made a toothpick holder, leather a knife sheath—taking and making them thus is permissible.

Lutes, drums, and so on, bound with leather, are untouchable. However, in the Kurundiyaṃ, it is said, “A drum assembly, a lute assembly, even an empty drum, even leather stretched over the mouth opening, and even the neck of a lute are all untouchable.” It is not allowable to cover it, to have it covered, to play it, or to have it played. Even if one sees it discarded by people after performing a pūjā at the cetiya courtyard, one should sweep around it without moving it. But at the time of discarding rubbish, one may remove it as rubbish and deposit it to one side, as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. It is also allowable to accept it for the price of goods. But among those obtained for the purpose of use, one may take the body of a lute and the skin of a drum thinking, “We will make a container for tooth-cleaning sticks, and the leather for a knife sheath,” and use them accordingly for the requisites of each.

Musical instruments like lutes and drums covered with leather should not be touched. Kurundhiya states, “Even a drum assembly, lute assembly, or a hollow lotus, or a lute neck covered with leather should not be touched.” It is not permissible to play or have them played. Even if one sees such instruments discarded in a stupa courtyard after worship, one should not move them but sweep around them. During the removal of debris, they should be removed like other debris and set aside. They may be accepted for trade, but if obtained for use, one may take a lute or drum, saying, “I will make it into a toothpick container,” or use the leather for a tool bag.

the discussion on the judgment regarding what should not be touched is concluded.

8. Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathā

8. Discourse on the Judgment of Determination and Assignment

8. The Discussion on the Determination of Determination and Relinquishment

8. Discussion on the Determination and Transfer of Robes

44. Adhiṭṭhānavikappanesu pana – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, vassikasāṭikaṃ vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, nisīdanaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, paccattharaṇaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādiṃ yāva ābādhā adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358) vacanato ticīvarādiniyāmeneva adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitukaāmena “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”tiādinā nāmaṃ vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vikappentena pana nāmaṃ aggahetvāva “imaṃ cīvaraṃ tuyhaṃ vikappemī”ti vatvā vikappetabbaṃ. Tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahantena rajitvā kappabinduṃ datvā pamāṇayuttameva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Assa pamāṇaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena sugatacīvarato ūnakaṃ vaṭṭati, lāmakaparicchedena saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgassa ca dīghato muṭṭhipañcakaṃ, tiriyaṃ muṭṭhittikaṃ pamāṇaṃ vaṭṭati. Antaravāsako dīghaso muṭṭhipañcako, tiriyaṃ dvihatthopi vaṭṭati. Pārupanenapi hi sakkā nābhiṃ paṭicchādetunti. Vuttappamāṇato pana atirekañca ūnakañca “parikkhāracoḷaka”nti adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ.

44. In adhiṭṭhānavikappana: “I allow, monks, the triple robe to be determined, not assigned; the rains robe to be determined for the four months of the rains, beyond that assigned; a sitting cloth to be determined, not assigned; a mat to be determined, not assigned; an itch-cover to be determined as long as the ailment lasts, beyond that assigned; a face-wiping cloth to be determined, not assigned; a requisite cloth to be determined, not assigned” (mahāva. 358). Thus, one wishing to use the triple robe and the like as designated must determine it, saying its name, like, “I determine this saṅghāṭi.” For assignment, without naming it, say, “I assign this robe to you.” Herein (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), determining the ticīvaraṃ requires dyeing it, marking it with a permissible dot, and ensuring it fits the measure. Its measure, at maximum, may be less than the Sugata robe; at minimum, for the saṅghāṭi and uttarāsaṅga, five fists long and three fists wide is permissible; for the antaravāsaka, five fists long and two hands wide is permissible—since it can cover the navel with wrapping. Beyond or below this measure, it should be determined as “parikkhāracoḷa.”

44. Regarding determination and relinquishment: “Monks, I allow you to determine the triple robe, not to relinquish it; to determine the rains cloth for the four months of the rainy season, and to relinquish it after that; to determine the sitting cloth, not to relinquish it; to determine the spread, not to relinquish it; to determine the itch-covering cloth for as long as there is an illness, and to relinquish it after that; to determine the face-wiping cloth, not to relinquish it; to determine the requisite cloth, not to relinquish it” (Mahāva. 358). Because of this statement, one who wishes to use the triple robe and so on, having determined them according to the rule, should determine them by saying the name, such as “I determine this outer robe.” But one who relinquishes should relinquish it without taking the name, saying, “I relinquish this robe to you.” Here (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), when determining the triple robe, one should determine only that which is of the proper size, having dyed it and applied a marking dot. Its size, in the highest measure, should be less than the Sugata’s robe; in the lowest measure, the length of the outer robe and the upper robe should be five handspans, and the width three handspans. The under robe should be five handspans in length and two hands in width. For it is possible to cover the navel even with the upper robe. That which is more or less than the stated size should be determined as “requisite cloth.”

44. Regarding adhiṭṭhānavikappana (determination and transfer of robes): “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes but not to transfer them. The rainy-season robe may be determined for the four months of the rains but transferred afterward. The sitting cloth may be determined but not transferred. The bedding may be determined but not transferred. The itching cloth may be determined until the illness lasts but transferred afterward. The face-wiping cloth may be determined but not transferred. The accessory cloth may be determined but not transferred” (mahāva. 358). According to this, one who wishes to use the three robes after determining them should say, “I determine this upper robe,” and so on, and then determine them. When transferring, one should not mention the name but say, “I transfer this robe to you,” and then transfer it. Here (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), when determining the three robes, one should dye them, mark them, and determine them according to the proper measurement. The measurement for the upper robe and the outer robe is five fist-lengths in length and three fist-lengths in width for the lower standard, and for the inner robe, five fist-lengths in length and two arm-lengths in width, as it should cover the navel. Any excess or deficiency should be determined as an accessory cloth.

Tattha yasmā “dve cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānā kāyena vā adhiṭṭheti, vācāya vā adhiṭṭhetī”ti (pari. 322) vuttaṃ, tasmā purāṇasaṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti paccuddharitvā navaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ hatthena gahetvā “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti cittena ābhogaṃ katvā kāyavikāraṃ karontena kāyena adhiṭṭhātabbā. Idaṃ kāyena adhiṭṭhānaṃ, taṃ yena kenaci sarīrāvayavena aphusantassa na vaṭṭati. Vācāya adhiṭṭhāne pana vacībhedaṃ katvā vācāya adhiṭṭhātabbā. Tatra duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ – sace hatthapāse hoti, “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Atha antogabbhe vā uparipāsāde vā sāmantavihāre vā hoti, ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā “etaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Esa nayo uttarāsaṅge antaravāsake ca. Nāmamattameva hi viseso, tasmā sabbāni saṅghāṭiṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ antaravāsakanti evaṃ attano nāmeneva adhiṭṭhātabbāni. Sace adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehi saṅghāṭiādīni karoti, niṭṭhite rajane ca kappe ca “imaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti paccuddharitvā puna adhiṭṭhātabbāni. Adhiṭṭhitena pana saddhiṃ mahantatarameva dutiyapaṭṭaṃ vā khaṇḍaṃ vā sibbantena puna adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Same vā khuddake vā adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi.

Since it is said, “There are two ways to determine a robe: by body or by speech” (pari. 322), relinquish an old saṅghāṭi, saying, “I relinquish this saṅghāṭi,” take a new saṅghāṭi in hand, and with mental intent and bodily gesture, determine it by body, saying, “I determine this saṅghāṭi.” This is bodily determination; it is not permissible without touching some body part. For speech determination, break into speech and determine by speech. There are two kinds: if within arm’s reach, break speech with, “I determine this saṅghāṭi.” If in a room, upstairs, or nearby monastery, note its place and break speech with, “I determine that saṅghāṭi.” The same applies to the uttarāsaṅga and antaravāsaka. The difference is only in name; thus, all—saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅga, antaravāsaka—must be determined by their own names. If, after determining, one makes a saṅghāṭi or the like from stored cloth, when dyeing and measuring are done, relinquish with, “I relinquish this,” and determine again. Sewing a larger second cloth or patch with a determined one requires redetermination. For equal or smaller sizes, no determination is needed.

Here, since it is said, “There are two determinations of a robe: one determines it by body or one determines it by speech” (Pari. 322), therefore, having formally relinquished the old outer robe, saying, “I formally relinquish this outer robe,” and taking the new outer robe in hand, one should determine it by body by making an intention in the mind, “I determine this outer robe,” and making a bodily action. This is determination by body; it is not allowable for one who does not touch it with any part of the body. But in determination by speech, one should determine it by speech, making a verbal distinction. Here, there are two kinds of determination: if it is within hand’s reach, one should utter the words, “I determine this outer robe.” But if it is in an inner room, on an upper story, or in a neighboring monastery, one should specify the place where it is kept and utter the words, “I determine this outer robe.” The same principle applies to the upper robe and the under robe. For only the name is different; therefore, all should be determined by their own names, such as outer robe, upper robe, and under robe. If one makes an outer robe and so on from cloths that have been kept after being determined, when it is finished, dyed, and marked, one should formally relinquish it, saying, “I formally relinquish this,” and determine it again. But when sewing a second layer or a patch that is larger than the determined one, one should determine it again. There is no need for determination if it is the same size or smaller.

Since it is said, “There are two ways to determine a robe: by body or by speech” (pari. 322), one should first withdraw the old upper robe, saying, “I withdraw this upper robe,” then take the new upper robe in hand and determine it by bodily action, focusing the mind and making a bodily gesture. This is determination by body, and it is not valid if done without touching any part of the body. Determination by speech requires verbal expression. There are two ways: if the robe is within arm’s reach, one should say, “I determine this upper robe,” breaking the speech. If it is in an inner room, upper terrace, or nearby monastery, one should note its location and say, “I determine that upper robe,” breaking the speech. The same applies to the outer robe and the inner robe. The only difference is the name, so all should be determined using their own names. If one determines and then makes a robe with the determined cloth, after dyeing and marking, one should withdraw it, saying, “I withdraw this,” and determine it again. If one sews a larger second piece or a patch with the determined cloth, one should determine it again. There is no need for determination if the pieces are the same or smaller.

Ticīvaraṃ pana parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? Mahāpadumatthero kirāha “ticīvaraṃ ticīvarameva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, sace parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānaṃ labheyya, udositasikkhāpade parihāro niratthako bhaveyyā”ti. Evaṃ vutte kira avasesā bhikkhū āhaṃsu “parikkhāracoḷampi bhagavatāva ’adhiṭṭhātabba’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā vaṭṭatī”ti. Mahāpaccariyampi vuttaṃ “parikkhāracoḷaṃ nāma pāṭekkaṃ nidhānamukhametaṃ. Ticīvaraṃ ’parikkhāracoḷa’nti adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, udositasikkhāpade (pārā. 471 ādayo) pana ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā pariharantassa parihāro vutto”ti. Ubhatovibhaṅgabhāṇako puṇṇavālikavāsī mahātissattheropi kirāha “mayaṃ pubbe mahātherānaṃ assumhā ’araññavāsino bhikkhū rukkhasusirādīsu cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā padhānaṃ padahanatthāya gacchanti, sāmantavihāre dhammassavanatthāya gatānañca tesaṃ sūriye uṭṭhite sāmaṇerā vā daharabhikkhū vā pattacīvaraṃ gahetvā gacchanti, tasmā sukhaparibhogatthaṃ ticīvaraṃ parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭatī”’ti. Mahāpaccariyampi vuttaṃ “pubbe āraññikā bhikkhū abaddhasīmāya dupparihāranti ticīvaraṃ parikkhāracoḷameva adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjiṃsū”ti.

However, is it permissible or not permissible to determine the triple robe as a parikkhāracoḷa? It is said that the Elder Mahāpaduma declared, “The triple robe should be determined solely as the triple robe. If it were permissible to determine it as a parikkhāracoḷa, the exemption in the udositasikkhāpada would become meaningless.” When this was said, it is reported that the remaining monks responded, “Even the parikkhāracoḷa was declared by the Blessed One as something to be determined, therefore it is permissible.” It is also stated in the Mahāpaccariya, “The parikkhāracoḷa is essentially a separate item for storage. It is permissible to determine the triple robe as a ‘parikkhāracoḷa’ and use it accordingly. However, in the udositasikkhāpada (pārā. 471 onwards), an exemption is mentioned for one who determines and wears the triple robe.” It is also said that the Elder Mahātissa, a reciter of both Vibhaṅgas and a resident of Puṇṇavālika, stated, “We heard from the great elders in the past, ‘Monks dwelling in the forest leave their robes in tree hollows and such places to go for meditation practice. When they go to a neighboring monastery to hear the Dhamma and the sun rises, novices or young monks take their bowls and robes and depart. Therefore, for the sake of ease of use, it is permissible to determine the triple robe as a parikkhāracoḷa.’” It is also stated in the Mahāpaccariya, “In the past, forest-dwelling monks, considering it difficult to wear in an unbound area, determined the triple robe solely as a parikkhāracoḷa and used it accordingly.”

But is it allowable or not allowable to determine the triple robe as requisite cloth? Mahāpadumatthera said, “The triple robe should be determined only as the triple robe; if determination as requisite cloth were allowed, the training rule regarding exceeding the ten-day period would be meaningless.” When this was said, the remaining monks said, “Even requisite cloth is said by the Blessed One to be ‘determinable’; therefore, it is allowable.” It is also said in the Mahāpaccariya, “Requisite cloth is a separate category for putting aside. It is allowable to determine the triple robe as ‘requisite cloth’ and use it; but in the training rule regarding exceeding the ten-day period (Pārā. 471 and onwards), the allowance is stated for one who keeps the triple robe after determining it.” It is also said that Mahātissatthera of Puṇṇavālika, a reciter of both Vibhaṅgas, said, “We heard from the elders in the past, ‘Forest-dwelling monks leave their robes in tree hollows and so on and go to practice meditation. When those who have gone to a neighboring monastery for listening to the Dhamma have the sun rise on them, novices or young monks take their bowls and robes and go. Therefore, for the sake of comfortable use, it is allowable to determine the triple robe as requisite cloth.’” It is also said in the Mahāpaccariya, “In the past, forest-dwelling monks, because it was difficult to maintain in an unbounded boundary, determined the triple robe as requisite cloth and used it.”

Now, is it permissible to determine the accessory robe as the triple robe, or not? The Elder Mahāpaduma is said to have declared, “The triple robe should be determined as the triple robe itself. If one were to determine the accessory robe as such, the allowance under the Uddosita Sikkhāpada would become meaningless.” When this was said, the remaining monks reportedly said, “The accessory robe has also been declared by the Blessed One as something to be determined; therefore, it is permissible.” Mahāpaccariya also states, “The accessory robe is a separate storage item. It is permissible to determine the triple robe as the ‘accessory robe’ and then use it. However, under the Uddosita Sikkhāpada (Pārā. 471, etc.), the allowance is given for one who carries the triple robe after determining it.” The reciter of both Vibhaṅgas, the Elder Mahātissa of Puṇṇavālika, is also said to have stated, “We have heard from the great elders that monks dwelling in the forest leave their robes in tree hollows or other places and go to practice meditation. When they go to nearby monasteries to listen to the Dhamma, and the sun rises, novice monks or young monks take their bowl and robe and go to them. Therefore, for the sake of ease in use, it is permissible to determine the triple robe as the accessory robe.” Mahāpaccariya also states, “In the past, forest-dwelling monks, living in areas without fixed boundaries, used to determine the triple robe as the accessory robe and then use it.”

45. Vassikasāṭikā anatirittappamāṇā nāmaṃ gahetvā vuttanayeneva cattāro vassike māse adhiṭṭhātabbā, tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā. Vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭati, dve pana na vaṭṭanti. Nisīdanaṃ vuttanayena adhiṭṭhātabbameva, tañca kho pamāṇayuttaṃ ekameva, dve na vaṭṭanti. Paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabbameva, taṃ pana mahantampi vaṭṭati, ekampi vaṭṭati, bahūnipi vaṭṭanti, nīlampi pītakampi sadasampi pupphadasampīti sabbappakāraṃ vaṭṭati. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi yāva ābādho atthi, tāva pamāṇikā adhiṭṭhātabbā. Ābādhe vūpasante paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, ekāva vaṭṭati. Mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva, yāva ekaṃ dhovīyati, tāva aññaṃ paribhogatthāya icchitabbanti dvepi vaṭṭanti. Apare pana therā “nidhānamukhametaṃ, bahūnipi vaṭṭantī”ti vadanti. Parikkhāracoḷe gaṇanā natthi, yattakaṃ icchati, tattakaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Thavikāpi parissāvanampi vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ “parikkhāracoḷa”nti adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Tassa pamāṇaṃ dīghato dve vidatthiyo tiriyaṃ vidatthi, taṃ pana dīghato vaḍḍhakīhatthappamāṇaṃ, vitthārato tato upaḍḍhappamāṇaṃ hoti. Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āyāmena aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ sugataṅgulena caturaṅgulavitthataṃ pacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358). Bahūnipi ekato katvā “imāni cīvarāni parikkhāracoḷāni adhiṭṭhāmī”ti adhiṭṭhātumpi vaṭṭatiyeva. Bhesajjanavakammamātāpituādīnaṃ atthāya ṭhapentena anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpatti. Mañcabhisi pīṭhabhisi bimbohanaṃ pāvāro kojavoti etesu pana senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇe ca adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthiyeva.

45. The vassikasāṭikā, a rain robe of standard measure, should be determined for the four months of the rainy season in the manner described, and thereafter it should be relinquished and placed under shared ownership (vikappetabbā). Even if it differs only in color, it is permissible, but two are not permissible. The nisīdana should indeed be determined in the manner described, and it must be of standard measure and only one; two are not permissible. The paccattharaṇa should also be determined, and even a large one is permissible, one is permissible, and many are permissible—whether blue, yellow, white, or adorned with flowers—all types are permissible. The kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi should be determined according to measure as long as an ailment persists. When the ailment subsides, it should be relinquished and placed under shared ownership; only one is permissible. The mukhapuñchanacoḷa should indeed be determined, and since one is being washed, another may be desired for use, so two are permissible. However, some elders say, “This is an opportunity for accumulation; even many are permissible.” For the parikkhāracoḷa, there is no limit to the number; as many as one desires should indeed be determined. The thavikā and the parissāvana—even those of the size of the last robe suitable for shared ownership—should indeed be determined as a “parikkhāracoḷa.” Its measure is two vidatthis in length and one vidatthi in width, though in length it is the measure of a carpenter’s hand, and in width, it is half that measure. Here is the Pali text: “I allow, monks, a last robe for shared ownership measuring eight fingerbreadths in length by the Sugata’s finger and four fingerbreadths in width” (mahāva. 358). It is also permissible to determine many together by saying, “I determine these robes as parikkhāracoḷa.” For the sake of medicines, novices, parents, and so forth, there is no offense even if they are not determined. However, for a bed cover, a seat cover, a cushion, a mantle, or a carpet, and for a paccattharaṇa given for the sake of monastery requisites, there is indeed no need for determination.

45. The rains cloth, of the non-excessive size, should be determined by taking the name, in the manner stated, for the four months of the rainy season; after that, it should be formally relinquished and relinquished. Even if it is only dyed a different color, it is allowable, but two are not allowable. The sitting cloth should only be determined in the manner stated, and it should be of the proper size, only one; two are not allowable. The spread should also only be determined; but it is allowable even if it is large, even if it is one, even if there are many; even if it is blue, even if it is yellow, even if it has a border, even if it has a border of flowers, all kinds are allowable. The itch-covering cloth should be determined of the proper size for as long as there is an illness. When the illness is pacified, it should be formally relinquished and relinquished; only one is allowable. The face-wiping cloth should only be determined; as long as one is being washed, two are allowable, desiring another for use. But other elders say, “This is a category for putting aside; many are allowable.” In requisite cloths, there is no counting; as many as one wishes, so many should only be determined. Even a bag and a filter cloth, of the size of the last robe that is not subject to relinquishment, should only be determined as “requisite cloth.” Its size is two spans in length and one span in width; but that is the length according to a carpenter’s handspan, and the width is half of that. Here is the Pāḷi: “Monks, I allow the last robe, eight fingerbreadths in length by the Sugata’s fingerbreadth, four fingerbreadths wide, to be relinquished” (Mahāva. 358). It is also allowable to put many together and determine them, saying, “I determine these robes as requisite cloths.” There is no offense even in keeping it undetermined for the sake of medicine, new work, parents, and so on. But in a mattress, a cushion, a pillow, a blanket, a coverlet, and a spread given for the purpose of dwelling requisites, there is no need for determination.

45. The rainy-season robe, not exceeding the prescribed measurement, should be determined for the four months of the rainy season as previously explained. After that, it should be withdrawn and reassigned. Even if there is a difference in color, it is permissible, but two robes are not allowed. The sitting cloth should be determined as previously explained, and it should be of the appropriate size, only one, as two are not allowed. The covering cloth should also be determined, and it can be large, small, or even multiple, and it can be of any color, including yellow, white, or flower-stained. The itching powder cloth should be determined as long as the illness persists. When the illness subsides, it should be withdrawn and reassigned, and only one is allowed. The face-wiping cloth should be determined, and as long as one is being washed, another may be sought for use, so two are allowed. Other elders say, “This is a storage item; even many are allowed.” In the case of the accessory robe, there is no limit; as much as one wishes, that much may be determined. The bag and the water-strainer should also be determined as the size of the last robe assigned as the “accessory robe.” Its measurement is two spans in length and one span in width, but in length, it should be the size of a carpenter’s cubit, and in width, half of that. Here is the Pāḷi: “I allow, monks, a last robe to be assigned with a length of eight Sugata inches and a width of four inches” (Mahāva. 358). Even if many robes are bundled together, it is permissible to determine them as “accessory robes.” There is no offense for one who sets aside medicine, materials for parents, etc., without determining them. For beds, chairs, pillows, cushions, and canopies, there is no need for determination when given for the purpose of lodging.

Sace pana (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.636-38) ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato suttaṃ labhitvā ñātakapavāriteneva tantavāyena aññena vā mūlaṃ datvā cīvaraṃ vāyāpeti, vāyāpanapaccayā anāpatti. Dasāhātikkamanapaccayā pana āpattiṃ rakkhantena vikappanupagappamāṇamatte vīte tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Dasāhātikkamena niṭṭhāpiyamānañhi nissaggiyaṃ bhaveyyāti. Ñātakādīhi tantaṃ āropāpetvā “tumhākaṃ, bhante, idaṃ cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti niyyātitepi eseva nayo.

If, however, (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.636-38) one obtains thread from a place invited by relatives and has a robe woven by that invited relative or another weaver after providing the cost, there is no offense due to the weaving. But to avoid an offense due to exceeding ten days, it should be determined while still on the loom, within the size suitable for shared ownership. For if it is completed beyond ten days, it becomes subject to forfeiture. Even if relatives set up the loom and say, “Venerable, take this robe,” the same method applies.

But if (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.636-38) one obtains thread from a known and authorized place and has a robe woven by a known and authorized weaver or another, giving the price, there is no offense due to the act of having it woven. But one who protects against the offense due to exceeding the ten-day period should determine it while it is still in the loom, with only the amount of thread that is subject to relinquishment woven. For if it is completed exceeding the ten-day period, it would become subject to forfeiture. The same principle applies even if one has the thread set up by known people and so on, and they offer it, saying, “Venerable sir, please take this robe of yours.”

If (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.636-38) one obtains thread from a relative’s designated place and has a robe woven by a relative’s weaver or another weaver by giving the payment, there is no offense for causing it to be woven. However, to avoid an offense beyond ten days, one should determine the robe while the thread remains unspun, within the size suitable for assignment. If it is completed beyond ten days, it becomes forfeitable. The same applies if relatives have the thread spun and say, “Venerable, please accept this robe.”

Sace tantavāyo evaṃ payojito vā sayaṃ dātukāmo vā hutvā “ahaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ cīvaraṃ asukadivase nāma vāyitvā ṭhapessāmī”ti vadati, bhikkhu ca tena paricchinnadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmeti, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana tantavāyo “ahaṃ tumhākaṃ cīvaraṃ vāyitvā sāsanaṃ pesessāmī”ti vatvā tatheva karoti, tena pesitabhikkhu pana tassa bhikkhuno na āroceti, añño disvā vā sutvā vā “tumhākaṃ, bhante, cīvaraṃ niṭṭhita”nti āroceti, etassa ārocanaṃ na pamāṇaṃ. Yadā pana tena pesitoyeva āroceti, tassa vacanaṃ sutadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

If a weaver, either commissioned or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable, I will weave a robe for you and set it aside on such-and-such a day,” and the monk exceeds ten days from that specified day, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. However, if the weaver says, “I will weave a robe for you and send a message,” and does so accordingly, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, seeing or hearing it, says, “Venerable, your robe is finished,” that statement is not authoritative. Only when the one sent by him informs him, and from the day he hears that statement he exceeds ten days, does it become a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

If a weaver, thus employed or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable sir, I will weave your robe and have it ready on such and such a day,” and the monk exceeds ten days from the day specified by him, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. But if the weaver says, “I will weave your robe and send a message,” and does so, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, having seen or heard, informs him, “Venerable sir, your robe is finished,” this information is not authoritative. But when the one sent by him informs him, exceeding ten days from the day he heard his words is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

If the weaver, being commissioned or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable, I will weave your robe and keep it ready on such-and-such a day,” and the monk exceeds ten days from that specified day, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the weaver says, “I will weave your robe and send you a message,” and does so, but the monk who receives the message does not inform the original monk, and another monk sees or hears and informs him, “Venerable, your robe is ready,” this notification is not valid. However, if the one who sent the message informs him, and the monk exceeds ten days from the day he hears the message, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.

Sace tantavāyo “ahaṃ tumhākaṃ cīvaraṃ vāyitvā kassaci hatthe pahiṇissāmī”ti vatvā tatheva karoti, cīvaraṃ gahetvā gatabhikkhu pana attano pariveṇe ṭhapetvā tassa na āroceti, añño koci bhaṇati “api, bhante, adhunā ābhataṃ cīvaraṃ sundara”nti. Kuhiṃ, āvuso, cīvaranti. Itthannāmassa hatthe pesitanti. Etassapi vacanaṃ na pamāṇaṃ. Yadā pana so bhikkhu cīvaraṃ deti, laddhadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana vāyāpanamūlaṃ adinnaṃ hoti, yāva kākaṇikamattampi avasiṭṭhaṃ, tāva rakkhati.

If the weaver says, “I will weave a robe for you and send it by someone’s hand,” and does so accordingly, but the monk who takes the robe places it in his own quarters and does not inform him, and someone else says, “Venerable, isn’t the robe brought just now beautiful?” “Where, friend, is the robe?” “It was sent by so-and-so’s hand.” That statement, too, is not authoritative. Only when that monk gives the robe, and from the day it is received he exceeds ten days, does it become a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. However, if the cost of weaving has not been given, he guards it as long as even a small amount remains.

If the weaver says, “I will weave your robe and send it in the hands of someone,” and does so, but the monk who took the robe keeps it in his own dwelling and does not inform him, and another says, “Venerable sir, the robe that was brought just now is beautiful.” “Where, friend, is the robe?” “It was sent in the hands of so-and-so.” This person’s words are also not authoritative. But when that monk gives the robe, exceeding ten days from the day he received it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. But if the price for weaving has not been given, as long as even a kākaṇika remains, it protects.

If the weaver says, “I will weave your robe and send it to someone’s hand,” and does so, and the monk who receives the robe places it in his own dwelling without informing the original monk, and another monk says, “Venerable, a beautiful robe has just been brought,” and when asked, “Where is the robe?” he replies, “It has been sent to so-and-so’s hand,” this statement is also not valid. However, if the monk gives the robe, and ten days are exceeded from the day he receives it, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the payment for weaving is not fully given, even if a small amount remains, it is still protected.

46. Adhiṭṭhitacīvaraṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) pana paribhuñjato kathaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti ? Aññassa dānena acchinditvā gahaṇena vissāsaggāhena hīnāyāvattanena sikkhāpaccakkhānena kālakiriyāya liṅgaparivattanena paccuddharaṇena chiddabhāvenāti imehi navahi kāraṇehi vijahati. Tattha purimehi aṭṭhahi sabbacīvarāni adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahanti, chiddabhāvena pana ticīvarasseva sabbaṭṭhakathāsu adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ vuttaṃ, tañca nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇena chiddena. Tattha nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhavasena veditabbaṃ, chiddañca vinividdhachiddameva. Chiddassa hi abbhantare ekatantu cepi acchinno hoti, rakkhati. Tattha saṅghāṭiyā ca uttarāsaṅgassa ca dīghantato vidatthippamāṇassa, tiriyantato aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇassa padesassa orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, antaravāsakassa pana dīghantato vidatthippamāṇasseva, tiriyantato caturaṅgulappamāṇassa padesassa orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, parato na bhindati, tasmā jāte chidde ticīvaraṃ atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, sūcikammaṃ katvā puna adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Yo pana dubbalaṭṭhāne paṭhamaṃ aggaḷaṃ datvā pacchā dubbalaṭṭhānaṃ chinditvā apaneti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na bhijjati. Maṇḍalaparivattanepi eseva nayo. Dupaṭṭassa ekasmiṃ paṭale chidde vā jāte gaḷite vā adhiṭṭhānaṃ na bhijjati, khuddakaṃ cīvaraṃ mahantaṃ karoti, mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karoti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na bhijjati. Ubho koṭiyo majjhe karonto sace paṭhamaṃ chinditvā pacchā ghaṭeti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhijjati. Atha ghaṭetvā chindati, na bhijjati. Rajakehi dhovāpetvā setaṃ kārāpentassapi adhiṭṭhānaṃ adhiṭṭhānamevāti. Ayaṃ tāva adhiṭṭhāne vinicchayo.

46. How does a determined robe (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) cease to be determined when used? It ceases through nine reasons: by giving it to another, by taking it without cutting it off, by confident acceptance, by reverting to a lower state, by renouncing the training, by death, by changing gender, by relinquishing it, or by being torn. Among these, the first eight cause all robes to cease being determined, but according to all commentaries, being torn causes only the triple robe to cease being determined, and that with a tear the size of a fingernail’s back. Here, the size of a fingernail’s back should be understood as that of the little finger’s nail, and the tear must be a perforated one. For if even a single thread remains uncut within the tear, it remains intact. In that case, for the saṅghāṭi and the uttarāsaṅga, a tear within a section measuring one vidatthi from the long edge and eight fingerbreadths from the width edge breaks the determination; for the antaravāsaka, a tear within a section measuring one vidatthi from the long edge and four fingerbreadths from the width edge breaks the determination, but not beyond that. Thus, when a tear occurs, the triple robe stands as an extra robe, and after sewing it, it must be determined again. However, if one first applies a patch to a weak spot and later cuts away the weak area, the determination does not break. The same applies to circular mending. If a tear or wear occurs in one layer of a double-layered robe, the determination does not break. If a small robe is made large or a large one made small, the determination does not break. If one makes both ends the middle, cutting first and joining later breaks the determination, but joining first and cutting later does not break it. Even if it is washed by dyers and made white, the determination remains intact. This is the decision regarding determination.

46. How does a determined robe (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469) lose its determination for one who is using it? By giving it to another, by taking it without being deprived, by accepting it out of trust, by returning to the lower life, by renouncing the training, by death, by change of gender, by formal relinquishment, and by becoming torn – by these nine reasons, it loses it. Here, by the first eight, all robes lose their determination; but by becoming torn, the loss of determination is stated in all commentaries only for the triple robe, and that is by a tear the size of a fingernail. Here, the size of a fingernail should be understood as the fingernail of the little finger, and the tear is only a tear that goes right through. For if even one thread inside the tear remains unbroken, it protects. Here, a tear within the area of a span in length and eight fingerbreadths in width of the outer robe and the upper robe breaks the determination; but a tear within the area of a span in length and four fingerbreadths in width of the under robe breaks the determination; beyond that, it does not break it. Therefore, when a tear occurs, the triple robe remains in the position of an extra robe; needlework should be done, and it should be determined again. But if one first applies a patch in a weak place and then cuts out and removes the weak place, the determination is not broken. The same principle applies to changing a patch. If one layer of a double-layered robe is torn or worn out, the determination is not broken. If one makes a small robe large or a large robe small, the determination is not broken. If one makes both ends the middle, if one first cuts and then joins, the determination is broken. But if one joins and then cuts, it is not broken. Even for one who has it washed by washermen and made white, the determination is still determination. This is the determination regarding determination.

46. How does the determination of a robe lapse for one who is using it? It lapses through nine causes: giving it to another, seizing it by force, taking it on trust, reverting to a lower state, renouncing the training, death, changing one’s gender, withdrawing it, or through damage. Among these, the first eight causes cause the determination of all robes to lapse. However, in all the commentaries, it is stated that the determination of the triple robe lapses only through damage, and that damage must be the size of a fingernail. Here, the size of a fingernail should be understood as the smallest finger’s nail, and the damage must be a clear cut. If even a single thread remains unbroken inside the damage, it is still protected. For the upper robe and the outer robe, a damage of one span in length and eight inches in width on the front side causes the determination to lapse. For the lower robe, a damage of one span in length and four inches in width on the front side causes the determination to lapse, but not on the back. Therefore, if such a damage occurs, the triple robe remains as an extra robe, and it should be repaired and determined again. If one first reinforces a weak spot and later cuts it, the determination does not lapse. The same applies if the robe is turned inside out. If a double-layered robe has a damage or a hole in one layer, the determination does not lapse. Making a small robe large or a large robe small does not cause the determination to lapse. If one cuts the middle of both ends and then joins them, the determination lapses. However, if one joins them and then cuts, it does not lapse. Even if one has it washed by a washerman and made white, the determination remains. This is the analysis regarding the lapse of determination.

47. Vikappane pana dve vikappanā sammukhāvikappanā parammukhāvikappanā ca. Kathaṃ sammukhāvikappanā hoti? Cīvarānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā “imaṃ cīvara”nti vā “imāni cīvarānī”ti vā “etaṃ cīvara”nti vā “etāni cīvarānī”ti vā vatvā “tuyhaṃ vikappemī”ti vattabbaṃ, ayamekā sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhuñjituṃ pana vissajjetuṃ vā adhiṭṭhātuṃ vā na vaṭṭati. “Mayhaṃ santakaṃ, mayhaṃ santakāni paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī”ti evaṃ pana vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

47. In vikappana, however, there are two types of shared ownership: sammukhāvikappanā and parammukhāvikappanā. How does sammukhāvikappanā occur? Knowing the singularity or plurality of robes and whether they are present or absent, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then say, “I place it under your shared ownership.” This is one form of sammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it, but it is not permissible to use, give away, or determine it. However, if one says, “It belongs to me; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

47. In relinquishment, there are two relinquishments: face-to-face relinquishment and not-face-to-face relinquishment. How is face-to-face relinquishment? Knowing the singularity or plurality of the robes, and whether they are present or not, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then say, “I relinquish it to you”; this is one face-to-face relinquishment. With this much, it is allowable to put it aside, but it is not allowable to use it, to give it away, or to determine it. But when one says, “Use what is mine, give away what is mine, or do as is appropriate with what is mine,” this is called formal relinquishment; from then on, use and so on are also allowable.

47. In assignment, there are two types of assignment: face-to-face assignment and indirect assignment. How is face-to-face assignment done? Knowing whether the robes are single or multiple and whether they are present or not, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then say, “I assign this to you.” This is one type of face-to-face assignment. Up to this point, it is permissible to store it, but not to use, give away, or determine it. However, if one says, “This is my property; use it, give it away, or do as you see fit,” this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., are permissible.

Aparo nayo – tatheva cīvarānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā tasseva bhikkhuno santike “imaṃ cīvara”nti vā “imāni cīvarānī”ti vā “etaṃ cīvara”nti vā “etāni cīvarānī”ti vā vatvā pañcasu sahadhammikesu aññatarassa attanā abhirucitassa yassa kassaci nāmaṃ gahetvā “tissassa bhikkhuno vikappemī”ti vā “tissāya bhikkhuniyā, tissāya sikkhamānāya, tissassa sāmaṇerassa, tissāya sāmaṇeriyā vikappemī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, ayaṃ aparāpi sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhogādīsu pana ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā “tissassa bhikkhuno santakaṃ…pe… tissāya sāmaṇeriyā santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī”ti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

Another method—knowing the singularity or plurality of robes and whether they are present or absent in the same way, in the presence of that monk, one says, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists as one prefers, one should say, “I place it under the shared ownership of the monk Tissa,” or “of the nun Tissā, the female trainee Tissā, the novice Tissa, or the female novice Tissā.” This is another form of sammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it, but none of the uses and so forth are permissible. However, if that monk says, “It belongs to the monk Tissa… or the female novice Tissā; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

Another method: in the same way, knowing the singularity or plurality of the robes, and whether they are present or not, in the presence of that very monk, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and taking the name of any one of the five fellow practitioners whom one prefers, one should say, “I relinquish it to the monk Tissa” or “I relinquish it to the bhikkhunī Tissā, to the probationer Tissā, to the novice Tissa, to the novice Tissā”; this is another face-to-face relinquishment. With this much, it is allowable to put it aside, but none of the uses and so on are allowable. But when that monk says, “Use what belongs to the monk Tissa… (as before)… what belongs to the novice Tissā, give it away, or do as is appropriate,” this is called formal relinquishment; from then on, use and so on are also allowable.

Another method: Similarly, knowing whether the robes are single or multiple and whether they are present or not, one should say in the presence of the monk, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then, naming one of five suitable recipients—a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, or a female novice—say, “I assign this to Monk Tissa” or “to Nun Tissa,” etc. This is another type of face-to-face assignment. Up to this point, it is permissible to store it, but not to use it, etc. However, if the monk says, “This is Monk Tissa’s property… use it, give it away, or do as you see fit,” this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., are permissible.

Kathaṃ parammukhāvikappanā hoti? Cīvarānaṃ tatheva ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā “imaṃ cīvara”nti vā “imāni cīvarānī”ti vā “etaṃ cīvara”nti vā “etāni cīvarānī”ti vā vatvā “tuyhaṃ vikappanatthāya dammī”ti vattabbaṃ. Tena vattabbo “ko te mitto vā sandiṭṭho vā”ti. Tato itarena purimanayeneva “tisso bhikkhū”ti vā…pe… “tissā sāmaṇerī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Puna tena bhikkhunā “ahaṃ tissassa bhikkhuno dammī”ti vā…pe… “tissāya sāmaṇeriyā dammī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, ayaṃ parammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhogādīsu pana ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā dutiyasammukhāvikappanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva “itthannāmassa santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī”ti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

How does parammukhāvikappanā occur? Knowing the singularity or plurality of robes and whether they are present or absent in the same way, one says, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then says, “I give it to you for the purpose of shared ownership.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then the other should say, as in the previous method, “The monk Tissa” or… “the female novice Tissā.” Then that monk should say, “I give it to the monk Tissa” or… “to the female novice Tissā.” This is parammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it, but none of the uses and so forth are permissible. However, if that monk says, in the manner stated in the second sammukhāvikappanā, “It belongs to so-and-so; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

How is not-face-to-face relinquishment? Knowing the singularity or plurality of the robes, and whether they are present or not, in the same way, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then say, “I give it to you for the purpose of relinquishment.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then the other should say, as in the previous method, “The monk Tissa” or… (as before)… “The novice Tissā.” Then that monk should say, “I give it to the monk Tissa” or… (as before)… “I give it to the novice Tissā”; this is not-face-to-face relinquishment. With this much, it is allowable to put it aside, but none of the uses and so on are allowable. But when that monk says, as stated in the second face-to-face relinquishment, “Use what belongs to so-and-so, give it away, or do as is appropriate,” this is called formal relinquishment; from then on, use and so on are also allowable.

How is indirect assignment done? Similarly, knowing whether the robes are single or multiple and whether they are present or not, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes” or “That robe” or “Those robes,” and then say, “I give this to you for assignment.” The other should ask, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then, as before, one should say, “Monk Tissa,” etc. Then the monk should say, “I give this to Monk Tissa,” etc. This is indirect assignment. Up to this point, it is permissible to store it, but not to use it, etc. However, if the monk, as in the second type of face-to-face assignment, says, “This is so-and-so’s property; use it, give it away, or do as you see fit,” this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., are permissible.

Dvinnaṃ vikappanānaṃ kiṃ nānākaraṇaṃ? Sammukhāvikappanāyaṃ sayaṃ vikappetvā parena paccuddharāpeti, parammukhāvikappanāyaṃ pareneva vikappāpetvā pareneva paccuddharāpeti, idamettha nānākaraṇaṃ. Sace pana yassa vikappeti, so paññattikovido na hoti, na jānāti paccuddharituṃ, taṃ cīvaraṃ gahetvā aññassa byattassa santikaṃ gantvā puna vikappetvā parena paccuddharāpetabbaṃ. Vikappitavikappanā nāmesā vaṭṭati. Evaṃ tāva cīvare adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayo veditabbo.

What is the difference between the two types of vikappana? In sammukhāvikappanā, one places it under shared ownership oneself and has it relinquished by another; in parammukhāvikappanā, it is placed under shared ownership by another and relinquished by another. This is the distinction here. If the one for whom it is placed under shared ownership is not skilled in designation and does not know how to relinquish it, that robe should be taken to another competent person, placed under shared ownership again, and relinquished by the other. This repeated vikappana is indeed permissible. Thus, the methods of determination and shared ownership regarding robes should be understood.

What is the difference between the two relinquishments? In face-to-face relinquishment, one relinquishes it oneself and has another formally relinquish it; in not-face-to-face relinquishment, one has another relinquish it and has another formally relinquish it; this is the difference here. But if the one to whom one relinquishes it is not knowledgeable and skilled, and does not know how to formally relinquish it, one should take that robe, go to the presence of another who is learned, relinquish it again, and have the other formally relinquish it. This is called relinquished relinquishment; it is allowable. Thus, the principle of determination and relinquishment regarding robes should be understood.

What is the difference between the two types of assignment? In face-to-face assignment, one assigns it oneself and has another withdraw it. In indirect assignment, one has another assign it and another withdraw it. This is the difference. If the one to whom it is assigned is not skilled in the rules and does not know how to withdraw it, one should take the robe, go to another skilled monk, and have it assigned and withdrawn again. This is called re-assignment. Thus, the method of determination and assignment regarding robes should be understood.

48. Patte pana ayaṃ nayo – pattaṃ adhiṭṭhahantena ukkaṭṭhamajjhimomakānaṃ aññataro pamāṇayuttova adhiṭṭhātabbo. Tassa pamāṇaṃ “aḍḍhāḷhakodanaṃ gaṇhātī”tiādinā (pārā. 602) nayena pāḷiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602 ādayo) – anupahatapurāṇasālitaṇḍulānaṃ sukoṭṭitaparisuddhānaṃ dve magadhanāḷiyo gahetvā tehi taṇḍulehi anuttaṇḍulamakilinnamapiṇḍitaṃ suvisadaṃ kundamakuḷarāsisadisaṃ avassāvitodanaṃ pacitvā niravasesaṃ patte pakkhipitvā tassa odanassa catutthabhāgappamāṇo nātighano nātitanuko hatthahāriyo sabbasambhārasaṅkhato muggasūpo pakkhipitabbo, tato ālopassa ālopassa anurūpaṃ yāvacarimālopappahonakaṃ macchamaṃsādibyañjanaṃ pakkhipitabbaṃ, sappitelatakkarasakañjikādīni pana gaṇanūpagāni na honti. Tāni hi odanagatikāni honti, neva hāpetuṃ, na vaḍḍhetuṃ sakkonti. Evametaṃ sabbampi pakkhittaṃ sace pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyā heṭṭhimarājisamaṃ tiṭṭhati, suttena vā hīrena vā chindantassa suttassa vā hīrassa vā heṭṭhimantaṃ phusati, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭho nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ atikkamma thūpīkataṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭhomako nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ na sampāpuṇāti antogadhameva hoti, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭho nāma patto.

48. Regarding the bowl, this is the method—one who determines a bowl should determine one of proper measure, whether superior, middling, or inferior. Its measure is stated in the Pali text as follows: “It holds half an āḷhaka of rice…” (pārā. 602). Here is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602 onwards)—taking two Magadha nāḷis of unspoiled, old sāḷi rice, well-hulled and pure, cook rice without unhusked grains, unmixed and lump-free, clear as a heap of jasmine buds, and place it entirely in the bowl. Then add a mung bean soup prepared with all ingredients, one-fourth the amount of the rice, neither too thick nor too thin, suitable to be taken by hand. Then add condiments such as fish or meat, appropriate to each morsel, sufficient up to the last morsel. Ghee, oil, curd, vinegar, and so forth are not subject to calculation, for they follow the rice and cannot be reduced or increased. If all this, when placed in the bowl, stands level with the lower rim of the bowl’s mouth, or if a thread or hair cutting it touches the lower edge of the thread or hair, this is called an ukkaṭṭha bowl. If it exceeds that rim and stands heaped, this is called an ukkaṭṭhomaka bowl. If it does not reach that rim and remains contained within, this is called an ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha bowl.

48. Here is the principle regarding bowls: when determining a bowl, one should determine only one of the proper size, among the highest, middle, and lowest. Its size is stated in the Pāḷi in the passage beginning, “It holds half an āḷhaka of rice” (Pārā. 602). Here is the determination (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602 and onwards): two Magadhan nāḷis of undamaged, old, well-husked, and clean rice grains should be taken, and with those rice grains, rice that is not overcooked, not sticky, not lumped together, very white, like a heap of jasmine buds, and not oozing liquid, should be cooked, and without leaving any out, it should be put into the bowl. One-fourth the amount of that rice, of mung bean soup that is not too thick nor too thin, mixed with all the ingredients, and easy to handle, should be put in. Then, for each serving, a corresponding amount of fish, meat, and other side dishes, sufficient for the last serving, should be put in. But ghee, oil, gruel, and so on are not included in the count. For they are in the category of rice; they can neither decrease nor increase it. If all this, thus put in, is level with the lower line of the rim of the bowl, or touches the lower edge of a thread or a strip when cutting with a thread or a strip, this is called the highest bowl. If it exceeds that line and is heaped up, this is called the lower highest bowl. If it does not reach that line and is inside, this is called the highest highest bowl.

48. Regarding bowls, the method is as follows: When determining a bowl, one should determine one of appropriate size, whether large, medium, or small. Its measurement is stated in the Pāḷi as “holding half an āḷhaka of rice,” etc. (Pārā. 602). Here is the analysis (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602, etc.): Taking two Magadhan āḷhikas of unspoiled, old, well-pounded, and thoroughly cleaned rice, cooking it into a lump-free, clear, and smooth rice resembling a heap of kunda flowers, placing it entirely in the bowl, and adding a fourth part of the rice’s volume of thick mung bean soup, not too thick or too thin, and easily carried by hand, along with all the accompaniments, then adding fish, meat, etc., in proportion to each mouthful until the last mouthful is reached. However, ghee, oil, honey, and gruel are not counted, as they follow the rice and cannot be increased or decreased. If all this, when placed in the bowl, reaches the lower rim, and when cut with a thread or hair, the thread or hair touches the lower edge, this is called a large bowl. If it exceeds the rim and forms a mound, this is called a large-medium bowl. If it does not reach the rim and remains within, this is called a very large bowl.

Ukkaṭṭhato upaḍḍhappamāṇo majjhimo nāma patto. Majjhimato upaḍḍhappamāṇo omako. Tasmā sace magadhanāḷiyā nāḷikodanādisabbampi pakkhittaṃ vuttanayeneva heṭṭhimarājisamaṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ majjhimo nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ atikkamma thūpīkataṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ majjhimomako nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ na sampāpuṇāti antogadhameva hoti, ayaṃ majjhimukkaṭṭho nāma patto. Sace magadhanāḷiyā upaḍḍhanāḷikodanādisabbampi pakkhittaṃ heṭṭhimarājisamaṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ omako nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ atikkamma thūpīkataṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ omakomako nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ na sampāpuṇāti antogadhameva hoti, ayaṃ omakukkaṭṭho nāma patto. Evamete nava pattā. Tesu dve apattā ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭho ca omakomako cāti. Tasmā ete bhājanaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbā, na adhiṭṭhānūpagā na vikappanūpagā. Itare pana satta adhiṭṭhahitvā vā vikappetvā vā paribhuñjitabbā.

A bowl half the measure of an ukkaṭṭha is called a majjhima. A bowl half the measure of a majjhima is called an omaka. Thus, if all the rice and so forth from one Magadha nāḷi, placed as described, stands level with the lower rim, this is called a majjhima bowl. If it exceeds that rim and stands heaped, this is called a majjhimomaka bowl. If it does not reach that rim and remains contained within, this is called a majjhimukkaṭṭha bowl. If all the rice and so forth from half a Magadha nāḷi, placed as described, stands level with the lower rim, this is called an omaka bowl. If it exceeds that rim and stands heaped, this is called an omakomaka bowl. If it does not reach that rim and remains contained within, this is called an omakukkaṭṭha bowl. Thus, there are these nine bowls. Among them, two are not proper bowls: the ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha and the omakomaka. Therefore, these should be used as vessels, not suitable for determination or shared ownership. The other seven, however, should be used after being determined or placed under shared ownership.

Half the size of the highest is called the middle bowl. Half the size of the middle is the lowest. Therefore, if all, starting with a nāḷika of rice, according to the Magadhan nāḷi, put in as stated, is level with the lower line, this is called the middle bowl. If it exceeds that line and is heaped up, this is called the lower middle bowl. If it does not reach that line and is inside, this is called the highest middle bowl. If all, starting with half a nāḷika of rice, according to the Magadhan nāḷi, put in, is level with the lower line, this is called the lowest bowl. If it exceeds that line and is heaped up, this is called the lower lowest bowl. If it does not reach that line and is inside, this is called the highest lowest bowl. Thus, there are these nine bowls. Of these, two are not bowls: the highest highest and the lower lowest. Therefore, these should be used as dishes; they are not subject to determination or relinquishment. But the other seven should be used after determining them or relinquishing them.

Half the size of the large bowl is called a medium bowl. Half the size of the medium bowl is called a small bowl. Therefore, if all the rice, etc., from one Magadhan āḷhika, when placed in the bowl as described, reaches the lower rim, this is called a medium bowl. If it exceeds the rim and forms a mound, this is called a medium-small bowl. If it does not reach the rim and remains within, this is called a medium-large bowl. If half a Magadhan āḷhika of rice, etc., when placed in the bowl, reaches the lower rim, this is called a small bowl. If it exceeds the rim and forms a mound, this is called a very small bowl. If it does not reach the rim and remains within, this is called a small-large bowl. Thus, there are nine types of bowls. Among these, two are not bowls: the very large and the very small. Therefore, these should be used as vessels but are not suitable for determination or assignment. The remaining seven should be determined or assigned and then used.

Pamāṇayuttānampi etesaṃ adhiṭṭhānavikappanūpagattaṃ evaṃ veditabbaṃ – ayopatto pañcahi pākehi, mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakko adhiṭṭhānūpago. Ubhopi yaṃ mūlaṃ dātabbaṃ, tasmiṃ dinneyeva. Sace ekopi pāko ūno hoti, kākaṇikamattampi vā mūlaṃ adinnaṃ, na adhiṭṭhānūpago. Sace pattasāmiko vadati “yadā tumhākaṃ mūlaṃ bhavissati, tadā dassatha adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjathā”ti, neva adhiṭṭhānūpago hoti, pākassa hi ūnattā pattasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati, mūlassa sakalassa vā ekadesassa vā adinnattā sakabhāvaṃ na upeti, aññasseva santako hoti, tasmā pāke ca mūle ca suniṭṭhiteyeva adhiṭṭhānūpago hoti. Yo adhiṭṭhānūpago, sveva vikappanūpago. So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabbo vā. Yadi hi pattakārako mūlaṃ labhitvā sayaṃ vā dātukāmo hutvā “ahaṃ bhante tumhākaṃ pattaṃ katvā asukadivase nāma pacitvā ṭhapessāmī”ti vadati, bhikkhu ca tena paricchinnadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmeti, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana pattakārako “ahaṃ tumhākaṃ pattaṃ katvā pacitvā sāsanaṃ pesessāmī”ti vatvā tatheva karoti, tena pesitabhikkhu pana tassa bhikkhuno na āroceti, añño disvā vā sutvā vā “tumhākaṃ, bhante, patto niṭṭhito”ti āroceti, etassa ārocanaṃ na pamāṇaṃ. Yadā pana tena pesitoyeva āroceti, tassa vacanaṃ sutadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana pattakārako “ahaṃ tumhākaṃ pattaṃ katvā pacitvā kassaci hatthe pahiṇissāmī”ti vatvā tatheva karoti, pattaṃ gahetvā āgatabhikkhu pana attano pariveṇe ṭhapetvā tassa na āroceti, añño koci bhaṇati “api, bhante, adhunā ābhato patto sundaro”ti. “Kuhiṃ, āvuso, patto”ti? “Itthannāmassa hatthe pesito”ti. Etassapi vacanaṃ na pamāṇaṃ. Yadā pana so bhikkhu pattaṃ deti, laddhadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, tasmā dasāhaṃ anatikkāmetvāva adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabbo vā.

Whether these bowls of proper measure are suitable for determination or shared ownership should be understood as follows—an iron bowl baked with five firings or an earthen bowl baked with two firings is suitable for determination. Both become so only when the cost is given. If even one firing is lacking or even a small amount of the cost remains unpaid, it is not suitable for determination. If the bowl’s owner says, “When you have the cost, give it and use it after determining,” it is not suitable for determination, for due to the lack of firing it does not qualify as a bowl, and due to the cost not being fully or partially paid, it does not attain its own status and belongs to another. Therefore, it is suitable for determination only when both the firing and the cost are fully completed. What is suitable for determination is also suitable for shared ownership. It should be determined or placed under shared ownership whether it comes into one’s hands or not. For if the bowl-maker, having received the cost or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable, I will make a bowl for you and set it aside on such-and-such a day after baking it,” and the monk exceeds ten days from that specified day, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. However, if the bowl-maker says, “I will make a bowl for you and send a message after baking it,” and does so accordingly, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, seeing or hearing it, says, “Venerable, your bowl is finished,” that statement is not authoritative. Only when the one sent by him informs him, and from the day he hears that statement he exceeds ten days, does it become a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the bowl-maker says, “I will make a bowl for you and send it by someone’s hand after baking it,” and does so accordingly, but the monk who takes the bowl places it in his own quarters and does not inform him, and someone else says, “Venerable, isn’t the bowl brought just now beautiful?” “Where, friend, is the bowl?” “It was sent by so-and-so’s hand.” That statement, too, is not authoritative. Only when that monk gives the bowl, and from the day it is received he exceeds ten days, does it become a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Therefore, it should be determined or placed under shared ownership without exceeding ten days.

The eligibility for determination and relinquishment of even these that are of the proper size should be understood thus: an iron bowl baked with five bakings, a clay bowl baked with two bakings, is eligible for determination. Both are eligible on the day the price is to be given. If even one baking is lacking, or even a kākaṇika of the price is not given, it is not eligible for determination. If the owner of the bowl says, “When you have the price, then give it; use it after determining it,” it is not eligible for determination. For it does not come under the category of a bowl because of the lack of baking, and it does not become one’s own because the full price or a part of it has not been given; it still belongs to another. Therefore, it is eligible for determination only when the baking and the price are fully completed. That which is eligible for determination is also eligible for relinquishment. Whether it has come into one’s hand or not, it should be determined or relinquished. For if the bowl maker, having received the price or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable sir, I will make your bowl and have it baked and ready on such and such a day,” and the monk exceeds ten days from the day specified by him, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. But if the bowl maker says, “I will make your bowl, bake it, and send a message,” and does so, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, having seen or heard, informs him, “Venerable sir, your bowl is finished,” this information is not authoritative. But when the one sent by him informs him, exceeding ten days from the day he heard his words is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the bowl maker says, “I will make your bowl, bake it, and send it in the hands of someone,” and does so, but the monk who brought the bowl keeps it in his own dwelling and does not inform him, and another says, “Venerable sir, the bowl that was brought just now is beautiful.” “Where, friend, is the bowl?” “It was sent in the hands of so-and-so.” This person’s words are also not authoritative. But when that monk gives the bowl, exceeding ten days from the day he received it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Therefore, it should be determined or relinquished without exceeding the ten-day period.

The suitability of these bowls for determination and assignment should be understood as follows: An iron bowl is cooked in five stages, and a clay bowl in two stages, and then it is suitable for determination. Both should be given the full payment at that time. If even one stage is incomplete, or if even a small amount of payment is not given, it is not suitable for determination. If the bowl’s owner says, “When you have the payment, then determine it and use it,” it is not suitable for determination, as the incomplete cooking prevents it from being counted as a bowl, and the unpaid amount prevents it from being one’s own property; it remains another’s property. Therefore, it becomes suitable for determination only when both the cooking and the payment are fully completed. What is suitable for determination is also suitable for assignment. It should be determined or assigned whether it has arrived or not. If the bowl-maker, having received the payment or wishing to give it himself, says, “Venerable, I will make your bowl and keep it ready on such-and-such a day,” and the monk exceeds ten days from that specified day, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the bowl-maker says, “I will make your bowl and send you a message,” and does so, but the monk who receives the message does not inform the original monk, and another monk sees or hears and informs him, “Venerable, your bowl is ready,” this notification is not valid. However, if the one who sent the message informs him, and the monk exceeds ten days from the day he hears the message, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If the bowl-maker says, “I will make your bowl and send it to someone’s hand,” and does so, and the monk who receives the bowl places it in his own dwelling without informing the original monk, and another monk says, “Venerable, a beautiful bowl has just been brought,” and when asked, “Where is the bowl?” he replies, “It has been sent to so-and-so’s hand,” this statement is also not valid. However, if the monk gives the bowl, and ten days are exceeded from the day he receives it, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Therefore, it should be determined or assigned without exceeding ten days.

Tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā kāyena vā adhiṭṭhāti, vācāya vā adhiṭṭhāti. Tesaṃ vasena adhiṭṭhahantena “imaṃ pattaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti vā “etaṃ pattaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti vā vatvā evaṃ sammukhe vā parammukhe vā ṭhitaṃ purāṇapattaṃ paccuddharitvā aññassa vā datvā navaṃ pattaṃ yattha katthaci ṭhitaṃ hatthena parāmasitvā “idaṃ pattaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti cittena ābhogaṃ katvā kāyavikāraṃ karontena kāyena vā adhiṭṭhātabbo. Vacībhedaṃ katvā vācāya vā adhiṭṭhābhabbo. Tatra duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ – sace hatthapāse hoti, “imaṃ pattaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā, atha antogabbhe vā uparipāsāde vā sāmantavihāre vā hoti, ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā “etaṃ pattaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Adhiṭṭhahantena pana ekakena adhiṭṭhātumpi vaṭṭati, aññassa santike adhiṭṭhātumpi vaṭṭati. Aññassa santike ayamānisaṃso – sacassa “adhiṭṭhito nu kho me, no”ti vimati uppajjati, itaro sāretvā vimatiṃ chindissatīti. Sace koci dasa patte labhitvā sabbe attanāva paribhuñjitukāmo hoti, na sabbe adhiṭṭhātabbā, ekaṃ pattaṃ adhiṭṭhāya punadivase taṃ paccuddharitvā añño adhiṭṭhātabbo. Eteneva upāyena vassasatampi pariharituṃ sakkā.

In this case, there are two ways of determining a bowl: by body or by speech. Depending on these, one who determines should say, “I relinquish this bowl” or “I relinquish that bowl,” and thus, having relinquished an old bowl present or absent, whether by giving it to another or not, one should touch a new bowl placed anywhere with the hand and, with mental resolve, make a bodily gesture to determine it by body, or break into speech to determine it by speech. Here, determination is twofold—if it is within reach, one should break into speech with, “I determine this bowl”; if it is inside a room, upstairs, or in a neighboring monastery, considering its location, one should break into speech with, “I determine that bowl.” One who determines may do so alone or in another’s presence. The advantage of doing so in another’s presence is that if doubt arises, “Is it determined by me or not?” the other can clarify and dispel the doubt. If someone obtains ten bowls and wishes to use them all himself, not all should be determined; determining one bowl and relinquishing it the next day, another should be determined. By this method, it is possible to manage them even for a hundred years.

There are two ways of determining a bowl: determining it by body or determining it by speech. When determining it by these methods, having said, “I relinquish this former bowl” or “I relinquish that former bowl,” one should, having thus relinquished the old bowl, whether it is in front or behind, or having given it to someone else, touch the new bowl with the hand, wherever it may be placed. Having made a mental resolution, “I determine this bowl,” and making a bodily gesture, one should determine it by body. Or, having made a verbal distinction, one should determine it by speech. There are two kinds of determination: if it is within hand’s reach, one should express it verbally, “I determine this bowl.” If it is in an inner room, on an upper terrace, or in a neighboring monastery, one should identify the place where it is kept and express it verbally, “I determine that bowl.” However, it is permissible for one person to determine it alone or to determine it in the presence of another. In the presence of another, there is this advantage: if doubt arises in one’s mind, “Have I determined it or not?”, the other can remind him and dispel the doubt. If someone obtains ten bowls and wants to use all of them himself, he should not determine all of them. He should determine one bowl, and on the following day, relinquish that one and determine another. In this way, it is possible to manage even for a hundred years.

Here, there are two ways to determine the use of a bowl: either by bodily determination or by verbal determination. When determining, one should say, “I set aside this bowl” or “I set aside that bowl,” and then remove the old bowl that is either in front or behind, give it to another, and take a new bowl that is placed anywhere. After touching it with the hand, one should determine it by thinking, “I determine this bowl,” and then make a bodily gesture to determine it by body. Alternatively, one may determine it by speech after making a verbal declaration. There are two types of determination: if the bowl is within arm’s reach, one should declare, “I determine this bowl.” If it is inside a room, upstairs, or in a nearby monastery, one should observe its location and declare, “I determine that bowl.” One may determine a bowl either alone or in the presence of another. The benefit of determining in the presence of another is that if doubt arises, such as, “Has my bowl been determined or not?” the other can clarify and remove the doubt. If someone obtains ten bowls and wishes to use all of them personally, they should not determine all of them. Instead, they should determine one bowl, and the next day, after setting it aside, determine another. In this way, it is possible to manage even for a hundred years.

Evaṃ appamattassa siyā adhiṭṭhānavijahananti? Siyā. Sace hi sayaṃ pattaṃ aññassa deti, vibbhamati vā, sikkhaṃ vā paccakkhāti, kālaṃ vā karoti, liṅgaṃ vāssa parivattati, paccuddharati vā, patte vā chiddaṃ hoti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati. Vuttañcetaṃ –

For one who is thus heedful, could the determination cease? It could. If he gives the bowl to another, disrobes, renounces the training, dies, changes gender, relinquishes it, or if the bowl becomes torn, the determination ceases. And it is said—

Could there be a relinquishment of determination for one who is thus diligent? There could be. If one gives the bowl to another, or it wanders away, or one disavows the training, or dies, or one’s gender changes, or one relinquishes it, or there is a hole in the bowl, the determination is relinquished. It is said:

Can one who is heedless lose the determination? Yes. If one gives one’s bowl to another, disrobes, renounces the training, dies, changes one’s status, sets aside the bowl, or if the bowl becomes broken, the determination is lost. It is said:

Liṅgapaccuddharā ceva, chiddena bhavati sattama”nti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.608) –

By death, by relinquishment, and by a tear, it becomes the seventh.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.608)—

Change of gender, relinquishment, and seventh, by a hole.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.608)

Coragahaṇavissāsaggāhehipi vijahatiyeva. Kittakena chiddena adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhijjati? Yena kaṅgusitthaṃ nikkhamati ceva pavisati ca. Idañhi sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ lāmakadhaññasitthaṃ. Tasmiṃ chidde ayacuṇṇena vā āṇiyā vā paṭipākatike kate dasāhabbhantare puna adhiṭṭhātabbo. Ayaṃ tāvettha adhiṭṭhāne vinicchayo.

It also ceases by theft, seizure, or confident acceptance. With what size tear does the determination break? With one through which a husk of kaṅgu grain can both exit and enter. This is the coarsest husk among the seven grains. If that tear is repaired with iron powder or a peg within ten days, it should be determined again. This is the decision regarding determination here.

It is also relinquished by seizure by thieves or by taking it with trust. How big a hole causes the determination to break? One through which a grain of millet both goes out and comes in. This is the worst grain among the seven grains. If that hole is repaired with iron filings or a peg, within ten days it should be determined again. This is the decision regarding determination here.

These seven cause the determination to be lost.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.608) –

49. Vikappane pana dve vikappanā sammukhāvikappanā ceva parammukhāvikappanā ca. Kathaṃ sammukhāvikappanā hoti? Pattānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā “imaṃ patta”nti vā “ime patte”ti vā “etaṃ patta”nti vā “ete patte”ti vā vatvā “tuyhaṃ vikappemī”ti vattabbaṃ, ayamekā sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhuñjituṃ pana vissajjetuṃ vā adhiṭṭhātuṃ vā na vaṭṭati. “Mayhaṃ santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī”ti evaṃ pana vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

49. In vikappana, however, there are two types of shared ownership: sammukhāvikappanā and parammukhāvikappanā. How does sammukhāvikappanā occur? Knowing the singularity or plurality of bowls and whether they are present or absent, one should say, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and then say, “I place it under your shared ownership.” This is one form of sammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it, but it is not permissible to use, give away, or determine it. However, if one says, “It belongs to me; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

49. In consigning, however, there are two consignments: face-to-face consignment and consignment in absence. How is face-to-face consignment done? Knowing the singularity or plurality of bowls, and whether they are present or absent, having said, “this bowl” or “these bowls,” or “that bowl” or “those bowls,” one should say, “I consign them to you.” This is one face-to-face consignment. With this much, it is permissible to deposit it, but it is not permissible to use it, give it away, or determine it. However, when it is said, “Use what belongs to me, give it away, or do as is appropriate,” this is called relinquishment; from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

It is also lost through theft, seizure, or trust. How much of a break causes the determination to be lost? A break through which a grain of millet can pass in and out. This is the smallest measure among the seven grains. If such a break occurs, it should be repaired with iron powder or a patch, and the bowl must be re-determined within ten days. This is the decision regarding determination.

Aparo nayo – tatheva pattānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā tasseva bhikkhuno santike “imaṃ patta”nti vā “ime patte”ti vā “etaṃ patta”nti vā “ete patte”ti vā vatvā pañcasu sahadhammikesu aññatarassa attanā abhirucitassa yassa kassaci nāmaṃ gahetvā “tissassa bhikkhuno vikappemī”ti vā “tissāya bhikkhuniyā, sikkhamānāya, sāmaṇerassa, tissāya sāmaṇeriyā vikappemī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, ayaṃ aparāpi sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati. Paribhogādīsu pana ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā tissassa bhikkhuno santakaṃ…pe… tissāya sāmaṇeriyā santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohīti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

Another method—knowing the singularity or plurality of bowls and whether they are present or absent in the same way, in the presence of that monk, one says, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists as one prefers, one should say, “I place it under the shared ownership of the monk Tissa,” or “of the nun Tissā, the female trainee, the novice Tissa, or the female novice Tissā.” This is another form of sammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it. But none of the uses and so forth are permissible. However, if that monk says, “It belongs to the monk Tissa… or the female novice Tissā; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

Another method: Similarly, knowing the singularity or plurality of bowls, and whether they are present or absent, in the presence of that same bhikkhu, having said, “this bowl” or “these bowls,” or “that bowl” or “those bowls,” taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists who is personally favored, one should say, “I consign it to the bhikkhu Tissa,” or “to the bhikkhunī Tissā, to the female probationer, to the male novice, to the female novice Tissā.” This is another face-to-face consignment. With this much, it is permissible to deposit it. But not even one of the uses and so forth is permissible. But when that bhikkhu says, “Use what belongs to the bhikkhu Tissa… (as before)… to the female novice Tissā, give it away, or do as is appropriate,” this is called relinquishment; from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

49. Vikappana (assignment) is of two kinds: assignment in person and assignment in absence. How is assignment in person done? Knowing whether the bowls are single or multiple and whether they are nearby or not, one should say, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and then say, “I assign this to you.” This is one way of assignment in person. Up to this point, it is permissible to store the bowl, but it is not permissible to use, give away, or determine it. If one says, “Use my belongings, give them away, or do as you see fit,” this is called setting aside, and from then on, use and other actions are permissible.

Kathaṃ parammukhāvikappanā hoti? Pattānaṃ tatheva ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā “imaṃ patta”nti vā “ime patte”ti vā “etaṃ patta”nti vā “ete patte”ti vā vatvā “tuyhaṃ vikappanatthāya dammī”ti vattabbaṃ. Tena vattabbo “ko te mitto vā sandiṭṭho vā”ti . Tato itarena purimanayena “tisso bhikkhū”ti vā…pe… “tissā sāmaṇerī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Puna tena bhikkhunā “ahaṃ tissassa bhikkhuno dammī”ti vā…pe… “tissāya sāmaṇeriyā dammī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, ayaṃ parammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhogādīsu pana ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā dutiyasammukhāvikappanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva “itthannāmassa santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī”ti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti. Ayaṃ vikappane nayo.

How does parammukhāvikappanā occur? Knowing the singularity or plurality of bowls and whether they are present or absent in the same way, one says, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and then says, “I give it to you for the purpose of shared ownership.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then the other should say, as in the previous method, “The monk Tissa” or… “the female novice Tissā.” Then that monk should say, “I give it to the monk Tissa” or… “to the female novice Tissā.” This is parammukhāvikappanā. With this, it is permissible to store it, but none of the uses and so forth are permissible. However, if that monk says, in the manner stated in the second sammukhāvikappanā, “It belongs to so-and-so; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called relinquishment, and from then on, use and so forth are permissible. This is the method in vikappana.

How is consignment in absence done? Knowing, as before, the singularity or plurality of bowls, and whether they are present or absent, having said, “this bowl” or “these bowls,” or “that bowl” or “those bowls,” one should say, “I give this to you for the purpose of consignment.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then, by the other, as in the previous method, “The bhikkhu Tissa,” or… (as before)… “The female novice Tissā” should be said. Then, by that bhikkhu, “I give it to the bhikkhu Tissa,” or… (as before)… “I give it to the female novice Tissā” should be said. This is consignment in absence. With this much, it is permissible to deposit it, but not even one of the uses and so forth is permissible. But when that bhikkhu says, in the same way as described in the second face-to-face consignment, “Use what belongs to so-and-so, give it away, or do as is appropriate,” this is called relinquishment; from then on, use and so forth are permissible. This is the method in consignment.

Another method: Similarly, knowing whether the bowls are single or multiple and whether they are nearby or not, one should say in the presence of the same monk, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and then, naming one of the five companions, say, “I assign this to Venerable Tissa” or “I assign this to Bhikkhunī Tissā, a trainee nun, a novice monk, or novice nun Tissā.” This is another way of assignment in person. Up to this point, it is permissible to store the bowl, but not to use it or perform other actions. However, if that monk says to Venerable Tissa, “Use my belongings, give them away, or do as you see fit,” this is called setting aside, and from then on, use and other actions are permissible.

50. Evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā vikappetvā ca paribhuñjantena patte bhinne kiṃ kātabbanti? Yassa patte rājimukhavaṭṭito heṭṭhā dvaṅgulappamāṇā na hoti tena na kiñci kātabbaṃ. Yassa (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.612-3) pana tādisā ekāpi rāji hoti, tena tassā rājiyā heṭṭhimapariyante pattavedhakena vijjhitvā pacitvā suttarajjukamakacirajjukādīhi vā tipusuttakena vā bandhitvā taṃ bandhanaṃ āmisassa alagganatthaṃ tipupaṭṭena vā kenaci vā baddhasilesena paṭicchādetabbaṃ. So ca patto adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbo. Sukhumaṃ vā chiddaṃ katvā bandhitabbo. Suddhehi pana madhukasitthakalākhāsajjurasādīhi bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati, phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Mukhavaṭṭisamīpe pana pattavedhakena vijjhiyamāno kapālassa bahalattā bhijjati, tasmā heṭṭhā vijjhitabbo. Yassa pana dve rājiyo, ekāyeva vā caturaṅgulā, tassa dve bandhanāni dātabbāni. Yassa tisso, ekāyeva vā chaḷaṅgulā, tassa tīṇi. Yassa catasso, ekāyeva vā aṭṭhaṅgulā, tassa cattāri. Yassa pañca, ekāyeva vā dasaṅgulā, so baddhopi abaddhopi apattoyeva, añño viññāpetabbo. Esa tāva mattikāpatte vinicchayo.

50. When a bowl breaks while being used after being determined or placed under shared ownership, what should be done? For one whose bowl has no rim two fingerbreadths below the mouth’s edge, nothing should be done. But for one (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.612-3) whose bowl has even one such rim, he should pierce it at the lower edge of that rim with a bowl-piercer, bake it, and bind it with thread, rope, vine, or tin thread, and cover that binding with tin or something firmly attached to prevent food from sticking. That bowl should be determined and used. Or a fine tear should be made and bound. However, it is not permissible to bind it with pure substances like madhuka husks, lac, or resin; it is permissible to bind it with molasses burned and mixed with stone powder. Since piercing near the mouth’s edge with a bowl-piercer breaks it due to the thickness of the shard, it should be pierced below. For one with two rims, or even one four fingerbreadths long, two bindings should be applied. For one with three, or even one six fingerbreadths long, three bindings. For one with four, or even one eight fingerbreadths long, four bindings. For one with five, or even one ten fingerbreadths long, whether bound or unbound, it is no longer a bowl, and another should be requested. This is the decision regarding earthen bowls.

50. Having thus determined and consigned it, if the bowl breaks while being used, what should be done? If there is not a two-finger-breadth area below the rim-line on someone’s bowl, nothing needs to be done by him. But if (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.612-3) someone has even one such line, he should pierce the lower edge of that line with a bowl-piercer, heat it, and bind it with thread, string, fiber-string, or the like, or with a string of tin, and cover that binding with a tin plate or some bound-together plaster to prevent food from sticking to the binding. And that bowl should be determined and used. Or, a fine hole should be made and bound. However, it is not permissible to bind it with pure beeswax, resin, lacquer, or gum-resin. It is permissible to melt treacle and bind it with stone powder. But near the rim, being pierced with a bowl-piercer, it breaks due to the thickness of the shard, therefore it should be pierced below. If someone has two lines, or only one four-finger-breadth line, two bindings should be given. If someone has three, or only one six-finger-breadth line, three. If someone has four, or only one eight-finger-breadth line, four. If someone has five, or only one ten-finger-breadth line, whether it is bound or unbound, it is not a bowl; another should be requested. This is the decision regarding clay bowls.

How is assignment in absence done? Similarly, knowing whether the bowls are single or multiple and whether they are nearby or not, one should say, “This bowl” or “These bowls” or “That bowl” or “Those bowls,” and then say, “I give this to you for assignment.” The other should ask, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then, following the previous method, one should say, “Venerable Tissa” or… “Novice nun Tissā.” Then, the monk should say, “I give this to Venerable Tissa” or… “I give this to novice nun Tissā.” This is assignment in absence. Up to this point, it is permissible to store the bowl, but not to use it or perform other actions. However, if the monk, following the method of the second assignment in person, says, “Use the belongings of so-and-so, give them away, or do as you see fit,” this is called setting aside, and from then on, use and other actions are permissible. This is the method of assignment.

Ayopatte pana sacepi pañca vā atirekāni vā chiddāni honti, tāni ca ayacuṇṇena vā āṇiyā vā lohamaṇḍalakena vā baddhāni maṭṭhāni honti, sveva patto paribhuñjitabbo, añño na viññāpetabbo. Atha pana ekampi chiddaṃ mahantaṃ hoti, lohamaṇḍalakena baddhampi maṭṭhaṃ na hoti, patte āmisaṃ laggati, akappiyo hoti, ayaṃ apatto, añño viññāpetabbo. Viññāpentena ca saṅghavasena pavāritaṭṭhāne pañcabandhaneneva pattena aññaṃ pattaṃ viññāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, puggalavasena pana pavāritaṭṭhāne ūnapañcabandhanenāpi vaṭṭati. Pattaṃ labhitvā paribhuñjantena ca yāgurandhanarajanapacanādinā aparibhogena na paribhuñjitabbo, antarāmagge pana byādhimhi uppanne aññasmiṃ bhājane asati mattikāya limpetvā yāguṃ vā pacituṃ udakaṃ vā tāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Mañcapīṭhachattanāgadantakādike adesepi na nikkhipitabbo. Pattassa hi nikkhipanadeso “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pattādhāraka”ntiādinā (cūḷava. 254) nayena khandhake vuttoyeva.

For an iron bowl, even if there are five or more tears, and they are bound and smoothed with iron powder, a peg, or an iron disc, that bowl should still be used, and another should not be requested. But if even one tear is large, and even when bound with an iron disc it is not smoothed, food sticks to the bowl, it becomes unsuitable, it is no longer a bowl, and another should be requested. When requesting, from a place invited by the Sangha, it is permissible to request another bowl with a bowl having five bindings; but from a place invited by an individual, it is permissible even with fewer than five bindings. When using a bowl obtained, it should not be used improperly for cooking gruel, dyeing, or baking. However, if an illness arises on the road and there is no other vessel, it is permissible to smear it with clay and cook gruel or heat water. It should not be placed on a bed, seat, parasol, elephant tusk, or such places. For the place to set a bowl is indeed stated in the Khandhaka as follows: “I allow, monks, a bowl stand…” (cūḷava. 254).

In the case of an iron bowl, however, even if there are five or more holes, and they are bound with iron filings, a peg, or an iron patch, and are smooth, that very bowl should be used; another should not be requested. But if even one hole is large, and even if bound with an iron patch, it is not smooth, and food sticks to the bowl, it is unsuitable; this is not a bowl, another should be requested. And one who is requesting, in a place authorized by the Sangha, should request another bowl only with a bowl with five bindings; but in a place authorized by an individual, it is permissible even with a bowl with less than five bindings. And having obtained a bowl and using it, it should not be used for unsuitable purposes like cooking gruel, boiling dye, and so on. But if a sickness arises on a journey, in the absence of another vessel, it is permissible to smear it with clay and cook gruel or heat water. It should not be placed in unsuitable places like a bed, a seat, a parasol, or an elephant’s tusk. For the place for placing a bowl is stated in the Khandhaka in the passage beginning, “I allow, bhikkhus, a bowl-stand” (cūḷava. 254).

50. After determining and assigning in this way, if the bowl breaks while in use, what should be done? If the bowl has no crack longer than two finger-widths from the rim downwards, nothing needs to be done. However, if there is even one such crack, it should be pierced at the lower edge with a bowl-piercing tool, cooked, and bound with thread, fine thread, or triple thread. The binding should be covered with a patch or any suitable material to prevent food from sticking. The bowl, once determined, should be used. A small hole should be made and bound. However, it is not permissible to bind it with pure substances like honey, sesame paste, or resin. It is permissible to bind it with molasses and stone powder. If the bowl is pierced near the rim, it may break due to the thickness of the rim, so it should be pierced lower down. If there are two cracks, or one crack four finger-widths long, two bindings should be applied. If there are three cracks, or one crack six finger-widths long, three bindings should be applied. If there are four cracks, or one crack eight finger-widths long, four bindings should be applied. If there are five cracks, or one crack ten finger-widths long, whether bound or not, it is no longer a bowl, and another should be requested. This is the decision regarding earthen bowls.

Regarding iron bowls, even if there are five or more holes, if they are bound with iron powder, a patch, or an iron ring and are smooth, the same bowl should be used, and another should not be requested. However, if even one hole is large and, even when bound with an iron ring, it is not smooth, and food sticks to it, it is unfit and no longer a bowl. Another should be requested. When requesting, in a Sangha gathering, it is permissible to request another bowl with five bindings, but in a personal gathering, it is permissible even with fewer than five bindings. After obtaining a bowl, it should not be used for cooking rice porridge, dyeing, or other improper purposes. However, on a journey, if illness arises and no other vessel is available, it is permissible to cook porridge or heat water by smearing it with clay. It should not be placed on beds, chairs, sunshades, or other inappropriate places. The proper place for a bowl is as stated in the Khandhaka: “I allow, monks, a bowl stand” (cūḷava. 254).

The discussion on the decision regarding determination and shared ownership is completed.

9. Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathā

9. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Separation from Robes

9. Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathā

the discussion on determination and assignment is concluded.

51. Cīvarenavināvāsoti ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññatarena vippavāso. Evaṃ adhiṭṭhitesu hi tīsu cīvaresu ekenapi vinā vasituṃ na vaṭṭati, vasantassa saha aruṇuggamanā cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, tasmā aruṇuggamanasamaye cīvaraṃ aḍḍhateyyaratanappamāṇe hatthapāse katvā vasitabbaṃ. Gāmanivesanaudositaaḍḍamāḷapāsādahammiyanāvāsatthakhettadhaññakaraṇaārāmavihārarukkhamūlaajjhokāsesu pana ayaṃ viseso (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.477-8) – sace ekassa rañño gāmabhojakassa vā santako gāmo hoti, yena kenaci pākārena vā vatiyā vā parikhāya vā parikkhitto ca, evarūpe gāme cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā gāmabbhantare yattha katthaci yathārucitaṭṭhāne aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana aparikkhitto hoti, evarūpe gāme yasmiṃ ghare cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tasmiṃ vatthabbaṃ, tassa vā gharassa hatthapāse samantā aḍḍhateyyaratanabbhantare vasitabbaṃ. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā sacepi iddhimā bhikkhu ākāse aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpeti, cīvaraṃ nissaggiyameva hoti.

51. Separation from robes means being apart from any one of the three robes determined as the ticīvara. For when these three robes are determined, it is not permissible to dwell apart from even one of them; if one does so, at the rising of the dawn, the robe becomes subject to forfeiture. Therefore, at dawn, the robe should be kept within a reach of two-and-a-half cubits. In a village, a storeroom, a half-tower, a mansion, a preaching hall, a boat, a caravan, a field, a threshing floor, a grove, a monastery, a tree root, or an open space, there is this distinction (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.477-8)—if there is a village belonging to one king or village overseer, enclosed by some wall, fence, or moat, in such a village, having placed the robe, it is permissible to let the dawn rise anywhere within the village as one pleases. But if it is unenclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed or within two-and-a-half cubits around that house. If that measure is exceeded, even if a monk with psychic powers lets the dawn rise in the sky, the robe is still subject to forfeiture.

51. Being without a robe means being separated from one of the three robes determined by the determination of the three robes. Having thus determined the three robes, it is not permissible to dwell without even one of them. One who dwells without it, with the rising of the dawn, the robe becomes forfeited. Therefore, at the time of dawn, one should keep the robe within hand’s reach, a measure of one and a half cubits. However, in villages, settlements, udosita, aḍḍamāḷa, palaces, hammiya, dwellings, caravans, fields, places where grain is prepared, gardens, monasteries, at the foot of trees, and in open spaces, this is the distinction (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.477-8): If a village belongs to one king or village headman, and it is enclosed by some kind of wall, fence, or moat, in such a village, having placed the robe anywhere within the village, it is permissible to let the dawn rise in any desired place. But if it is not enclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of that house, within one and a half cubits all around. Even if a bhikkhu with psychic powers lets the dawn rise in the sky exceeding that measure, the robe becomes forfeited.

Sace nānārājūnaṃ vā bhojakānaṃ vā gāmo hoti vesālīkusinārādisadiso parikkhitto ca, evarūpe gāme yasmiṃ ghare cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tattha vā vatthabbaṃ, tattha saddasaṅghaṭṭanena vā janasambādhena vā vasituṃ asakkontena sabhāye vā vatthabbaṃ nagaradvāramūle vā. Tatrāpi vasituṃ asakkontena yattha katthaci phāsukaṭṭhāne vasitvā antoaruṇe āgamma tesaṃyeva sabhāyanagaradvāramūlānaṃ hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Gharassa pana cīvarassa vā hatthapāse vattabbameva natthi.

If the village belongs to different kings or overseers, like Vesālī or Kusinārā, and is enclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed, or in the assembly hall or at the city gate due to noise or crowding if unable to stay there. If unable to dwell there either, one may dwell anywhere comfortable, returning before dawn to stay within reach of that assembly hall or city gate. There is no need to stay within reach of the house or robe.

If the village belongs to several kings or headmen, like Vesālī or Kusinārā, and it is enclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed, or, if one is unable to dwell there due to the noise of the crowd or the press of people, one should dwell in the assembly hall or at the city gate. If one is unable to dwell even there, one should dwell in any suitable place and, before dawn, come and dwell within hand’s reach of those very assembly halls or city gates. There is no need to mention within hand’s reach of the house or the robe.

51. Separation from robes refers to being without one of the three robes that have been determined. Once the three robes have been determined, it is not permissible to be without even one of them. If one is without a robe at dawn, the robe becomes forfeited. Therefore, at dawn, the robe should be kept within arm’s reach, measuring half a yojana. However, in villages, towns, palaces, or other dwellings, there is a distinction: if the village belongs to a single king or landowner and is enclosed by a wall, fence, or moat, the robe may be placed anywhere within the village, and dawn may be observed there. If the village is not enclosed, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed or within arm’s reach of that house. If one goes beyond this measure, even if a monk with psychic powers observes dawn in the sky, the robe is forfeited.

Sace ghare aṭṭhapetvā “sabhāye ṭhapessāmī”ti sabhāyaṃ gacchanto hatthaṃ pasāretvā “handimaṃ cīvaraṃ ṭhapehī”ti evaṃ nikkhepasukhe hatthapāsagate kismiñci āpaṇe cīvaraṃ nikkhipati, tena purimanayeneva sabhāye vā vatthabbaṃ, dvāramūle vā tesaṃ hatthapāse vā vasitabbaṃ.

If, having set it aside in a house and intending “I will place it in the assembly hall,” one stretches out a hand while going to the assembly hall and places the robe easily within reach in some shop, one should dwell in the assembly hall or at the gate or within reach of them, as in the previous method.

If, having placed it in the house, thinking, “I will place it in the assembly hall,” one goes to the assembly hall, extends the hand, and says, “Take, place this robe,” thus placing the robe in any shop within hand’s reach for the ease of placing, one should dwell, as in the previous method, either in the assembly hall, or at the gate, or within hand’s reach of them.

If the village belongs to multiple kings or landowners, like Vesālī or Kusinārā, and is enclosed, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed or in a public hall or at the city gate. If it is too crowded or noisy to stay there, one may stay in a comfortable place nearby and return to the vicinity of the hall or city gate at dawn. However, one should not stay beyond arm’s reach of the robe’s location.

Sace nagarassa bahūnipi dvārāni honti bahūni ca sabhāyāni, sabbattha vasituṃ na vaṭṭati. Yassā pana vīthiyā cīvaraṃ ṭhapitaṃ, yaṃ tassā sammukhaṭṭhāne sabhāyañca dvārañca, tassa sabhāyassa ca dvārassa ca hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Evañhi sati sakkā cīvarassa pavattiṃ jānituṃ . Sabhāyaṃ pana gacchantena yassa āpaṇikassa hatthe nikkhittaṃ, sace so taṃ cīvaraṃ atiharitvā ghare nikkhipati, vīthihatthapāso na rakkhati, gharassa hatthapāse vatthabbaṃ. Sace mahantaṃ gharaṃ hoti dve vīthiyo pharitvā ṭhitaṃ, purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāseyeva aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sabhāye nikkhipitvā pana sabhāye vā tassa sammukhe nagaradvāramūle vā tesaṃyeva hatthapāse vā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace pana gāmo aparikkhitto hoti, yasmiṃ ghare cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tasmiṃ ghare tassa gharassa vā hatthapāse vatthabbaṃ.

If the city has many gates and many assembly halls, it is not permissible to dwell at all of them. Only at the assembly hall and gate facing the street where the robe is placed should one dwell within reach of that assembly hall and gate. For only thus can one know the status of the robe. While going to the assembly hall, if the shopkeeper in whose hand it was placed moves it to his house, the reach of the street does not protect it; one should dwell within reach of the house. If it is a large house spanning two streets, the dawn should be let rise within reach either in front or behind. Having placed it in the assembly hall, one should let the dawn rise in the assembly hall, at the city gate facing it, or within reach of them. But if the village is unenclosed, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed or within reach of that house.

If the city has many gates and many assembly halls, it is not permissible to dwell in all of them. But in whichever street the robe is placed, in the place facing it, the assembly hall and the gate, one should dwell within hand’s reach of that assembly hall and gate. For in this way, it is possible to know the whereabouts of the robe. But if, while going to the assembly hall, it is placed in the hands of a shopkeeper, and if he takes that robe beyond and places it in the house, the hand’s reach of the street does not protect; one should dwell within hand’s reach of the house. If it is a large house extending over two streets, one should let the dawn rise within hand’s reach either in front or behind. But having placed it in the assembly hall, one should let the dawn rise either in the assembly hall, or in front of it at the city gate, or within hand’s reach of them. But if the village is not enclosed, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of that house.

If one places the robe in a house and says, “I will place it in the hall,” and while going to the hall, one stretches out one’s hand and says, “Please place this robe,” and then places the robe in a shop, one should stay in the hall or at the gate or within arm’s reach of those places.

Sace (pārā. 480) ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hoti parikkhittañca nānāgabbhaṃ nānāovarakaṃ, antonivesane cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antonivesane vatthabbaṃ. Sace aparikkhittaṃ, yasmiṃ gabbhe cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ gabbhe vatthabbaṃ gabbhassa hatthapāse vā. Sace nānākulassa nivesanaṃ hoti parikkhittañca nānāgabbhaṃ nānāovarakaṃ, yasmiṃ gabbhe cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ gabbhe vatthabbaṃ, sabbesaṃ sādhāraṇe gharadvāramūle vā gabbhassa vā gharadvāramūlassa vā hatthapāse. Sace aparikkhittaṃ hoti, yasmiṃ gabbhe cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tasmiṃ gabbhe vatthabbaṃ gabbhassa vā hatthapāse. Udositaaḍḍamāḷapāsādahammiyesupi nivesane vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.

If (pārā. 480) there is a residence belonging to one family, enclosed, with various rooms and chambers, having placed the robe within the residence, one should dwell within the residence. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed or within reach of that room. If the residence belongs to different families and is enclosed with various rooms and chambers, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed, or at the common house gate or within reach of the room or house gate. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed or within reach of that room. In storerooms, half-towers, mansions, and preaching halls, the decision should be understood in the manner stated for residences.

If a settlement (pārā. 480) belongs to one family, and it is enclosed and has many rooms and many inner chambers, having placed the robe within the settlement, one should dwell within the settlement. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of the room. If the settlement belongs to several families, and it is enclosed and has many rooms and many inner chambers, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed, or at the common gate of the house, or within hand’s reach of the room or the gate of the house. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell in the room where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of the room. The decision regarding udosita, aḍḍamāḷa, palaces, and hammiya should be understood in the same way as described for settlements.

If the city has many gates and many halls, one cannot stay everywhere. One should stay within arm’s reach of the hall or gate facing the street where the robe is placed. This way, one can know the status of the robe. If, while going to the hall, one places the robe in the hands of a shopkeeper and the shopkeeper takes it and places it in a house, the street’s arm’s reach is no longer valid, and one should stay within arm’s reach of the house. If the house is large, spanning two streets, one should observe dawn within arm’s reach of the front or back. If the robe is placed in the hall, one should observe dawn in the hall or at the city gate or within arm’s reach of those places. If the village is not enclosed, one should stay in the house where the robe is placed or within arm’s reach of that house.

Sace ekakulassa nāvā hoti, antonāvāyaṃ cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antonāvāyaṃ vatthabbaṃ. Sace nānākulassa nāvā hoti nānāgabbhā nānāovarakā, yasmiṃ ovarake cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ ovarake vatthabbaṃ ovarakassa hatthapāse vā.

If there is a boat belonging to one family, having placed the robe within the boat, one should dwell within the boat. If the boat belongs to different families with various rooms and chambers, one should dwell in the chamber where the robe is placed or within reach of that chamber.

If a boat belongs to one family, having placed the robe within the boat, one should dwell within the boat. If the boat belongs to several families, and it has many rooms and many inner chambers, one should dwell in the inner chamber where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of the inner chamber.

If the dwelling belongs to a single family and is enclosed, one should place the robe inside the dwelling and stay there. If it is not enclosed, one should stay within arm’s reach of the room where the robe is placed. If the dwelling belongs to multiple families and has multiple rooms, one should stay in the room where the robe is placed or within arm’s reach of that room or the main door. If it is not enclosed, one should stay within arm’s reach of the room where the robe is placed. The same applies to palaces, mansions, and other dwellings.

Sace ekakulassa sattho hoti, tasmiṃ satthe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā purato vā pacchato vā sattabbhantarā na vijahitabbā, passato abbhantaraṃ na vijahitabbaṃ. Ekaṃ abbhantaraṃ aṭṭhavīsatihatthaṃ hoti. Sace nānākulassa sattho hoti, satthe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Sace sattho gacchanto gāmaṃ vā nadiṃ vā pariyādiyitvā tiṭṭhati, antopaviṭṭhena saddhiṃ ekābaddho hutvā orañca pārañca pharitvā ṭhito hoti, satthaparihāro labbhati. Atha gāme vā nadiyā vā pariyāpanno hoti, gāmaparihāro ceva nadīparihāro ca labbhati. Sace vihārasīmaṃ atikkamitvā tiṭṭhati, antosīmāya ca cīvaraṃ hoti, vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabbaṃ. Sace bahisīmāya cīvaraṃ hoti, satthasamīpeyeva vasitabbaṃ. Sace gacchanto sattho sakaṭe vā bhagge goṇe vā naṭṭhe antarā chijjati, yasmiṃ koṭṭhāse cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tattha vasitabbaṃ.

If there is a caravan belonging to one family, having placed the robe in that caravan, one should not abandon the caravan’s interior either in front or behind; it should not be abandoned from sight within. One interior span is twenty-eight cubits. If the caravan belongs to different families, having placed the robe in the caravan, one should dwell within reach of the robe. If the caravan, while moving, encompasses a village or river and stops, being connected with what entered it and spanning both sides, the caravan exemption applies. If it is encompassed by a village or river, both the village exemption and the river exemption apply. If it stops beyond the monastery boundary and the robe is within the boundary, one should go to the monastery and dwell there. If the robe is outside the boundary, one should dwell near the caravan. If, while moving, the caravan breaks due to a broken cart or lost ox, one should dwell in the section where the robe is placed.

If a caravan belongs to one family, having placed the robe in that caravan, one should not be separated by seven abbhantaras in front or behind; one should not be separated by one abbhantara to the side. One abbhantara is twenty-eight hands. If the caravan belongs to several families, having placed the robe in the caravan, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe. If the caravan, while traveling, stops having encompassed a village or a river, being connected with those who have entered, it is spread out on both sides; the caravan-protection is obtained. If it is encompassed by a village or a river, both village-protection and river-protection are obtained. If it stops exceeding the monastery boundary, and the robe is within the boundary, one should go to the monastery and dwell. If the robe is outside the boundary, one should dwell near the caravan. If, while the caravan is traveling, a cart, a load, or an ox is lost or broken on the way, one should dwell in that section where the robe is placed.

If the boat belongs to a single family, one should place the robe inside the boat and stay there. If the boat belongs to multiple families and has multiple cabins, one should stay in the cabin where the robe is placed or within arm’s reach of that cabin.

Sace ekakulassa khettaṃ hoti parikkhittañca, antokhette cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antokhette vatthabbaṃ. Sace aparikkhittaṃ hoti, cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Sace nānākulassa khettaṃ hoti parikkhittañca, antokhette cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā dvāramūle vatthabbaṃ dvāramūlassa hatthapāse vā. Sace aparikkhittaṃ hoti, cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ.

If there is a field belonging to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the field, one should dwell within the field. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell within reach of the robe. If the field belongs to different families and is enclosed, having placed the robe within the field, one should dwell at the gate or within reach of the gate. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell within reach of the robe.

If a field belongs to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the field, one should dwell within the field. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe. If the field belongs to several families and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the field, one should dwell at the gate or within hand’s reach of the gate. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe.

If the caravan belongs to a single family, one should place the robe in the caravan and stay within seven abbhantaras (about 28 hands) in front or behind, without losing sight of it. One abbhantara is 28 hands. If the caravan belongs to multiple families, one should place the robe in the caravan and stay within arm’s reach of the robe. If the caravan stops after surrounding a village or river, the village or river’s protection is obtained. If the caravan stops beyond the monastery boundary, and the robe is inside the boundary, one should go to the monastery and stay there. If the robe is outside the boundary, one should stay near the caravan. If the caravan is moving and the cart, ox, or goods are lost along the way, one should stay in the section where the robe is placed.

Sace ekakulassa dhaññakaraṇaṃ hoti parikkhittañca, antodhaññakaraṇe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antodhaññakaraṇe vatthabbaṃ. Sace aparikkhittaṃ hoti, cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Sace nānākulassa dhaññakaraṇaṃ hoti parikkhittañca, antodhaññakaraṇe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā dvāramūle vā vatthabbaṃ dvāramūlassa vā hatthapāse. Sace aparikkhittaṃ hoti, cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ. Pupphārāmaphalārāmesupi khette vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.

If there is a threshing floor belonging to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the threshing floor, one should dwell within the threshing floor. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell within reach of the robe. If the threshing floor belongs to different families and is enclosed, having placed the robe within the threshing floor, one should dwell at the gate or within reach of the gate. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell within reach of the robe. In flower groves and fruit groves, the decision should be understood in the manner stated for fields.

If a place where grain is prepared belongs to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the place where grain is prepared, one should dwell within the place where grain is prepared. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe. If the place where grain is prepared belongs to several families and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the place where grain is prepared, one should dwell at the gate or within hand’s reach of the gate. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe. The decision regarding flower gardens and fruit gardens should be understood in the same way as described for fields.

If the field belongs to a single family and is enclosed, one should place the robe inside the field and stay there. If it is not enclosed, one should stay within arm’s reach of the robe. If the field belongs to multiple families and is enclosed, one should place the robe inside the field and stay at the gate or within arm’s reach of the gate. If it is not enclosed, one should stay within arm’s reach of the robe. The same applies to flower gardens and fruit gardens.

Sace ekakulassa vihāro hoti parikkhitto ca, antovihāre cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antovihāre vatthabbaṃ. Sace aparikkhitto hoti, yasmiṃ vihāre cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ, tasmiṃ vatthabbaṃ tassa vihārassa vā hatthapāse.

If there is a monastery belonging to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the monastery, one should dwell within the monastery. If it is unenclosed, one should dwell in the monastery where the robe is placed or within reach of that monastery.

If a monastery belongs to one family and it is enclosed, having placed the robe within the monastery, one should dwell within the monastery. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell in the monastery building where the robe is placed, or within hand’s reach of that monastery building.

If the monastery belongs to a single family and is enclosed, one should place the robe inside the monastery and stay there. If it is not enclosed, one should stay in the monastery where the robe is placed or within arm’s reach of that monastery.

Sace ekakulassa rukkhamūlaṃ hoti, yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharati, antochāyāya cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antochāyāya vatthabbaṃ. Viraḷasākhassa pana rukkhassa ātapena phuṭṭhokāse ṭhapitaṃ nissaggiyameva hoti, tasmā tādisassa rukkhassa sākhacchāyāya vā khandhacchāyāya vā ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace sākhāya vā viṭape vā ṭhapeti, upari aññasākhacchāyāya phuṭṭhokāseyeva ṭhapetabbaṃ. Khujjarukkhassa chāyā dūraṃ gacchati, chāyāya gataṭṭhāne ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace nānākulassa rukkhamūlaṃ hoti, cīvarassa hatthapāse vasitabbaṃ.

If there is a tree root belonging to one family, where the shade spreads around at noon, having placed the robe within the shade, one should dwell within the shade. For a tree with sparse branches, if placed in a spot touched by sunlight, it is subject to forfeiture; therefore, for such a tree, it should be placed in the shade of branches or trunk. For a stunted tree, the shade extends far, and it is permissible to place it where the shade reaches. If the tree root belongs to different families, one should dwell within reach of the robe.

If a foot of a tree belongs to one family, where the shade spreads all around at noon, having placed the robe within the shade, one should dwell within the shade. But a robe placed in a spot touched by the sunlight of a sparsely branched tree becomes forfeited. Therefore, it should be placed in the shade of a branch or the shade of the trunk of such a tree. If one places it on a branch or a twig, it should be placed in a spot touched by the shade of another branch above. The shade of a crooked tree extends far; it is permissible to place it in the place where the shade extends. If the foot of a tree belongs to several families, one should dwell within hand’s reach of the robe.

If the tree belongs to a single family, and its shade covers the area at midday, one should place the robe within the shade and stay there. If the tree has sparse branches and the robe is placed in a sunlit area, it is forfeited. Therefore, the robe should be placed in the shade of the branches or trunk. If placed on a branch or foliage, it should be placed where the shade of another branch covers it. The shade of a crooked tree extends far, and it is permissible to place the robe where the shade reaches. If the tree belongs to multiple families, one should stay within arm’s reach of the robe.

Ajjhokāse pana agāmake araññe cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā tassa samantā sattabbhantare vasitabbaṃ. Agāmakaṃ nāma araññaṃ viñjhāṭavīādīsu vā samuddamajjhe vā macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathe dīpakesu labbhati. Tādise araññe majjhe ṭhitassa samantā sattabbhantaraparicchedo, vinibbedhena cuddasa honti. Majjhe nisinno puratthimāya vā pacchimāya vā disāya pariyante ṭhapitacīvaraṃ rakkhati. Sace pana aruṇuggamanasamaye kesaggamattampi puratthimaṃ disaṃ gacchati, pacchimāya disāya cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Esa nayo itarasmiṃ. Nissaggiyaṃ pana cīvaraṃ anissajjitvā paribhuñjanto dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

In an open space, in a non-village wilderness, having placed the robe, one should dwell within seven abbhantaras around it. A non-village wilderness is found in desolate forests, in the middle of the sea, or on islands inaccessible to fishermen. In such a wilderness, standing in the middle, the boundary of seven abbhantaras around, when divided, becomes fourteen. Standing in the middle, one protects the robe placed at the edge of the eastern or western direction. But if at dawn he moves even a hair’s breadth toward the eastern direction, the robe in the western direction becomes subject to forfeiture. The same applies in the opposite case. Using a robe subject to forfeiture without relinquishing it incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

In an open space, however, in a non-village forest, having placed the robe, one should dwell within seven abbhantaras all around it. A non-village forest is found in places like the Vindhyā forest or in the middle of the ocean, on islands inaccessible to fishermen. For one standing in the middle of such a forest, the circumference of seven abbhantaras is fourteen in diameter. One sitting in the middle protects the robe placed at the edge in the eastern or western direction. But if, at the time of dawn, one goes even a hair’s breadth in the eastern direction, the robe in the western direction becomes forfeited. This method applies to the other directions. But using a forfeited robe without relinquishing it, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

In the open air, in a wilderness without villages, one should place the robe and stay within seven abbhantaras around it. A wilderness without villages is found in places like the Viñjhā forest or in the middle of the sea on fishermen’s paths or small islands. In such a wilderness, the area within seven abbhantaras is the limit, and beyond that, it is fourteen. If one sits in the middle, one guards the robe placed at the eastern or western boundary. However, if at dawn one moves even a hair’s breadth eastward, the robe placed in the west is forfeited. The same applies to other directions. If one uses a forfeited robe without relinquishing it, one commits a wrong.

52. Sace padhāniko bhikkhu sabbarattiṃ padhānamanuyuñjitvā paccūsasamaye “nahāyissāmī”ti tīṇi cīvarāni tīre ṭhapetvā nadiṃ otarati, nahāyantasseva cassa aruṇaṃ uṭṭhahati, kiṃ kātabbaṃ? So hi yadi uttaritvā cīvaraṃ nivāseti, nissaggiyaṃ cīvaraṃ, anissajjitvā paribhuñjanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Atha naggo gacchati, evampi dukkaṭaṃ āpajjatīti? Nāpajjati. So hi yāva aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ disvā vinayakammaṃ na karoti, tāva tesaṃ cīvarānaṃ aparibhogārahattā naṭṭhacīvaraṭṭhāne ṭhito hoti, naṭṭhacīvarassa ca akappiyaṃ nāma natthi, tasmā ekaṃ nivāsetvā dve hatthena gahetvā vihāraṃ gantvā vinayakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace dūre vihāro hoti, antarāmagge manussā sañcaranti, ekaṃ nivāsetvā ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabbaṃ. Sace vihāre sabhāgaṃ bhikkhuṃ na passati, bhikkhācāraṃ gatā honti, saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā santaruttarena āsanasālaṃ gantvā vinayakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace bahigāme corabhayaṃ hoti, pārupitvā gantabbaṃ. Sace āsanasālā sambādhā hoti, janākiṇṇā na sakkā ekamante cīvaraṃ apanetvā vinayakammaṃ kātuṃ, ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ ādāya bahigāmaṃ gantvā vinayakammaṃ katvā cīvarāni paribhuñjitabbāni.

52. If a monk devoted to meditation, having practiced all night, at dawn thinks, “I will bathe,” places the three robes on the riverbank, enters the river, and while bathing the dawn rises, what should be done? If he emerges and wears the robe, it is a robe subject to forfeiture, and using it without relinquishing it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If he goes naked, does he also incur a dukkaṭa offense? He does not. For until he sees another monk and performs the disciplinary act, those robes, being unfit for use, stand in place of lost robes, and for lost robes, there is no such thing as unsuitable. Therefore, wearing one, taking two in hand, he should go to the monastery and perform the disciplinary act. If the monastery is far and people are moving about on the way, wearing one, covering with another, and placing one on the shoulder, he should go. If he does not see a like-minded monk in the monastery and they have gone for alms, placing the saṅghāṭi outside the village, he should go to the assembly hall with inner and outer robes and perform the disciplinary act. If there is fear of thieves outside the village, he should cover himself and go. If the assembly hall is crowded and full of people, making it impossible to set the robe aside and perform the disciplinary act, he should take one monk outside the village, perform the disciplinary act, and use the robes.

52. If a diligent bhikkhu, having practiced diligently all night, at dawn, thinking, “I will bathe,” places the three robes on the bank and enters the river, and the dawn rises while he is bathing, what should be done? For if he comes out and puts on the robe, the robe is forfeited, and he incurs a dukkaṭa offense for using it without relinquishing it. But if he goes naked, does he also incur a dukkaṭa offense? He does not. For until he sees another bhikkhu and performs the Vinaya act, he is in the position of one whose robe is lost, due to the unsuitability of using those robes, and there is nothing unsuitable for one whose robe is lost. Therefore, having put on one, taking two in hand, he should go to the monastery and perform the Vinaya act. If the monastery is far away, and people are traveling on the road, having put on one, wrapped one around, and placed one on the shoulder, he should go. If he does not see a fellow bhikkhu in the monastery, and they have gone for alms, having placed the outer robe outside the village, he should go to the assembly hall with the inner and upper robes and perform the Vinaya act. If there is fear of thieves outside the village, he should go wrapped up. If the assembly hall is crowded, full of people, and it is not possible to remove the robe in a secluded place and perform the Vinaya act, taking one bhikkhu, he should go outside the village, perform the Vinaya act, and use the robes.

52. If a diligent monk spends the whole night in meditation and at dawn thinks, “I will bathe,” and places his three robes on the shore and enters the river, and dawn breaks while he is bathing, what should be done? If he comes out and wears the robe, the robe is forfeited, and by using it without relinquishing it, he commits a wrong. If he goes naked, does he also commit a wrong? No. As long as he does not see another monk to perform a Vinaya transaction, he remains in the position of one who has lost his robe, and since the lost robe is not unfit, he should wear one robe, carry the other two, and go to the monastery to perform the Vinaya transaction. If the monastery is far and people are on the way, he should wear one robe, put on another, and carry the third on his shoulder. If he does not find a suitable monk in the monastery, as they have gone for alms, he should leave the outer robe in the village, enter the assembly hall with the inner robe, and perform the Vinaya transaction. If there is danger of thieves in the village, he should wear the robe and go. If the assembly hall is crowded and it is not possible to remove the robe and perform the Vinaya transaction privately, he should take one monk and go outside the village to perform the Vinaya transaction and then use the robes.

Sace therā bhikkhū daharānaṃ hatthe pattacīvaraṃ datvā maggaṃ gacchantā pacchimayāme sayitukāmā honti, attano attano cīvaraṃ hatthapāse katvāva sayitabbaṃ. Sace gacchantānaṃyeva asampattesu daharesu aruṇaṃ uggacchati, cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, nissayo pana na paṭippassambhati. Daharānampi purato gacchantānaṃ theresu asampattesu eseva nayo. Maggaṃ virajjhitvā araññe aññamaññaṃ apassantesupi eseva nayo. Sace pana daharā “mayaṃ, bhante, muhuttaṃ sayitvā asukasmiṃ nāma okāse tumhe sampāpuṇissāmā”ti vatvā yāva aruṇuggamanā sayanti, cīvarañca nissaggiyaṃ hoti, nissayo ca paṭippassambhati. Dahare uyyojetvā theresu sayantesupi eseva nayo. Dvedhāpathaṃ disvā therā “ayaṃ maggo” , daharā “ayaṃ maggo”ti vatvā aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā gatā, saha aruṇassa uggamanā cīvarāni ca nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo ca paṭippassambhati. Sace daharā maggato okkamma “antoaruṇeyeva nivattissāmā”ti bhesajjatthāya gāmaṃ pavisitvā āgacchanti, asampattānaṃyeva ca nesaṃ aruṇo uggacchati, cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo pana na paṭippassambhati. Sace pana dhenubhayena vā sunakhabhayena vā muhuttaṃ ṭhatvā “gamissāmā”ti ṭhatvā vā nisīditvā vā gacchanti, antarā aruṇe uggate cīvarāni ca nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo ca paṭippassambhati.

If elder monks, giving their bowls and robes to young monks, travel on a road and wish to sleep in the last watch of the night, they should sleep keeping their robes within reach. If the dawn rises while they are traveling before the young monks arrive, the robes become subject to forfeiture, but dependence does not lapse. For young monks traveling ahead, if the elders do not arrive, the same applies. Even if they miss the road and do not see each other in the wilderness, the same applies. But if the young monks say, “Venerables, we will sleep a little and meet you at such-and-such a place,” and sleep until dawn rises, the robes become subject to forfeiture, and dependence lapses. The same applies if the elders send off the young monks and sleep. Seeing a forked path, if the elders say, “This is the road,” and the young monks say, “This is the road,” and not accepting each other’s word they go their ways, with the rising of the dawn, the robes become subject to forfeiture, and dependence lapses. If the young monks stray from the road, saying, “We will return before dawn,” enter a village for medicine, and return, but dawn rises before they arrive, the robes become subject to forfeiture, but dependence does not lapse. If, due to fear of cows or dogs, they stand or sit for a moment saying, “We will go,” and dawn rises on the way, the robes become subject to forfeiture, and dependence lapses.

If elder bhikkhus, having given their bowls and robes into the hands of junior bhikkhus, are going on a journey and want to sleep in the last watch of the night, they should sleep having their own robes within hand’s reach. If the dawn rises while they are traveling and the junior bhikkhus have not arrived, the robe becomes forfeited, but the dependency is not dissolved. For junior bhikkhus going ahead, if the elders have not arrived, the same method applies. If they miss the road and do not see each other in the forest, the same method applies. But if the junior bhikkhus say, “Venerable Sirs, we will sleep for a while and meet you at such and such a place,” and they sleep until the rising of the dawn, the robe becomes forfeited, and the dependency is dissolved. The same method applies if the elders sleep after sending the junior bhikkhus away. Seeing two paths, the elders say, “This is the path,” and the junior bhikkhus say, “This is the path,” and they go without accepting each other’s words, with the rising of the dawn, the robes become forfeited, and the dependency is dissolved. If the junior bhikkhus leave the path and say, “We will return before dawn,” and enter a village for medicine, and the dawn rises while they have not arrived, the robes become forfeited, but the dependency is not dissolved. But if, due to fear of cows or fear of dogs, they stop for a while, thinking, “We will go,” and they go after standing or sitting, and the dawn rises on the way, the robes become forfeited, and the dependency is dissolved.

If the elder monks, having given their bowls and robes to the young monks, wish to sleep during the last watch of the night while walking, they should place their own robes within arm’s reach before lying down. If, while walking, the young monks have not yet arrived by the time dawn breaks, the robes become forfeited, but the dependence is not relinquished. The same applies if the young monks walk ahead and the elders have not yet arrived. Even if they stray from the path and do not see each other in the forest, the same rule applies. However, if the young monks say, “Venerable sir, we will sleep for a while and meet you at such-and-such a place,” and they sleep until dawn breaks, the robes become forfeited, and the dependence is relinquished. The same applies if the elders sleep after sending the young monks away. If, upon seeing a fork in the path, the elders say, “This is the path,” and the young monks say, “This is the path,” and they go without heeding each other’s words, the robes become forfeited at dawn, and the dependence is relinquished. If the young monks deviate from the path, thinking, “We will return before dawn,” and enter a village for medicine, and dawn breaks before they return, the robes become forfeited, but the dependence is not relinquished. If, however, they stop for a moment due to fear of cows or dogs, and then proceed, whether standing or sitting, and dawn breaks while they are on the way, the robes become forfeited, and the dependence is relinquished.

Sace “antoaruṇeyeva āgamissāmā”ti antosīmāyaṃ gāmaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ antarā aruṇo uggacchati, neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, na nissayo paṭippassambhati. Sace pana “vibhāyatu tāvā”ti nisīdanti, aruṇe uggate na cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo pana paṭippassambhati. Sace yepi “antoaruṇeyeva āgamissāmā”ti sāmantavihāraṃ dhammassavanatthāya saussāhā gacchanti, antarāmaggeyeva ca nesaṃ aruṇo uggacchati, cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo pana na paṭippassambhati. Sace dhammagāravena “yāvapariyosānaṃ sutvāva gamissāmā”ti nisīdanti, saha aruṇassa uggamanā cīvarānipi nissaggiyāni honti, nissayo ca paṭippassambhati. Therena daharaṃ cīvaradhovanatthāya gāmakaṃ pesentena attano cīvaraṃ paccuddharitvāva dātabbaṃ, daharassapi cīvaraṃ paccuddharāpetvāva ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace asatiyā gacchati, attano cīvaraṃ paccuddharitvā daharassa cīvaraṃ vissāsena gahetvā ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace thero na sarati, daharova sarati, daharena attano cīvaraṃ paccuddharitvā therassa cīvaraṃ vissāsena gahetvā gantvā vattabbaṃ “bhante, tumhākaṃ cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjathā”ti. Attanopi cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Evaṃ ekassa satiyāpi āpattimokkho hoti.

If they enter a village within the boundary saying, “We will return before dawn,” and dawn rises on the way, neither do the robes become subject to forfeiture nor does dependence lapse. But if they sit, saying, “Let it get light first,” and dawn rises, the robes do not become subject to forfeiture, but dependence lapses. If some, eager to hear the Dhamma, go to a neighboring monastery saying, “We will return before dawn,” and dawn rises on the way, the robes become subject to forfeiture, but dependence does not lapse. If, out of respect for the Dhamma, they sit, saying, “We will go only after hearing the end,” with the rising of the dawn, the robes become subject to forfeiture, and dependence lapses. When an elder sends a young monk to a village to wash robes, he should give his own robe only after relinquishing it, and the young monk’s robe should be placed only after having him relinquish it. If he goes forgetfully, the elder should relinquish his own robe, take the young monk’s robe in confidence, and keep it. If the elder does not remember, but the young monk does, the young monk should relinquish his own robe, take the elder’s robe in confidence, go, and say, “Venerable, determine your robe and use it.” He should also determine his own robe. Thus, even with one’s mindfulness, liberation from offense occurs.

If those who have entered a village within the boundary, thinking, “We will come before dawn,” and the dawn rises on the way, the robes do not become forfeited, nor is the dependency dissolved. But if they sit down, thinking, “Let it dawn,” and the dawn rises, the robes do not become forfeited, but the dependency is dissolved. If those who, thinking, “We will come before dawn,” go with eagerness to a neighboring monastery to listen to the Dhamma, and the dawn rises while they are still on the way, the robes become forfeited, but the dependency is not dissolved. But if, out of respect for the Dhamma, they sit down, thinking, “We will go only after listening to the end,” with the rising of the dawn, the robes become forfeited, and the dependency is dissolved. An elder sending a junior bhikkhu to a village to wash robes should give his own robe only after relinquishing it, and the junior bhikkhu’s robe should also be placed after being relinquished. If he goes without mindfulness, having relinquished his own robe, he should take the junior bhikkhu’s robe with trust and place it. If the elder does not remember, but the junior bhikkhu remembers, the junior bhikkhu, having relinquished his own robe, should take the elder’s robe with trust, go, and say, “Venerable Sir, determine your robe and use it.” He should also determine his own robe. Thus, even with the mindfulness of one, there is release from the offense.

If they enter a village within the boundary thinking, “We will return before dawn,” and dawn breaks while they are inside, the robes do not become forfeited, nor is the dependence relinquished. If they sit down thinking, “Let us wait until it is light,” and dawn breaks, the robes do not become forfeited, but the dependence is relinquished. If those who think, “We will return before dawn,” go enthusiastically to a nearby monastery to listen to the Dhamma, and dawn breaks while they are on the way, the robes become forfeited, but the dependence is not relinquished. If, out of respect for the Dhamma, they sit down thinking, “We will go only after listening to the end,” and dawn breaks, the robes become forfeited, and the dependence is relinquished. When an elder sends a young monk to a village to wash the robes, he should first take off his own robe and then give it. The young monk should also take off his robe and keep it aside. If he goes without mindfulness, he should take off his own robe and, trusting the young monk, take his robe and keep it aside. If the elder does not remember, the young monk should remember, take off his own robe, and, trusting the elder, take his robe and say, “Venerable sir, please determine your robe and use it.” He should also determine his own robe. In this way, even if only one is mindful, the offense is absolved.

10. Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā

10. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Safeguarding Goods

10. Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā

10. Discussion on the Handling of Goods

53. Bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmananti paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopanaṃ. Paresañhi (pāci. aṭṭha. 506) kappiyavatthu vā hotu akappiyavatthu vā, antamaso mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ kālapaṇṇampi gihisantakaṃ bhaṇḍāgārikasīsena paṭisāmentassa pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana mātāpitūnaṃ santakaṃ avassaṃ paṭisāmetabbaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ hoti, attano atthāya gahetvā paṭisāmetabbaṃ. “Idaṃ paṭisāmetvā dehī”ti pana vutte “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace “paṭisāmehī”ti pātetvā gacchanti, palibodho nāma hoti, paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭati. Vihāre kammaṃ karontā vaḍḍhakīādayo vā rājavallabhā vā “attano upakaraṇabhaṇḍaṃ vā sayanabhaṇḍaṃ vā paṭisāmetvā dethā”ti vadanti, chandenapi bhayenapi na kātabbameva, guttaṭṭhānaṃ pana dassetuṃ vaṭṭati, balakkārena pātetvā gatesu ca paṭisāmetuṃ.

53. Safeguarding goods means protecting others’ possessions. For (pāci. aṭṭha. 506) safeguarding permissible or impermissible items belonging to others—even a mother’s earring or a black leaf—under the guise of a storekeeper incurs a pācittiya offense. However, if it is permissible goods belonging to parents that must necessarily be safeguarded, it should be taken and safeguarded for oneself. If they say, “Safeguard this and give it,” it should be refused, saying, “It is not permissible.” If they drop it and leave, saying, “Safeguard it,” it becomes an impediment, and it is permissible to safeguard it. When carpenters or royal favorites working in the monastery say, “Safeguard our tools or bedding and give them,” it should not be done even out of affection or fear, but it is permissible to show a safe place; if they drop it forcibly and leave, it may be safeguarded.

53. The safekeeping of goods means the guarding of others’ goods. Whether it is a permissible or an impermissible object (pāci. aṭṭha. 506) belonging to others, even a mother’s ear-ornament or a black leaf, for one who keeps what belongs to a householder with the mind of a storekeeper, there is a pācittiya. But if it is permissible goods belonging to parents that must necessarily be kept, it should be taken and kept for one’s own sake. But if one is told, “Keep this and give it,” one should refuse, saying, “It is not permissible.” If they drop it, saying, “Keep it,” and go, it is called an encumbrance; it is permissible to keep it. If carpenters and others doing work in the monastery, or royal favorites, say, “Keep and give us our tools or our bedding,” it should not be done, even out of affection or fear. But it is permissible to show a safe place, and if they drop it forcefully and go, it is permissible to keep it.

53. The handling of goods refers to the safeguarding of others’ goods. For others (pāci. aṭṭha. 506), whether the item is allowable or not, even if it is as small as a mother’s ear ornament or a leaf used for timekeeping, if a monk handles it with the intention of safeguarding it, it is an offense of expiation. However, if it is an allowable item belonging to one’s parents that must be handled, one should take it for one’s own use and handle it. If someone says, “Handle this and give it to me,” one should refuse, saying, “It is not proper.” If they insist and leave, it is considered a hindrance, and handling it is permissible. If, while work is being done in the monastery, carpenters or royal favorites say, “Handle our tools or bedding and give them to us,” one should not do so out of desire or fear, but it is permissible to show them the place of storage. If they forcefully leave after being told, handling it is permissible.

Sace (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.111) attano hatthe paṭisāmanatthāya ṭhapitaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ sāmikena “dehi me bhaṇḍa”nti yācito adātukāmo “nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti bhaṇati, sampajānamusāvādepi adinnādānassa payogattā dukkaṭaṃ. “Kiṃ tumhe bhaṇatha, nevidaṃ mayhaṃ anurūpaṃ, na tumhāka”ntiādīni vadantassapi dukkaṭameva. “Raho mayā etassa hatthe ṭhapitaṃ, na añño koci jānāti, dassati nu kho me, no”ti sāmiko vimatiṃ uppādeti, bhikkhussa thullaccayaṃ. Tassa pharusādibhāvaṃ disvā sāmiko “na mayhaṃ dassatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, tatra sacāyaṃ bhikkhu “kilametvā naṃ dassāmī”ti dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāva. Sacepi so dāne nirussāho, bhaṇḍasāmiko pana gahaṇe saussāho, rakkhatiyeva. Yadi pana tasmiṃ dāne nirussāho bhaṇḍasāmiko “na mayhaṃ dassatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, evaṃ ubhinnaṃ dhuranikkhepena bhikkhuno pārājikaṃ. Yadipi mukhena “dassāmī”ti vadati, cittena pana adātukāmo, evampi sāmikassa dhuranikkhepe pārājikaṃ. Taṃ pana saṅgopanatthāya attano hatthe parehi ṭhapitaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ aguttadesato ṭhānā cāvetvā guttaṭṭhāne ṭhapanatthāya harato anāpatti. Theyyacittenapi ṭhānā cāventassa avahāro natthi. Kasmā? Attano hatthe nikkhittattā, bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ pana hoti. Theyyacittena paribhuñjatopi eseva nayo.

If (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.111) goods placed in one’s hand for safeguarding are requested by the owner, saying, “Give me my goods,” and one, unwilling to give, says, “I’m not taking it,” it incurs a dukkaṭa offense due to deliberate lying and the effort of taking what was not given. Saying, “What are you saying? This is neither suitable for me nor for you,” also incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If the owner, thinking, “I placed it in his hand secretly; no one else knows; will he give it to me or not?” becomes doubtful, it is a thullaccaya offense for the monk. Seeing his harshness or such, if the owner gives up, saying, “He won’t give it to me,” and if the monk is eager to give it after tiring him, he guards it for now. Even if the monk is not eager to give, but the owner is eager to take, he still guards it. But if the monk is not eager to give and the owner gives up, saying, “He won’t give it to me,” with both giving up, it becomes a pārājika offense for the monk. Even if he says with his mouth, “I will give it,” but intends not to give it in his mind, when the owner gives up, it is still a pārājika offense. However, there is no offense in moving goods placed in one’s hand by others from an unsafe place to a safe place to protect them. Even with a thieving mind, there is no misappropriation in moving it. Why? Because it was placed in one’s hand; but it becomes a debt of goods. The same applies if one uses it with a thieving mind.

If (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.111) someone, being asked by the owner for goods placed in his hands for safekeeping, “Give me my goods,” not wanting to give, says, “I did not take it,” there is a dukkaṭa because of the intentional lie and the effort of taking what is not given. Even for one who says, “What are you saying? This is not suitable for me, nor for you,” and so on, there is a dukkaṭa. The owner thinks with doubt, “It was placed in his hands by me in secret, no one else knows; will he give it to me or not?” There is a thullaccaya for the bhikkhu. Seeing his harshness and so on, the owner gives up hope, “He will not give it to me.” There, if this bhikkhu is eager to give, thinking, “I will make him suffer and then give it,” he still protects. Even if he is not eager to give, but the owner of the goods is eager to receive, he still protects. But if he is not eager to give, and the owner of the goods gives up hope, “He will not give it to me,” thus, with the giving up of hope by both, there is a pārājika for the bhikkhu. Even if he says with his mouth, “I will give,” but in his mind he does not want to give, even so, with the owner’s giving up of hope, there is a pārājika. But if someone moves goods placed in his own hands by others for safekeeping from an unsafe place to a safe place, there is no offense. Even if he moves it from its place with a thieving mind, there is no theft. Why? Because it was placed in his own hands; but it becomes something that should be given. The same method applies even if he uses it with a thieving mind.

If (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.111) a monk, having placed an item in his own hands for safeguarding, is asked by the owner, “Give me the item,” and he refuses, saying, “I will not take it,” it is an offense of wrong conduct due to the intent to steal. Even if he says, “What are you saying? This is not suitable for me, nor for you,” it is still an offense of wrong conduct. If the owner, seeing the monk’s harshness, thinks, “He will not give it to me,” and gives up the claim, the monk commits a grave offense. If the monk, seeing the owner’s determination, thinks, “I will give it to him after making him tired,” and keeps it for a while, he is still responsible. Even if the monk is not enthusiastic about giving, but the owner is determined to take it, the monk is still responsible. If both give up their claims, the monk commits an offense of defeat. Even if he says with his mouth, “I will give it,” but in his mind he does not wish to give, it is still an offense of defeat if the owner gives up the claim. However, if the item is placed in his hands by others for safeguarding, and he moves it from an unsafe place to a safe place, there is no offense. Even if he moves it with the intent to steal, there is no theft. Why? Because it was placed in his hands, and the item is to be given. The same applies if he uses it with the intent to steal.

54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ santakaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci parikkhāraṃ paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace āgantuko bhikkhu āvāsikānaṃ cīvarakammaṃ karontānaṃ samīpe pattacīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā “ete saṅgopessantī”ti maññamāno nahāyituṃ vā aññatra vā gacchati, sace taṃ āvāsikā saṅgopenti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce, naṭṭhe gīvā na hoti. Sacepi so “idaṃ, bhante, ṭhapethā”ti vatvā gacchati, itare ca kiccapasutattā na jānanti, eseva nayo. Athāpi te “idaṃ, bhante, ṭhapethā”ti vuttā “mayaṃ byāvaṭā”ti paṭikkhipanti, itaro ca “avassaṃ ṭhapessantī”ti anādiyitvā gacchati, eseva nayo. Sace pana te tena yācitā vā ayācitā vā “mayaṃ ṭhapessāma, tvaṃ gacchā”ti vadanti, taṃ saṅgopitabbaṃ. No ce saṅgopenti, naṭṭhe gīvā. Kasmā? Sampaṭicchitattā.

54. However, it is permissible to safeguard any requisite belonging to the five co-religionists. If a guest monk places his bowl and robe near resident monks who are working on robes, thinking, “They will protect it,” and goes to bathe or elsewhere, if the residents protect it, that is good. If not, and it is lost, there is no responsibility. Even if he says, “Venerables, keep this,” and they, busy with tasks, do not know, the same applies. Or if they, when told, “Venerables, keep this,” refuse, saying, “We are busy,” and he, ignoring that, leaves thinking, “They will surely keep it,” the same applies. But if they, whether requested or not, say, “We will keep it; you go,” it must be protected. If they do not protect it and it is lost, there is responsibility. Why? Because they accepted it.

54. But it is permissible to keep any requisites belonging to the five co-religionists. If a visiting bhikkhu places his bowl and robe near resident bhikkhus who are doing robe-work, thinking, “They will keep them safe,” and goes to bathe or elsewhere, if those residents keep them safe, that is good. If not, there is no liability if they are lost. Even if he says, “Venerable Sirs, please keep this,” and the others do not know because they are busy with their tasks, the same method applies. Even if they, being told, “Venerable Sirs, please keep this,” refuse, saying, “We are busy,” and the other goes without heeding, thinking, “They will certainly keep it,” the same method applies. But if they, whether asked or not asked by him, say, “We will keep it, you go,” it should be kept safe. If they do not keep it safe, there is liability if it is lost. Why? Because they accepted it.

54. It is permissible to handle any item belonging to five kinds of rightful owners. If a visiting monk, leaving his bowl and robe near resident monks who are making robes, thinks, “They will safeguard it,” and goes to bathe or elsewhere, and the resident monks safeguard it, that is good. If not, there is no blame. If he says, “Please place this,” and leaves, and the others, being busy, do not notice, the same applies. Even if they are told, “Please place this,” and they refuse, saying, “We are busy,” and he leaves, thinking, “They will surely place it,” the same applies. If, however, they are asked or not asked and say, “We will place it, you go,” it should be safeguarded. If they do not safeguard it, there is no blame. Why? Because they accepted the responsibility.

Yo bhikkhu bhaṇḍāgāriko hutvā paccūsasamaye eva bhikkhūnaṃ pattacīvarāni heṭṭhāpāsādaṃ oropetvā dvāraṃ apidahitvā tesampi anārocetvāva dūre bhikkhācāraṃ gacchati, tāni ce corā haranti, tasseva gīvā. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūhi “oropetha, bhante, pattacīvarāni, kālo salākaggahaṇassā”ti vutto “samāgatātthā”ti pucchitvā “āma samāgatāmhā”ti vutte pattacīvarāni nīharitvā nikkhipitvā bhaṇḍāgāradvāraṃ bandhitvā “tumhe pattacīvarāni gahetvā heṭṭhāpāsādadvāraṃ paṭijaggitvā gaccheyyāthā”ti vatvā gacchati. Tatra ceko alasajātiko bhikkhu bhikkhūsu gatesu pacchā akkhīni puñchanto uṭṭhahitvā udakaṭṭhānaṃ mukhadhovanatthaṃ gacchati, taṃ khaṇaṃ disvā corā tassa pattacīvaraṃ haranti, suhaṭaṃ, bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti.

A monk who, as a storekeeper, at dawn brings down the monks’ bowls and robes to the lower hall, leaves the door open without informing them, and goes far for alms—if thieves take them, the responsibility is his alone. But a monk who, when told by the monks, “Venerables, bring down the bowls and robes; it’s time to take the ticket,” asks, “Are you assembled?” and upon hearing, “Yes, we are assembled,” brings out the bowls and robes, locks the storeroom door, and says, “Take your bowls and robes, look after the lower hall door, and go,” then leaves—if one lazy monk, after the others leave, rises late wiping his eyes and goes to wash his face, and thieves, seeing that moment, take his bowl and robe, it is well taken; there is no responsibility for the storekeeper.

If a bhikkhu, being a storekeeper, in the early morning, brings down the bowls and robes of the bhikkhus to the lower terrace, and goes for alms far away without closing the door and without informing them, and if thieves steal them, it is his liability. But if a bhikkhu, being told by the bhikkhus, “Bring down the bowls and robes, Venerable Sir, it is time for taking the meal-tickets,” asks, “Are you assembled?” and, being told, “Yes, we are assembled,” brings out the bowls and robes, places them, closes the door of the storehouse, and says, “You take your bowls and robes and go, guarding the door of the lower terrace,” and goes, and if one lazy bhikkhu, after the bhikkhus have gone, waking up later, wiping his eyes, goes to the water-place to wash his face, and seeing that moment, thieves steal his bowl and robe, it is well-stolen; there is no liability for the storekeeper.

A monk who, having become the storekeeper, early in the morning lowers the bowls and robes of the monks from the upper floor, leaves the door open, and without informing them goes far away for alms, and if thieves take them, he is to blame. If a monk is told by other monks, “Please lower the bowls and robes, it is time for the distribution,” and he asks, “Are all assembled?” and they say, “Yes,” and he takes out the bowls and robes, places them, locks the storeroom door, and says, “You take the bowls and robes, guard the lower door, and go,” and a lazy monk, after the others have gone, gets up wiping his eyes and goes to the water place to wash his face, and at that moment thieves take his bowl and robe, it is well done, but the storekeeper is not to blame.

Sacepi koci bhaṇḍāgārikassa anārocetvāva bhaṇḍāgāre attano parikkhāraṃ ṭhapeti, tasmimpi naṭṭhe bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti. Sace pana bhaṇḍāgāriko taṃ disvā “aṭṭhāne ṭhapita”nti gahetvā ṭhapeti, naṭṭhe tasseva gīvā. Sacepi ṭhapitabhikkhunā “mayā, bhante, īdiso nāma parikkhāro ṭhapito, upadhāreyyāthā”ti vutto “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, dunnikkhittaṃ vā maññamāno aññasmiṃ ṭhāne ṭhapeti, naṭṭhe tasseva gīvā. “Nāhaṃ jānāmī”ti paṭikkhipantassa pana natthi gīvā. Yopi tassa passantasseva ṭhapeti, bhaṇḍāgārikañca na sampaṭicchāpeti, naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva. Sace pana naṃ bhaṇḍāgāriko aññatra ṭhapeti, naṭṭhe gīvā . Sace bhaṇḍāgāraṃ suguttaṃ, sabbo saṅghassa cetiyassa ca parikkhāro tattheva ṭhapīyati, bhaṇḍāgāriko ca bālo abyatto dvāraṃ vivaritvā dhammakathaṃ vā sotuṃ aññaṃ vā kiñci kātuṃ katthaci gacchati, taṃ khaṇaṃ disvā yattakaṃ corā haranti, sabbaṃ tassa gīvā. Bhaṇḍāgārato nikkhamitvā bahi caṅkamantassa vā dvāraṃ vivaritvā sarīraṃ utuṃ gāhāpentassa vā tattheva samaṇadhammānuyogena nisinnassa vā tattheva nisīditvā kenaci kammena byāvaṭassa vā uccārapassāvapīḷitassapi sato tattheva upacāre vijjamāne bahi gacchato vā aññena vā kenaci ākārena pamattassa sato dvāraṃ vivaritvā vā vivaṭameva pavisitvā vā sandhiṃ chinditvā vā yattakaṃ tassa pamādapaccayā corā haranti, sabbaṃ tasseva gīvā. “Uṇhasamaye pana vātapānaṃ vivaritvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Uccārapīḷitassa pana tasmiṃ upacāre asati aññattha gacchantassa gilānapakkhe ṭhitattā avisayo, tasmā gīvā na hoti.

Even if someone places his requisite in the storeroom without informing the storekeeper, and it is lost, there is no responsibility for the storekeeper. But if the storekeeper sees it and, thinking, “It’s in an unsafe place,” takes and keeps it, and it is lost, the responsibility is his. Even if the monk who placed it says, “Venerable, I placed such-and-such a requisite; please look after it,” and he agrees, “Good,” and keeps it, or thinking it poorly placed keeps it elsewhere, and it is lost, the responsibility is his. But if he refuses, saying, “I don’t know,” there is no responsibility. If someone places it while he watches but does not have him accept it, and it is lost, it is simply lost. But if the storekeeper moves it elsewhere and it is lost, the responsibility is his. If the storeroom is well-guarded and all the Sangha’s and shrine’s requisites are kept there, and the storekeeper, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes to hear a Dhamma talk or do something else, and thieves take whatever they can at that moment, all responsibility is his. If, while walking outside after leaving the storeroom, or opening the door to warm his body, or sitting there engaged in monastic duties, or sitting there busy with some task, or oppressed by the need to relieve himself yet mindful, he goes out nearby, or due to some other negligence leaves the door open or enters an open door or breaks a wall, and thieves take whatever they can due to his negligence, all responsibility is his. They say, “In the hot season, it is permissible to open the window and lie down.” But if oppressed by the need to relieve himself and there is no facility nearby, going elsewhere due to illness is not his fault, so there is no responsibility.

Even if someone places his requisites in the storehouse without informing the storekeeper, there is no liability for the storekeeper if they are lost. But if the storekeeper sees it and, thinking, “It is placed in an unsuitable place,” takes it and places it, there is liability for him if it is lost. Even if, being told by the bhikkhu who placed it, “Venerable Sir, I have placed such and such a requisite, please take note of it,” he accepts, saying, “Good,” and, thinking it is badly placed, places it in another place, there is liability for him if it is lost. But for one who refuses, saying, “I do not know,” there is no liability. Even if someone places it while he is watching, and does not have the storekeeper accept it, what is lost is well-lost. But if the storekeeper places it elsewhere, there is liability if it is lost. If the storehouse is well-guarded, and all the requisites of the Sangha and the cetiya are placed there, and the storekeeper, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes somewhere to listen to a Dhamma talk or to do something else, and seeing that moment, thieves steal whatever they can, it is all his liability. If, having come out of the storehouse, he is walking outside, or, having opened the door, he is letting the body get warm, or he is sitting there engaged in the practice of a recluse, or he is sitting there busy with some task, or, being afflicted by the need to defecate or urinate, he goes outside while there is an adjacent area, or he is negligent in some other way, and thieves, having opened the door or entered through the open door, or having broken through a joint, steal whatever they can due to his negligence, it is all his liability. But it is said, “In the hot season, it is permissible to lie down with the window open.” For one afflicted by the need to defecate, in the absence of an adjacent area, going elsewhere is considered to be in the category of illness, and it is not a case of responsibility, therefore there is no liability.

If someone, without informing the storekeeper, places his belongings in the storeroom, and they are lost, the storekeeper is not to blame. If the storekeeper sees it and says, “It is placed in the wrong place,” and takes it and places it elsewhere, and it is lost, he is to blame. If the monk who placed it says, “Venerable sir, I have placed such-and-such an item, please take care of it,” and he accepts, thinking it is misplaced, and places it elsewhere, he is to blame. If he refuses, saying, “I do not know,” there is no blame. If he places it in the presence of the storekeeper but does not inform him, it is clearly lost. If the storekeeper places it elsewhere, and it is lost, he is to blame. If the storeroom is well guarded, and all the Sangha’s and the shrine’s belongings are placed there, and the storekeeper, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes to listen to a Dhamma talk or do something else, and at that moment thieves take whatever they can, he is to blame. If he goes out of the storeroom and walks outside, or opens the door and exposes his body to the weather, or sits there engaged in ascetic practices, or sits there occupied with some work, or is pressed by the need to relieve himself, and if, due to his negligence, thieves take whatever they can, he is to blame. “However, it is permissible to open a window and lie down in hot weather.” If one is pressed by the need to relieve oneself and goes elsewhere, since it is for the sake of the sick, it is not an offense, and there is no blame.

55. Yo pana anto uṇhapīḷito dvāraṃ suguttaṃ katvā bahi nikkhamati, corā taṃ gahetvā “dvāraṃ vivarā”ti vadanti, yāvatatiyaṃ na vivaritabbaṃ. Yadi pana te corā “sace na vivarasi, tañca māressāma, dvārañca bhinditvā parikkhāraṃ harissāmā”ti pharasuādīni ukkhipanti, “mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭhe guṇo natthī”ti vivarituṃ vaṭṭati. Idhāpi “avisayattā gīvā natthī”ti vadanti. Sace koci āgantuko kuñcikaṃ vā deti, dvāraṃ vā vivarati, yattakaṃ corā haranti, sabbaṃ tassa gīvā. Saṅghena bhaṇḍāgāraṃ guttatthāya sūciyantakañca kuñcikamuddikā ca yojetvā dinnā hoti, bhaṇḍāgāriko ghaṭikamattaṃ datvā nipajjati, corā vivaritvā parikkhāraṃ haranti, tasseva gīvā. Sūciyantakañca kuñcikamuddikañca yojetvā nipannaṃ panetaṃ sace corā āgantvā “dvāraṃ vivarāhī”ti vadanti, tattha purimanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Evaṃ suguttaṃ katvā nipanne pana sace bhittiṃ vā chadanaṃ vā bhinditvā umaṅgena vā pavisitvā haranti, na tassa gīvā.

55. However, one oppressed by heat inside, having secured the door well, goes outside, and thieves seize him, saying, “Open the door,” should not open it even up to the third request. But if the thieves, raising axes or such, say, “If you don’t open it, we’ll kill you and break the door and take the requisites,” it is permissible to open it, thinking, “If I die and the Sangha’s monastery is destroyed, there is no benefit.” Here too, they say, “There is no responsibility due to it being beyond his control.” If a guest gives a key or opens the door, and thieves take whatever they can, all responsibility is his. If the Sangha has provided a latch and key ring to secure the storeroom, and the storekeeper gives a small amount and lies down, and thieves open it and take the requisites, the responsibility is his. Having secured it with a latch and key ring and lying down, if thieves come and say, “Open the door,” one should act as in the previous method. But if, having secured it well and lying down, they break the wall or roof or enter through a tunnel and take it, there is no responsibility for him.

55. But if someone, afflicted by the heat inside, closes the door securely and goes outside, and thieves catch him and say, “Open the door,” he should not open it up to the third time. But if those thieves say, “If you do not open it, we will kill you, and we will break the door and steal the requisites,” and brandish axes and so on, thinking, “There is no benefit in my death and the destruction of the Sangha’s dwelling,” it is permissible to open it. Here also, it is said, “There is no liability because it is not a case of responsibility.” If a visitor gives a key or opens the door, whatever the thieves steal is all his liability. If the Sangha has given a lock and a key-seal for the protection of the storehouse, and the storekeeper lies down having given only the latch, and thieves open it and steal the requisites, it is his liability. But if, having fastened the lock and the key-seal, he lies down, and thieves come and say, “Open the door,” there, one should proceed as in the previous method. But if, having thus secured it and lying down, they break through the wall or the roof, or enter through a tunnel, and steal, there is no liability for him.

55. If one is pressed by the heat inside, secures the door well, and goes outside, and thieves seize him and say, “Open the door,” he should not open it up to the third time. If the thieves raise weapons and say, “If you do not open it, we will kill you and break the door to take the belongings,” it is permissible to open it, thinking, “If I die and the Sangha’s dwelling is destroyed, there is no benefit.” Here too, they say, “Since it is not within one’s control, there is no blame.” If a visitor gives a key or opens the door, and whatever the thieves take, he is to blame. If the Sangha, for the sake of guarding the storeroom, provides a key and a lock, and the storekeeper, having given it for a moment, lies down, and thieves open it and take the belongings, he is to blame. If, having secured it well with a key and a lock, he lies down, and thieves come and say, “Open the door,” he should proceed as before. If, having secured it well and lain down, thieves break the wall or the roof and enter from above to take the belongings, he is not to blame.

Sace bhaṇḍāgāre aññepi therā vasanti, vivaṭe dvāre attano attano parikkhāraṃ gahetvā gacchanti, bhaṇḍāgāriko tesu gatesu dvāraṃ na jaggati, sace tattha kiñci avaharīyati, bhaṇḍāgārikassa issaravatāya bhaṇḍāgārikasseva gīvā, therehi pana sahāyehi bhavitabbaṃ. Ayañhi sāmīci. Yadi bhaṇḍāgāriko “tumhe bahi ṭhatvā tumhākaṃ parikkhāraṃ gaṇhatha , mā pavisitthā”ti vadati, tesañca eko lolamahāthero sāmaṇerehi ceva upaṭṭhākehi ca saddhiṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ pavisitvā nisīdati ceva nipajjati ca, yattakaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ nassati, sabbaṃ tassa gīvā, bhaṇḍāgārikena pana avasesatherehi ca sahāyehi bhavitabbaṃ. Atha bhaṇḍāgārikova lolasāmaṇere ca upaṭṭhāke ca gahetvā bhaṇḍāgāre nisīdati ceva nipajjati ca, yattakaṃ nassati, sabbaṃ tasseva gīvā. Tasmā bhaṇḍāgārikeneva tattha vasitabbaṃ, avasesehi appeva rukkhamūle vasitabbaṃ, na ca bhaṇḍāgāreti.

If other elder monks live in the storeroom, take their requisites, and leave with the door open, and the storekeeper does not guard it after they leave, if anything is taken there, due to the storekeeper’s authority, the responsibility is his alone, but the elders must assist. This is the proper conduct. If the storekeeper says, “Stand outside and take your requisites; don’t enter,” and an impulsive elder enters the storeroom with novices and attendants, sits, and lies down, whatever goods are lost, all responsibility is his; the storekeeper and the other elders must assist. But if the storekeeper himself, with impulsive novices and attendants, sits and lies in the storeroom, whatever is lost, all responsibility is his alone. Therefore, only the storekeeper should live there; the others should ideally live at a tree root, not in the storeroom.

If other elders also dwell in the storehouse, and they take their own requisites through the open door and go, and the storekeeper does not guard the door after they have gone, if anything is stolen there, because of the storekeeper’s authority, it is the storekeeper’s liability; but the elders should be helpers. For this is proper conduct. If the storekeeper says, “You stand outside and take your requisites, do not enter,” and one of them, an old, greedy elder, enters the storehouse with novices and attendants and sits and lies down, whatever goods are lost are all his liability; but the storekeeper and the remaining elders should be helpers. But if the storekeeper himself, taking greedy novices and attendants, sits and lies down in the storehouse, whatever is lost is all his liability. Therefore, only the storekeeper should dwell there; the others should dwell at the foot of a tree, and not in the storehouse.

If other elders also stay in the storeroom, and they take their own belongings and go when the door is open, and the storekeeper does not guard the door after they have gone, and if something is stolen, the storekeeper is to blame due to his authority, but the elders should help. This is the proper procedure. If the storekeeper says, “You stand outside and take your belongings, do not enter,” and one foolish elder enters the storeroom with novices and attendants and sits or lies down, and whatever is lost, he is to blame, but the storekeeper and the other elders should help. If the storekeeper himself, along with foolish novices and attendants, sits or lies down in the storeroom, and whatever is lost, he is to blame. Therefore, only the storekeeper should stay there, and the others should stay at the foot of a tree, not in the storeroom.

56. Ye pana attano attano sabhāgabhikkhūnaṃ vasanagabbhesu parikkhāraṃ ṭhapenti, parikkhāre naṭṭhe yehi ṭhapito, tesaṃyeva gīvā, itarehi pana sahāyehi bhavitabbaṃ. Yadi pana saṅgho bhaṇḍāgārikassa vihāreyeva yāgubhattaṃ dāpeti, so ca bhikkhācāratthāya gāmaṃ gacchati, naṭṭhaṃ tasseva gīvā. Bhikkhācāraṃ pavisantehi atirekacīvaraṃ rakkhaṇatthāya ṭhapitavihāravārikassapi yāgubhattaṃ vā nivāpaṃ vā labhamānasseva bhikkhācāraṃ gacchato yaṃ tattha nassati, sabbaṃ gīvā. Na kevalañca ettakameva, bhaṇḍāgārikassa viya yaṃ tassa pamādapaccayā nassati, sabbaṃ gīvā.

56. Those who place their requisites in the rooms of like-minded monks, if the requisites are lost, the responsibility is theirs alone who placed them, but the others must assist. If the Sangha provides gruel or rice in the storekeeper’s monastery itself, and he goes to the village for alms, what is lost is his responsibility alone. For a monastery guard who goes for alms, leaving an extra robe for protection, and receives gruel, rice, or gleanings, whatever is lost there is entirely his responsibility. Not only this much, but like the storekeeper, whatever is lost due to his negligence is entirely his responsibility.

56. Those who place their requisites in the dwelling rooms of their fellow bhikkhus, if the requisites are lost, it is the liability of those with whom they were placed; but the others should be helpers. But if the Sangha provides gruel and meals in the monastery for the storekeeper, and he goes to the village for alms, what is lost is his liability. For one going for alms, having obtained gruel, meals, or a share while dwelling in the monastery assigned for keeping extra robes, whatever is lost there is all his liability. And not only this much, but like the storekeeper, whatever is lost due to his negligence is all his liability.

56. Those who place their belongings in the living quarters of their fellow monks, and if the belongings are lost, those who placed them are to blame, but the others should help. If the Sangha provides the storekeeper with rice gruel or food in the monastery, and he goes to the village for alms, and something is lost, he is to blame. If those who go for alms leave extra robes for safekeeping with the monastery caretaker, and he receives rice gruel or food and goes for alms, and whatever is lost there, he is to blame. Not only that, but whatever is lost due to his negligence, just like the storekeeper, he is to blame.

Sace vihāro mahā hoti, aññaṃ padesaṃ rakkhituṃ gacchantassa aññasmiṃ padese nikkhittaṃ haranti, avisayattā gīvā na hoti. Īdise pana vihāre vemajjhe sabbesaṃ osaraṇaṭṭhāne parikkhāre ṭhapetvā nisīditabbaṃ, vihāravārikā vā dve tayo ṭhapetabbā. Sace tesampi appamattānaṃ ito cito ca rakkhataṃyeva kiñci nassati, gīvā na hoti. Vihāravārike bandhitvā haritabhaṇḍampi corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesu aññena maggena haritabhaṇḍampi na tesaṃ gīvā. Sace vihāravārikānaṃ vihāre dātabbaṃ yāgubhattaṃ vā nivāpo vā na hoti, tehi pattabbalābhato atirekā dve tisso yāgusalākā tesaṃ pahonakabhattasalākā ca ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, nibaddhaṃ katvā pana na ṭhapetabbā. Manussā hi vippaṭisārino honti “vihāravārikāyeva amhākaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjantī”ti, tasmā parivattetvā parivattetvā ṭhapetabbā. Sace tesaṃ sabhāgā salākabhattādīni āharitvā denti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ . No ce denti, vāraṃ gāhāpetvā nīharāpetabbāni. Sace vihāravāriko dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamāno bhikkhācāraṃ gacchati, bhaṇḍāgārikassa viya sabbaṃ naṭṭhaṃ gīvā hoti. Sace saṅghassa vihārapālānaṃ dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ vā nivāpo vā natthi, bhikkhū vihāravāraṃ gahetvā attano attano nissitake vihāraṃ jaggāpenti, sampattavāraṃ aggahetuṃ na labhati. Yathā aññe bhikkhū karonti, tatheva kātabbaṃ. Bhikkhūhi pana asahāyassa vā adutiyassa vā yassa sabhāgo bhikkhu bhattaṃ ānetvā dātā natthi, evarūpassa vāro na pāpetabbo.

If the monastery is large, and he goes to guard another area, and something placed in another area is taken, there is no responsibility due to it being beyond his control. In such a monastery, requisites should be placed in the middle where all can gather, and one should sit there, or two or three monastery guards should be appointed. If even they, being heedful, guarding here and there, lose something, there is no responsibility. If requisites taken by thieves binding the guards or taken by another path are lost, it is not their responsibility. If there is no gruel or rice to be given to the monastery guards, it is permissible to set aside two or three gruel tickets and sufficient meal tickets from the alms obtained, but they should not be fixed permanently. For people become regretful, saying, “The monastery guards eat our rice,” so they should be rotated. If like-minded monks bring ticketed rice or such and give it, that is good. If not, they should be made to take turns and bring it out. If a monastery guard, receiving two or three gruel tickets and four or five meal tickets, goes for alms, like the storekeeper, all that is lost is his responsibility. If there is no rice or gleanings to be given to the Sangha’s monastery guards, monks take turns guarding the monastery and have their dependents look after it; one cannot refuse the turn when it comes. It should be done as other monks do. But for one without assistance or a companion, whose like-minded monk does not bring rice to give, such a one’s turn should not be assigned.

If the monastery is large, and while going to protect another area, what is placed in another area is stolen, there is no liability because it is not a case of responsibility. But in such a monastery, in the middle, in the place where everyone gathers, requisites should be placed and one should sit; or two or three monastery-keepers should be appointed. If, even while they are not negligent, and are protecting here and there, something is lost, there is no liability. Even goods stolen after tying up the monastery-keepers, if they go on the path of the thieves and the goods are stolen by another path, there is no liability for them. If the monastery-keepers do not have gruel, meals, or a share to be given in the monastery, they should set aside two or three extra portions of gruel and portions of meals sufficient for them from the bowl-alms; but they should not be set aside permanently. For people are remorseful, thinking, “The monastery-keepers are eating our meals.” Therefore, they should be set aside in rotation. If their fellows bring and give them portions of gruel and meals, that is good. If they do not give, they should be made to take turns and bring them out. If a monastery-keeper, receiving two or three portions of gruel and four or five portions of meals, goes for alms, like the storekeeper, all that is lost is his liability. If the Sangha does not have meals or a share to be given to the monastery-keepers, and the bhikkhus, taking turns guarding the monastery, have their dependents guard the monastery, one cannot refuse to take the turn that has come. As the other bhikkhus do, so it should be done. But for one who is without helpers or without a companion, or whose fellow bhikkhu does not bring and give meals, such a one’s turn should not be assigned.

If the monastery is large, and one goes to guard another area, and something placed in another area is taken, since it is not within one’s control, there is no blame. In such a monastery, one should sit in the middle where all can reach, and place the belongings there, or two or three caretakers should be appointed. If even they, being diligent and guarding here and there, lose something, there is no blame. If the caretakers are bound and taken by thieves, or if the thieves take the belongings by another path, they are not to blame. If the monastery caretakers are not provided with rice gruel or food in the monastery, they may place two or three extra rice gruel sticks and their meal sticks, but they should not place them fixedly. People are resentful, thinking, “The monastery caretakers are eating our food,” so they should place them alternately. If their fellow monks bring and give them meal sticks and the like, that is good. If not, they should take turns and remove them. If the monastery caretaker, receiving two or three rice gruel sticks and four or five meal sticks, goes for alms, just like the storekeeper, whatever is lost, he is to blame. If the Sangha has no food or alms to give to the monastery guards, the monks, having taken turns, should have their own dependent monasteries guarded, but they cannot take an extra turn. They should do as other monks do. However, a monk who has no companion or second, or whose fellow monk does not bring and give him food, should not be given a turn.

Yampi pākavaṭṭatthāya vihāre ṭhapenti, taṃ gahetvā upajīvantena ṭhātabbaṃ. Yo taṃ na upajīvati, so vāraṃ na gāhāpetabbo. Phalāphalatthāyapi vihāre bhikkhuṃ ṭhapenti, jaggitvā gopetvā phalavārena bhājetvā khādanti. Yo tāni khādati, tena ṭhātabbaṃ, anupajīvanto na gāhāpetabbo. Senāsanamañcapīṭhapaccattharaṇarakkhaṇatthāyapi ṭhapenti, āvāse vasantena ṭhātabbaṃ, abbhokāsiko pana rukkhamūliko vā na gāhāpetabbo. Eko navako hoti, bahussuto pana bahūnaṃ dhammaṃ vāceti, paripucchaṃ deti, pāḷiṃ vaṇṇeti, dhammakathaṃ katheti, saṅghassa bhāraṃ nittharati, ayaṃ lābhaṃ paribhuñjantopi āvāse vasantopi vāraṃ na gāhāpetabbo. “Purisaviseso nāma ñātabbo”ti vadanti. Uposathāgārapaṭimāgharajagganakassa pana diguṇaṃ yāgubhattaṃ, devasikaṃ taṇḍulanāḷi, saṃvacchare ticīvaraṃ dasavīsagghanakaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍañca dātabbaṃ. Sace pana tassa taṃ labhamānasseva pamādena tattha kiñci nassati, sabbaṃ gīvā. Bandhitvā balakkārena acchinnaṃ, na gīvā. Tattha cetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā santakena cetiyassa santakaṃ rakkhāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, cetiyassa santakena saṅghassa santakaṃ rakkhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana cetiyassa santakena saddhiṃ saṅghassa santakaṃ ṭhapitaṃ hoti, taṃ cetiyasantake rakkhāpite rakkhitameva hotīti evaṃ vaṭṭati. Pakkhavārena uposathāgārādīni rakkhatopi pamādavasena naṭṭhaṃ gīvāyevāti.

What is placed in the monastery for cooking should be taken and used for livelihood. One who does not use it should not be made to take a turn. For the sake of fruit or no fruit, they appoint a monk in the monastery; guarding, protecting, and dividing by fruit turns, they eat. One who eats it should stay; one who does not use it should not be made to take a turn. For protecting beds, seats, and covers in the monastery, one who lives in the residence should stay; but a wilderness-dweller or tree-root dweller should not be made to take a turn. One is a novice but learned, teaching Dhamma to many, answering questions, explaining the Pali, giving Dhamma talks, and bearing the Sangha’s burden; even if he uses gains or lives in the residence, he should not be made to take a turn. They say, “A distinguished person should be recognized.” For one guarding the uposatha hall or image house, double gruel and rice, a daily nāḷi of rice, a triple robe worth ten or twenty every year, and permissible goods should be given. But if, receiving these, something is lost there due to his negligence, all responsibility is his. What is bound and taken forcibly is not his responsibility. There, it is permissible to have the shrine’s goods protected with what belongs to the Sangha or shrine, but not to have the Sangha’s goods protected with the shrine’s goods. However, if Sangha goods are placed with shrine goods, and the shrine goods are protected, it is considered protected, so it is permissible. Even one guarding the uposatha hall or such by fortnightly turns, if something is lost due to negligence, bears the responsibility.

Even what is placed in the monastery for cooking should be taken and used. He who does not use it should not be assigned a turn. They also appoint a bhikkhu in the monastery for fruits. Having guarded, protected, and distributed the fruits according to the share, they eat. He who eats them should stay; one who does not use them should not be assigned. They also appoint someone for the protection of bedding, seats, and mats in the dwelling. One who dwells in the dwelling should stay; but one who dwells in the open air or at the foot of a tree should not be assigned. One is a novice, but he is learned and teaches the Dhamma to many, gives explanations, recites the Pāḷi, gives Dhamma talks, and carries the burden of the Sangha; even if he uses the gain, even if he dwells in the dwelling, he should not be assigned a turn. It is said, “A special person should be known.” But for the one who takes care of the Uposatha hall and the image house, double the gruel and meals, a nāḷi of rice daily, three robes in a year worth ten or twenty, and permissible goods should be given. But if, while he is receiving that, something is lost there due to his negligence, it is all his liability. What is seized by force after tying him up is not his liability. There, what belongs to the cetiya or the Sangha, it is permissible to have what belongs to the cetiya protected by what belongs to the cetiya; it is not permissible to have what belongs to the Sangha protected by what belongs to the cetiya. But what is placed together, what belongs to the Sangha with what belongs to the cetiya, when what belongs to the cetiya is protected, that is also protected; thus it is permissible. Even for one who protects the Uposatha hall and so on in turns, what is lost due to negligence is his liability.

What is placed in the monastery for the sake of cooking should be taken and used by those who live there. One who does not use it should not be given a turn. Fruits are also placed in the monastery for monks to guard and eat, distributing them by turns. One who eats them should stay, but one who does not use them should not be given a turn. They are also placed to guard bedding, chairs, and mats, and one who stays in the monastery should guard them, but a forest dweller or a tree-root dweller should not be given a turn. One who is newly ordained but learned, teaches the Dhamma to many, gives instructions, explains the texts, gives Dhamma talks, and bears the burden of the Sangha, even if he enjoys gains, should not be given a turn if he stays in the monastery. “A special person should be recognized,” they say. For the guardian of the Uposatha hall and the image house, double rice gruel, a daily measure of rice, and three robes worth twenty-five coins each year, along with allowable items, should be given. If, however, while receiving these, he loses something due to negligence, he is to blame. If it is taken by force after being bound, there is no blame. There, it is permissible to have the shrine’s belongings guarded by the shrine’s guardian, but it is not permissible to have the Sangha’s belongings guarded by the shrine’s guardian. However, what is placed in the shrine’s guardian’s care along with the Sangha’s belongings is considered guarded if the shrine’s guardian is guarding it. Even if one guards the Uposatha hall and the like by turns, if something is lost due to negligence, one is to blame.

11. Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathā

11. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Engaging in Buying and Selling

11. Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathā

11. Discussion on the Offense of Buying and Selling

57. Kayavikkayasamāpattīti kayavikkayasamāpajjanaṃ. “Iminā imaṃ dehī”tiādinā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595) hi nayena parassa kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhanto kayaṃ samāpajjati, attano kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ dento vikkayaṃ. Ayaṃ pana kayavikkayo ṭhapetvā pañca sahadhammike avasesehi gihipabbajitehi antamaso mātāpitūhipi saddhiṃ na vaṭṭati.

57. Engaging in buying and selling means entering into buying and selling. For by saying, “Give this for this,” as described (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595), taking another’s permissible goods is buying, and giving one’s own permissible goods is selling. This buying and selling is not permissible with anyone other than the five co-religionists, even with parents, whether lay or ordained.

57. Engaging in buying and selling means engaging in buying and selling. One who takes the permissible goods of another, saying, “Give this for this,” and so on (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595), engages in buying; one who gives his own permissible goods engages in selling. But this buying and selling, setting aside the five co-religionists, is not permissible with the remaining householders and renunciants, even with parents.

57. The offense of buying and selling refers to engaging in trade. By saying, “Give me this for that,” one engages in buying when taking an allowable item from another, and in selling when giving one’s own allowable item. This buying and selling, except with five kinds of rightful owners, is not permissible even with householders or renunciants, including one’s parents.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – vatthena vā vatthaṃ hotu, bhattena vā bhattaṃ, yaṃ kiñci kappiyaṃ “iminā imaṃ dehī”ti vadati, dukkaṭaṃ. Evaṃ vatvā mātuyāpi attano bhaṇḍaṃ deti, dukkaṭaṃ, “iminā imaṃ dehī”ti vutto vā “imaṃ dehi, imaṃ te dassāmī”ti taṃ vatvā vā mātuyāpi bhaṇḍaṃ attanā gaṇhāti, dukkaṭaṃ, attano bhaṇḍe parahatthaṃ, parabhaṇḍe ca attano hatthaṃ sampatte nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā “imaṃ dehī”ti vadato viññatti na hoti, “imaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti dadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ na hoti. Aññātakaṃ “imaṃ dehī”ti vadato viññatti, “imaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti dadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ, “iminā imaṃ dehī”ti kayavikkayaṃ āpajjato nissaggiyaṃ. Tasmā kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ parivattantena mātāpitūhipi saddhiṃ kayavikkayaṃ, aññātakehi saddhiṃ tisso āpattiyo mocentena parivattetabbaṃ.

Here is the decision—whether it is cloth for cloth or food for food, saying of any permissible item, “Give this for this,” incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Even giving one’s own goods to a mother, saying this, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If told, “Give this for this,” or saying, “Give this, and I’ll give you this,” and taking the mother’s goods oneself, it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. When one’s own goods reach another’s hand or another’s goods reach one’s own hand, it becomes a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Saying to a mother or father, “Give this,” is not a request; giving, saying, “Take this,” does not misdirect a gift of faith. Saying to a non-relative, “Give this,” is a request; giving, saying, “Take this,” misdirects a gift of faith; engaging in buying and selling by saying, “Give this for this,” incurs a nissaggiya offense. Therefore, when exchanging permissible goods, even with parents, buying and selling should be avoided, and with non-relatives, one should be freed from all three offenses.

Here is the decision in this matter – whether it be cloth for cloth, or food for food, whatever allowable thing one says, “Give this for that,” it is a dukkaṭa. Even giving one’s own goods to one’s mother after saying this, is a dukkaṭa. Or if, having been told, “Give this for that,” or having said, “Give this, I will give you that,” one takes one’s own goods even to one’s mother, it is a dukkaṭa. When one’s own goods have reached another’s hand, and another’s goods have reached one’s own hand, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. But when saying to one’s mother or father, “Give this,” there is no solicitation. When giving, saying, “Take this,” there is no causing the loss of a gift given in faith. When saying to a non-relative, “Give this,” there is solicitation. When giving, saying, “Take this,” there is causing the loss of a gift given in faith. When entering into buying and selling, saying, “Give this for that,” it is a nissaggiya. Therefore, when exchanging allowable goods, one should exchange with parents avoiding buying and selling, and with non-relatives avoiding the three offenses.

Here is the decision: If one says, “Give this in exchange for that,” whether it is cloth for cloth, food for food, or any permissible item, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, if one gives one’s own belongings to one’s mother after saying so, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one says, “Give this in exchange for that,” or “Give this, I will give you that,” and then takes an item from one’s mother, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one’s own belongings fall into another’s hand, or another’s belongings fall into one’s own hand, it entails a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. However, if one says to one’s mother or father, “Give this,” there is no formal act (viññatti). If one gives, saying, “Take this,” there is no offense of misusing what is given in faith. But if one says to a stranger, “Give this,” it constitutes a formal act, and if one gives, saying, “Take this,” it is an offense of misusing what is given in faith. Engaging in bartering by saying, “Give this in exchange for that,” entails a nissaggiya offense. Therefore, when exchanging permissible items, even with one’s parents, one must avoid bartering, which incurs three offenses. When exchanging with strangers, one must do so carefully to avoid these offenses.

Tatrāyaṃ parivattanavidhi – bhikkhussa pātheyyataṇḍulā honti, so antarāmagge bhattahatthaṃ purisaṃ disvā “amhākaṃ taṇḍulā atthi, na ca no imehi attho, bhattena pana attho”ti vadati, puriso taṇḍule gahetvā bhattaṃ deti, vaṭṭati. Tissopi āpattiyo na honti, antamaso nimittakammamattampi na hoti. Kasmā? Mūlassa atthitāya. Yo pana evaṃ akatvā “iminā imaṃ dehī”ti parivatteti, yathāvatthukameva. Vighāsādaṃ disvā “imaṃ odanaṃ bhuñjitvā rajanaṃ vā dārūni vā āharā”ti vadati, rajanachalligaṇanāya dārugaṇanāya ca nissaggiyāni honti. “Imaṃ odanaṃ bhuñjitvā imaṃ nāma karothā”ti dantakārādīhi sippikehi dhammakaraṇādīsu taṃ taṃ parikkhāraṃ kāreti, rajakehi vā vatthaṃ dhovāpeti, yathāvatthukameva. Nahāpitena kese chindāpeti , kammakārehi navakammaṃ kāreti, yathāvatthukameva. Sace pana “idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā idaṃ karothā”ti na vadati, “idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñja, bhuttosi, bhuñjissasi, idaṃ nāma karohī”ti vadati, vaṭṭati. Ettha ca kiñcāpi vatthadhovane vā kesacchedane vā bhūmisodhanādinavakamme vā parabhaṇḍaṃ attano hatthagataṃ nissajjitabbaṃ nāma natthi, mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana daḷhaṃ katvā vuttattā na sakkā etaṃ paṭikkhipituṃ, tasmā yathā nissaggiyavatthumhi paribhutte vā naṭṭhe vā pācittiyaṃ deseti, evamidhāpi desetabbaṃ.

Here is the method of exchange—a monk has rice for travel; seeing a man with food on the road, he says, “We have rice, but it is of no use to us; we need food.” The man takes the rice and gives food; it is permissible. There are no three offenses, not even the slightest hint of it. Why? Because of the existence of the original item. But one who exchanges, saying, “Give this for this,” does so according to the object. Seeing leftover food, saying, “Eat this rice and bring dye or wood,” incurs a nissaggiya offense based on the amount of dye or wood. Saying, “Eat this rice and do this,” and having craftsmen like toothbrush makers make water pots or such, or having dyers wash cloth, is according to the object. Having a barber cut hair or workers do new work is according to the object. But if one does not say, “Eat this food and do this,” but says, “Eat this food; you’ve eaten, you will eat, do this,” it is permissible. Here, although in washing cloth, cutting hair, or cleaning land for new work there is no item to relinquish when another’s goods come into one’s hand, since it is firmly stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it cannot be refuted. Thus, just as one confesses a pācittiya offense when a nissaggiya item is used or lost, so too here it should be confessed.

Here is the method of exchange – A bhikkhu has rice for provisions. Seeing a man on the road with food in hand, he says, “We have rice, but we have no need for it; rather, we have need for food.” If the man takes the rice and gives food, it is allowable. There are none of the three offenses; ultimately, there is not even the mere act of making a sign. Why? Because of the existence of the original value. But whoever exchanges, without doing this, saying, “Give this for that,” it is just as the case described. Seeing a person who eats leftovers, and saying “After eating this cooked rice, bring either dye or firewood,” there are nissaggiyas based on the reckoning of the dye chips and firewood. “After eating this cooked rice, do such-and-such,” ordering a tooth-cleaner maker or other craftsmen to make various requisites like a water-strainer, or having a washerman wash cloth, it is just as the case described. Having a barber cut his hair, having workers do new work, it is just as the case described. But if he does not say, “After eating this food, do this,” but says, “Eat this food; you have eaten, you will eat, do such-and-such,” it is allowable. And here, although in the washing of cloth, or the cutting of hair, or in new work like cleaning the ground, there is nothing that needs to be forfeited because another’s goods have come into one’s hand, in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, it is firmly stated, so this cannot be rejected. Therefore, just as in the case of a nissaggiya object, when it is used or lost, he confesses a pācittiya, so too here it should be confessed.

Here is the method of exchange: If a monk has rice for his journey and, while on the way, sees a man carrying food and thinks, “We have rice but no need for it, but we need food,” and tells the man, who then takes the rice and gives food in return, it is permissible. No offense is incurred, not even the slightest hint of wrongdoing. Why? Because the original ownership remains. However, if one does not follow this method and says, “Give this in exchange for that,” the offense is as stated. If one sees leftover food and says, “Eat this rice and bring dye or firewood,” the dye, containers, or firewood counted in this way entail nissaggiya offenses. If one says, “Eat this rice and do such and such work,” and has artisans like a dentist or carpenter make tools or has clothes washed by a washerman, the offense is as stated. If one has a barber cut one’s hair or has workers do new work, the offense is as stated. However, if one does not say, “Eat this food and do this work,” but instead says, “Eat this food, you have eaten, or will eat, and do this work,” it is permissible. In this case, even though washing clothes, cutting hair, or cleaning the ground and similar new work involves handling another’s belongings, there is no need to relinquish them. However, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is firmly stated that this cannot be rejected. Therefore, just as a nissaggiya offense is confessed when a nissaggiya item is used or lost, so too should it be confessed here.

Yaṃ kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhitukāmatāya agghaṃ pucchituṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā “ayaṃ tava patto kiṃ agghatī”ti pucchite “idaṃ nāmā”ti vadati, sace attano kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ mahagghaṃ hoti, evañca naṃ paṭivadati “upāsaka mama idaṃ vatthu mahagghaṃ, tava pattaṃ aññassa dehī”ti. Taṃ sutvā itaro “aññaṃ thālakampi dassāmī”ti vadati, gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace so patto mahaggho, bhikkhuno vatthu appagghaṃ, pattasāmiko cassa appagghabhāvaṃ na jānāti, patto na gahetabbo, “mama vatthu appaggha”nti ācikkhitabbaṃ. Mahagghabhāvaṃ ñatvā vañcetvā gaṇhantopi hi bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabbataṃ āpajjati. Sace pattasāmiko “hotu, bhante, sesaṃ mama puññaṃ bhavissatī”ti deti, vaṭṭati. Kappiyakārakassa pana “iminā imaṃ gahetvā dehī”ti ācikkhituṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā yassa hatthato bhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhāti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ antamaso tassa puttabhātikampi kappiyakārakaṃ katvā “iminā imaṃ nāma gahetvā dehī”ti ācikkhati, so ce cheko hoti, punappunaṃ apanetvā vivaditvā gaṇhāti, tuṇhībhūtena ṭhātabbaṃ. No ce cheko hoti, na jānāti gahetuṃ, vāṇijako ca taṃ vañceti, “mā gaṇhāhī”ti vattabbo.

It is permissible to ask the value of any permissible item one wishes to take. Thus, when asked, “How much is your bowl worth?” he replies, “This much.” If one’s own permissible item is costly and he responds, “Layman, my cloth is costly; give your bowl to someone else,” and hearing this, the other says, “I’ll give another vessel too,” it is permissible to take. If the bowl is costly and the monk’s cloth is cheap, and the bowl’s owner does not know its low value, the bowl should not be taken; it should be explained, “My cloth is cheap.” Taking it by deception, knowing its high value, incurs the offense of having goods appraised and made. If the bowl’s owner says, “Let it be, Venerable, the rest will be my merit,” it is permissible. It is permissible to instruct a permissible agent, “Take this and give that,” so excluding the one from whom the goods are taken, even his son or brother can be made a permissible agent, saying, “Take this and give that.” If he is skilled, taking it after repeated refusals and disputes, one should remain silent. If he is unskilled and does not know how to take, and a merchant deceives him, one should say, “Don’t take it.”

It is allowable to ask the price out of the desire to obtain any allowable goods. Therefore, being asked, “What is the price of this bowl of yours?” he says, “Such-and-such.” If his own allowable goods are expensive, and he replies to him thus, “Householder, this item of mine is expensive; give your bowl to someone else.” Hearing that, the other says, “I will also give another plate,” it is allowable to take it. If that bowl is expensive, and the bhikkhu’s item is inexpensive, and the owner of the bowl does not know its inexpensive nature, the bowl should not be taken; he should be told, “My item is inexpensive.” Even one who knowingly deceives and takes it incurs the need to have the goods valued and dealt with accordingly. If the owner of the bowl says, “Let it be, venerable sir, the remainder will be my merit,” it is allowable. But it is allowable to tell the allowable-maker, “Take this for that and give it.” Therefore, having made another, even the son or brother of the one from whose hand he takes the goods, the allowable-maker, he says, “Take such-and-such for this and give it.” If he is clever, repeatedly taking it away, disputing, and taking it, one should remain silent. If he is not clever, and does not know how to take it, and the merchant deceives him, he should be told, “Do not take it.”

If one wishes to take any permissible item and asks its value, it is permissible. For example, if one asks, “How much is your bowl worth?” and the reply is, “It is worth so much,” and if one’s own permissible item is more valuable, one may respond, “Lay follower, my item is more valuable; give your bowl to someone else.” Hearing this, the other may say, “I will give another bowl,” and it is permissible to accept it. If the bowl is very valuable, but the monk’s item is of little value, and the bowl’s owner does not know its low value, the bowl should not be taken. One should inform them, “My item is of little value.” If one knowingly deceives and takes the item, one incurs the offense of inflating the value. If the bowl’s owner says, “Very well, venerable sir, the remainder will be my merit,” it is permissible. However, it is not permissible to instruct the steward, saying, “Take this and give that.” Therefore, one should appoint someone else, even the steward’s son or brother, as the steward and say, “Take this and give that.” If the steward is competent, he may take it repeatedly and argue, but one should remain silent. If the steward is not competent and does not know how to take it, and the merchant deceives him, one should say, “Do not take it.”

“Idaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ telaṃ vā sappi vā amhākaṃ atthi, amhākañca aññena appaṭiggahitakena attho”ti vutte pana sace so taṃ gahetvā aññaṃ deti, paṭhamaṃ attano telaṃ na mināpetabbaṃ. Kasmā? Nāḷiyañhi avasiṭṭhatelaṃ hoti, taṃ pacchā minantassa appaṭiggahitaṃ dūseyya. Ayañca kayavikkayo nāma kappiyabhaṇḍavasena vutto. Kappiyena hi kappiyaṃ parivattentassa kayavikkayasikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ vuttaṃ, akappiyena pana akappiyaṃ parivattentassa, kappiyena vā akappiyaṃ akappiyena vā kappiyaṃ parivattentassa rūpiyasaṃvohārasikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ, tasmā ubhosu vā ekasmiṃ vā akappiye sati rūpiyasaṃvohāro nāma hoti.

If one says, “We have this received oil or ghee, and we need something unreceived,” and he takes it and gives another, the original oil should not be measured first. Why? Because some oil remains in the measure, and measuring later might contaminate the unreceived. This buying and selling is stated regarding permissible goods. For exchanging permissible with permissible incurs a nissaggiya offense under the kayavikkayasikkhāpada; but exchanging impermissible with impermissible, permissible with impermissible, or impermissible with permissible incurs a nissaggiya offense under the rūpiyasaṃvohārasikkhāpadā. Thus, if either or both are impermissible, it becomes rūpiyasaṃvohāra.

“We have accepted oil or ghee, and we have need of other unaccepted [oil or ghee],” if, when this is said, he takes that and gives another, first one’s own oil should not be measured. Why? Because there is oil remaining in the container, and that would later contaminate the unaccepted [oil] for the one measuring. And this buying and selling is spoken of in terms of allowable goods. For one exchanging allowable for allowable, a nissaggiya is stated in the training rule on buying and selling. But for one exchanging unallowable for unallowable, or allowable for unallowable, or unallowable for allowable, a nissaggiya is stated in the training rule on engaging in monetary transactions. Therefore, when both or one is unallowable, it is called a monetary transaction.

If someone says, “We have received oil or ghee, and we need something else that has not been received,” and that person takes it and gives something else, one should not measure one’s own oil first. Why? Because the remaining oil in the container may become impure if measured later. This is called bartering with permissible items. For when one exchanges permissible items for permissible items, the training rule on bartering entails a nissaggiya offense. But when one exchanges non-permissible items for non-permissible items, or permissible items for non-permissible items, or non-permissible items for permissible items, the training rule on monetary exchange entails a nissaggiya offense. Therefore, in both cases or in one case where non-permissible items are involved, it is called monetary exchange.

58. Rūpiyasaṃvohārassa ca garubhāvadīpanatthaṃ idaṃ pattacatukkaṃ veditabbaṃ. Yo hi rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvā tena ayabījaṃ samuṭṭhāpeti, taṃ koṭṭāpetvā tena lohena pattaṃ kāreti, ayaṃ patto mahāakappiyo nāma, na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātuṃ. Sacepi taṃ vināsetvā thālakaṃ kāreti, tampi akappiyaṃ. Vāsiṃ kāreti, tāya chinnadantakaṭṭhampi akappiyaṃ. Baḷisaṃ kāreti, tena māritā macchāpi akappiyā. Vāsiṃ tāpetvā udakaṃ vā khīraṃ vā uṇhāpeti, tampi akappiyameva.

58. To illustrate the severity of rūpiyasaṃvohāra, this set of four bowls should be understood. One who accepts silver, uses it to produce iron seeds, grinds them, and makes a bowl with that iron—this bowl is called a mahāakappiyo, utterly impermissible, and cannot be made permissible by any means. Even if it is destroyed and made into a vessel, that too is impermissible. If a knife is made, even a toothbrush cut with it is impermissible. If a hook is made, even fish caught with it are impermissible. Heating the knife to warm water or milk—that too is impermissible.

58. And this set of four cases regarding bowls should be understood to show the seriousness of monetary transactions. Whoever obtains money and, with it, produces iron ore, has it pounded, and with that iron makes a bowl – this bowl is called utterly unallowable; it cannot be made allowable by any means. Even if he destroys it and makes a plate, that too is unallowable. He makes a knife; even a tooth-stick cut with it is unallowable. He makes a fish-hook; even fish killed with it are unallowable. He heats the knife and heats water or milk; that too is utterly unallowable.

58. To illustrate the gravity of monetary exchange, this set of four bowls should be understood. If one takes money and uses it to produce iron ore, smelts it, and makes a bowl from that iron, this bowl is called highly non-permissible and cannot be made permissible by any means. Even if one destroys it and makes a plate, that too is non-permissible. If one makes a knife, the wood cut by that knife is also non-permissible. If one makes a fishing hook, the fish killed by it are also non-permissible. If one heats a knife and warms water or milk with it, that too is non-permissible.

Yo pana rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvā tena pattaṃ kiṇāti, ayampi patto akappiyo. “Pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na kappatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sakkā pana kappiyo kātuṃ. So hi mūle mūlasāmikānaṃ, patte ca pattasāmikānaṃ dinne kappiyo hoti, kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ datvā gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

One who accepts silver and buys a bowl with it—this bowl too is impermissible. It is stated in the Mahāpaccariya, “It is not permissible even for the five co-religionists.” But it can be made permissible. If the cost is given to the cost’s owners and the bowl to the bowl’s owners, it becomes permissible; taking and using it with permissible goods is allowed.

But whoever obtains money and buys a bowl with it, this bowl too is unallowable. It is said in the Mahāpaccari, “It is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners.” But it can be made allowable. For it becomes allowable when the original value is given to the original owners, and the bowl to the bowl owners; it is allowable to take it after giving allowable goods and to use it.

If one takes money and buys a bowl with it, this bowl is also non-permissible. The Mahāpaccariya states, “It is not permissible even for the five kinds of lawful monks.” However, it can be made permissible. If the original owners of the money and the bowl’s owners give it, it becomes permissible, and one may use it after giving and receiving permissible items.

Yopi rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhāpetvā kappiyakārakena saddhiṃ kammārakulaṃ gantvā pattaṃ disvā “ayaṃ mayhaṃ ruccatī”ti vadati, kappiyakārako ca taṃ rūpiyaṃ datvā kammāraṃ saññāpeti, ayampi patto kappiyavohārena gahitopi dutiyapattasadisoyeva, mūlassa sampaṭicchitattā akappiyo. Kasmā sesānaṃ na kappatīti? Mūlassa anissaṭṭhattā.

One who has silver accepted and goes with a permissible agent to a smith’s house, sees a bowl, says, “This pleases me,” and the permissible agent gives the silver and instructs the smith—this bowl, though taken by permissible means, is like the second bowl, impermissible due to accepting the cost. Why is it not permissible for the others? Because the cost is not relinquished.

And whoever, having had money obtained, goes with an allowable-maker to a blacksmith’s shop, sees a bowl, and says, “I like this,” and the allowable-maker gives that money and informs the blacksmith – even though this bowl is taken with an allowable transaction, it is just like the second bowl; it is unallowable because the original value has been accepted. Why is it not allowable for the others? Because the original value has not been relinquished.

If one has money taken by a steward and goes with him to the blacksmith’s workshop, sees a bowl, and says, “This one pleases me,” and the steward gives the money to the blacksmith to convince him, this bowl, even though taken through permissible means, is like the second bowl and is non-permissible because the original money has been accepted. Why are the others not permissible? Because the original money has not been relinquished.

Yo pana rūpiyaṃ asampaṭicchitvā “therassa pattaṃ kiṇitvā dehī”ti pahitakappiyakārakena saddhiṃ kammārakulaṃ gantvā pattaṃ disvā “ime kahāpaṇe gahetvā imaṃ dehī”ti kahāpaṇe dāpetvā gahito, ayaṃ patto etasseva bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati dubbicāritattā, aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati mūlassa asampaṭicchitattā. Mahāsumattherassa kira upajjhāyo anuruddhatthero nāma ahosi. So attano evarūpaṃ pattaṃ sappissa pūretvā saṅghassa nissajji. Tipiṭakacūḷanāgattherassa saddhivihārikānaṃ evarūpo patto ahosi. Taṃ theropi sappissa pūretvā saṅghassa nissajjāpesīti. Idaṃ akappiyapattacatukkaṃ.

One who, without accepting silver, goes with a permissible agent sent, saying, “Buy and give a bowl to the elder,” to a smith’s house, sees a bowl, and has kahāpaṇas given, saying, “Take these kahāpaṇas and give this”—this bowl is not permissible for that monk alone due to improper conduct, but it is permissible for others because the cost was not accepted. It is said that Elder Mahāsuna’s preceptor, Elder Anuruddha, had such a bowl, filled it with ghee, and relinquished it to the Sangha. A student of Elder Tipiṭakacūḷanāga had such a bowl, and that elder too filled it with ghee and had it relinquished to the Sangha. This is the set of four impermissible bowls.

But whoever, without accepting the money, goes with an allowable-maker sent with the words, “Buy a bowl for the elder and give it,” to a blacksmith’s shop, sees a bowl, and has him give money, saying, “Take these kahāpaṇas and give this” – this bowl is not allowable for this bhikkhu because of improper conduct, but it is allowable for the others because the original value has not been accepted. It is said that Mahāsumma Thera’s preceptor was named Anuruddha Thera. He filled such a bowl of his with ghee and relinquished it to the Sangha. The saddhivihārikas of Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga Thera had such a bowl. The elder also had it filled with ghee and relinquished to the Sangha. This is the set of four unallowable bowls.

If one does not accept money but sends a steward with instructions, “Buy a bowl for the elder and give it to him,” and goes to the blacksmith’s workshop, sees a bowl, and says, “Take these coins and give this,” and the bowl is taken after giving the coins, this bowl is not permissible for that monk due to his misconduct, but it is permissible for others because the original money has not been accepted. It is said that the preceptor of Mahāsumedha Thera was the Venerable Anuruddha. He filled such a bowl with ghee and relinquished it to the Sangha. The pupils of Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga Thera also had such a bowl. The elder also filled it with ghee and had it relinquished to the Sangha. This is the set of four non-permissible bowls.

Sace pana rūpiyaṃ asampaṭicchitvā “therassa pattaṃ kiṇitvā dehī”ti pahitakappiyakārakena saddhiṃ kammārakulaṃ gantvā pattaṃ disvā “ayaṃ mayhaṃ ruccatī”ti vā “imāhaṃ gahessāmī”ti vā vadati, kappiyakārako ca taṃ rūpiyaṃ datvā kammāraṃ saññāpeti, ayaṃ patto sabbakappiyo buddhānampi paribhogāraho. Imaṃ pana rūpiyasaṃvohāraṃ karontena “iminā imaṃ gahetvā dehī”ti kappiyakārakampi ācikkhituṃ na vaṭṭati.

However, if one, without accepting silver, goes with a permissible agent sent, saying, “Buy and give a bowl to the elder,” to a smith’s house, sees a bowl, says, “This pleases me” or “I’ll take this,” and the permissible agent gives the silver and instructs the smith—this bowl is entirely permissible, worthy of use even by Buddhas. But in conducting this rūpiyasaṃvohāra, it is not permissible to instruct even the permissible agent, “Take this and give that.”

But if, without accepting the money, having gone with an allowable-maker sent with the words “Buy a bowl for the elder and give it” to a blacksmith’s shop, sees a bowl and says, “I like this,” or “I will take this,” and the allowable-maker gives that money and informs the blacksmith, this bowl is completely allowable, even worthy of use by the Buddhas. But one doing this monetary transaction should not even tell the allowable-maker, “Take this for that and give it.”

If one does not accept money but sends a steward with instructions, “Buy a bowl for the elder and give it to him,” and goes to the blacksmith’s workshop, sees a bowl, and says, “This one pleases me,” or “I will take this,” and the steward gives the money to the blacksmith to convince him, this bowl is fully permissible and worthy of use even by the Buddhas. However, when engaging in such monetary exchange, it is not permissible to instruct the steward, saying, “Take this and give that.”

The discussion on the decision regarding engaging in buying and selling is completed.

the Discussion on the Determination of Entering into Buying and Selling is concluded.

12. Rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathā

12. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Accepting Silver and Such

12. The Discussion on the Determination of Accepting Money, etc.

12. Discussion on the Offense of Accepting Money and Similar Items

59. Rūpiyādipaṭiggahoti jātarūpādipaṭiggaṇhanaṃ. Tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) jātarūpaṃ rajataṃ jātarūpamāsako rajatamāsakoti catubbidhaṃ nissaggiyavatthu. Tambalohādīhi kato lohamāsako. Sāradārunā vā veḷupesikāya vā antamaso tālapaṇṇenapi rūpaṃ chinditvā kato dārumāsako. Lākhāya vā niyyāsena vā rūpaṃ samuṭṭhāpetvā kato jatumāsako. Yo yo yattha yattha janapade yadā yadā vohāraṃ gacchati, antamaso aṭṭhimayopi cammamayopi rukkhaphalabījamayopi samuṭṭhāpitarūpopi asamuṭṭhāpitarūpopīti ayaṃ sabbopi rajatamāsakeneva saṅgahito. Muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho silā pavāḷaṃ lohitaṅko masāragallaṃ satta dhaññāni dāsidāsakhettavatthupupphārāmaphalārāmādayoti idaṃ dukkaṭavatthu. Tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ attano vā saṅghagaṇapuggalacetiyānaṃ vā atthāya sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Attano atthāya sampaṭicchato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ hoti, sesānaṃ atthāya dukkaṭaṃ. Dukkaṭavatthuṃ sabbesampi atthāya sampaṭicchato dukkaṭameva.

59. Accepting silver and such means taking gold and similar items. Therein (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4), gold, silver, gold coins, and silver coins are fourfold nissaggiya objects. A lohamāsaka is made of copper or such metals. A dārumāsaka is made by carving a form from hardwood, bamboo strips, or even palm leaves. A jatumāsaka is made by shaping a form with lac or resin. Whatever circulates as currency in any region at any time—even bone, leather, or seed-made, whether shaped or unshaped—is included under silver coins. Pearls, gems, beryl, conch, coral, ruby, jet, the seven grains, slaves, fields, land, flower groves, fruit groves, and such are dukkaṭa objects. Therein, it is not permissible to accept nissaggiya objects for oneself or for the Sangha, a group, an individual, or a shrine. Accepting for oneself incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense; for the others, a dukkaṭa offense. Accepting dukkaṭa objects for any purpose incurs only a dukkaṭa offense.

59. Accepting money, etc. means accepting gold, etc. There (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4), jātarūpa (gold), silver, jātarūpamāsaka (gold coin), rajatamāsaka (silver coin) are the four kinds of nissaggiya objects. Made with copper-alloy, etc., is the lohamāsaka (copper coin). Made by carving a form on heartwood, or on a bamboo splint, or even on a palm leaf, is the dārumāsako (wood coin). Made by creating a form with lac or resin is the jatumāsako (lac coin). Whatever goes into circulation in whatever region at whatever time, ultimately even bone-made, leather-made, made from the seeds of tree fruits, with a form created, or without a form created – all this is included under rajatamāsaka (silver coin). Pearls, gems, chank shells, stones, coral, lohitaṅka, masāragalla, the seven grains, female and male slaves, fields, properties, flower gardens, fruit gardens, and so on, are dukkaṭa objects. There, it is not allowable to accept nissaggiya objects for one’s own sake or for the sake of the Sangha, a group, individuals, or cetiyas. Accepting for one’s own sake is a nissaggiya pācittiya; for the sake of the others, it is a dukkaṭa. Accepting dukkaṭa objects for the sake of all is just a dukkaṭa.

59. Accepting money and similar items refers to the acceptance of gold, silver, etc. Here (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-4), gold, silver, gold coins, and silver coins are the four kinds of nissaggiya items. Copper coins are made from copper or similar metals. Wooden coins are made by cutting wood from the Sāra tree or bamboo, or even from palm leaves. Lac coins are made by producing lac or resin. Any form of currency used in any region, whether made of bone, leather, seeds, or even unproduced forms, is included under silver coins. Pearls, gems, beryl, conch shells, coral, rubies, cat’s eye gems, the seven kinds of grains, male and female slaves, fields, buildings, flower gardens, fruit gardens, etc., are dukkaṭa offenses. Among these, nissaggiya items cannot be accepted for oneself, the Sangha, a group, or a shrine. Accepting them for oneself entails a nissaggiya pācittiya offense, while accepting them for others entails a dukkaṭa offense. Accepting dukkaṭa items for any purpose entails only a dukkaṭa offense.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9) – sace koci jātarūparajataṃ āharitvā “idaṃ saṅghassa dammi, ārāmaṃ vā karotha cetiyaṃ vā bhojanasālādīnaṃ vā aññatara”nti vadati, idaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana “nayidaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitte “vaḍḍhakīnaṃ vā kammakārānaṃ vā hatthe bhavissati , kevalaṃ tumhe sukatadukkaṭaṃ jānāthā”ti vatvā tesaṃ hatthe datvā pakkamati, vaṭṭati. Athāpi “mama manussānaṃ hatthe bhavissati, mayhameva vā hatthe bhavissati, kevalaṃ tumhe yaṃ yassa dātabbaṃ, tadatthāya pesethā”ti vadati, evampi vaṭṭati. Sace pana saṃghaṃ vā gaṇaṃ vā puggalaṃ vā anāmasitvā “idaṃ hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ cetiyassa dema, vihārassa dema, navakammassa demā”ti vadanti, paṭikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati, “ime idaṃ bhaṇantī”ti kappiyakārakānaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. “Cetiyādīnaṃ atthāya tumhe gahetvā ṭhapetvā”ti vutte pana “amhākaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ.

Here is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9)—if someone brings gold or silver, saying, “I give this to the Sangha; make a grove, a shrine, a dining hall, or something else,” it is not permissible to accept it. But if, when refused, saying, “It is not permissible for monks to accept this,” he says, “It will be in the hands of carpenters or workers; you only need to know the merit or demerit,” and gives it to their hands and leaves, it is permissible. Or if he says, “It will be in the hands of my people or in my own hands; you just send it for whatever should be given,” that too is permissible. If they say, without specifying the Sangha, a group, or an individual, “We give this gold and silver for the shrine, for the monastery, for new work,” it should not be refused; it should be told to permissible agents, “They say this.” But if they say, “Take and keep it for the shrine and such,” it should be refused, saying, “It is not permissible for us to take it.”

Here is the decision in this matter (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9) – if someone brings gold and silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha; build a monastery, or a cetiya, or one of the dining halls, etc.,” it is not allowable to accept this. But if, having been refused with “It is not allowable for bhikkhus to accept this,” he says, “It will be in the hands of the carpenters or workers; you just know what is properly done and what is not,” and, having said this, gives it into their hands and departs, it is allowable. Or even if he says, “It will be in the hands of my men, or in my own hand; you just send for whatever is to be given to whom,” even this is allowable. But if, without mentioning the Sangha, or a group, or an individual, they say, “We give this gold and silver to the cetiya, we give it to the monastery, we give it for new work,” it should not be refused; the allowable-makers should be told, “These are saying this.” But if, when it is said, “For the sake of the cetiya, etc., you take it and keep it,” it should be refused with, “It is not allowable for us to take it.”

Here is the decision (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.538-9): If someone brings gold or silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha, build a monastery or a shrine, or a dining hall, etc.,” it should not be accepted. However, if they say, “This is not permissible for monks to accept,” and after being refused, they say, “It will remain in the hands of carpenters or workers, and you only need to know what is well done or ill done,” and then give it to them and leave, it is permissible. Alternatively, if they say, “It will remain in the hands of my people or in my own hands, and you only need to send what should be given to whom,” this is also permissible. If, without consulting the Sangha, group, or individual, they say, “We give this gold or silver to the shrine, monastery, or for new construction,” it should not be refused. One should inform the stewards, saying, “They are saying this.” If they say, “Take it for the sake of the shrine, etc.,” one should refuse, saying, “We cannot take it.”

Sace pana koci bahuṃ hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ ānetvā “idaṃ saṃghassa dammi, cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti vadati, tañce saṃgho sampaṭicchati, paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpatti. Tatra ceko bhikkhu “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhipati, upāsako ca “yadina kappati, mayhameva bhavissatī”ti taṃ ādāya gacchati. So bhikkhu “tayā saṃghassa lābhantarāyo kato”ti na kenaci kiñci vattabbo. Yo hi taṃ codeti, sveva sāpattiko hoti. Tena panekena bahū anāpattikā katā. Sace pana bhikkhūhi “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitte “kappiyakārakānaṃ vā hatthe bhavissati, mama purisānaṃ vā mayhaṃ vā hatthe bhavissati, kevalaṃ tumhe paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti vadati, vaṭṭati.

If someone brings much gold and silver, saying, “I give this to the Sangha; use it for the four requisites,” and the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense both in accepting and using it. If one monk refuses, saying, “This is not permissible,” and the layman says, “If it’s not permissible, it will remain mine,” and takes it and leaves, that monk should not be criticized by anyone, saying, “You caused a loss of gain to the Sangha.” For whoever reproaches him incurs an offense himself. By that one monk, many were kept free of offense. But if, when refused by the monks, saying, “It is not permissible,” he says, “It will be in the hands of permissible agents, my people, or myself; you just use the requisites,” it is permissible.

But if someone brings much gold and silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha; use it for the four requisites,” and if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense both in accepting and in using. There, if one bhikkhu refuses, saying, “This is not allowable,” and the lay supporter says, “If it is not allowable, it will be mine,” and takes it and goes, that bhikkhu should not be told anything by anyone, [saying] “You have made an obstacle to the Sangha’s gain.” Whoever blames him is himself the one with an offense. But by that one, many have been made without offense. But if, having been refused by the bhikkhus with, “It is not allowable,” he says, “It will be in the hands of the allowable-makers, or in the hands of my men, or in my hand; you just use the requisites,” it is allowable.

If someone brings a large amount of gold or silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha, use it for the four requisites,” and the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both accepting and using it. If a wise monk refuses, saying, “This is not permissible,” and the lay follower says, “If it is not permissible, it will remain mine,” and takes it away, the monk should not be blamed by anyone. Whoever criticizes him incurs an offense. However, that monk has caused many to be free from offense. If the monks refuse, saying, “It is not permissible,” and the lay follower says, “It will remain in the hands of the stewards or my people, or in my own hands, and you only need to use the requisites,” it is permissible.

Catupaccayatthāya ca dinnaṃ yena yena paccayena attho hoti, taṃ tadatthaṃ upanetabbaṃ. Civaratthāya dinnaṃ cīvareyeva upanetabbaṃ. Sace cīvarena tādiso attho natthi, piṇḍapātādīhi saṃgho kilamati, saṃghasuṭṭhutāya apaloketvā tadatthāyapi upanetabbaṃ. Esa nayo piṇḍapātagilānapaccayatthāya dinnepi. Senāsanatthāya dinnaṃ pana senāsanassa garubhaṇḍattā senāsaneyeva upanetabbaṃ. Sace pana bhikkhūsu senāsanaṃ chaḍḍetvā gatesu senāsanaṃ vinassati, īdise kāle senāsanaṃ vissajjetvāpi bhikkhūnaṃ paribhogo anuññāto, tasmā senāsanajagganatthaṃ mūlacchejjaṃ akatvā yāpanamattaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ.

What is given for the four requisites should be used for whichever requisite is needed. What is given for robes should be used only for robes. If there is no such need for robes and the Sangha struggles with alms, lodgings, or such, for the Sangha’s well-being, it may be used for that purpose with consent. The same applies to what is given for alms or medicine. But what is given for lodgings, being a major item, should be used only for lodgings. However, if monks abandon the lodging and it deteriorates, in such a case, even giving up the lodging, use by monks is allowed, so it may be used minimally without cutting off the original purpose.

And what is given for the sake of the four requisites should be directed to the purpose of whichever requisite is needed. What is given for the sake of robes should be directed only to robes. But if there is no such need with robes, and the Sangha is troubled by alms-round, etc., after informing for the well-being of the Sangha, it may be directed even to that purpose. This method applies also to what is given for the sake of alms-food and requisites for the sick. But what is given for the sake of lodging, because lodging is a heavy item, should be directed only to lodging. But if, when the bhikkhus have abandoned the lodging and departed, the lodging is being ruined, in such a time, even selling the lodging, the use by the bhikkhus is allowed. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining the lodging, without cutting off the root (principal), just enough for sustenance should be used.

When something is given for the sake of the four requisites, it should be used for that purpose. What is given for robes should be used for robes. If there is no need for robes, but the Sangha is burdened with almsfood, etc., it may be used for that purpose with the Sangha’s approval. The same applies to what is given for almsfood or medicine. What is given for lodging should be used for lodging due to the importance of lodging items. However, if the monks abandon the lodging and it is destroyed, the lodging may be relinquished, and the monks may use it for their sustenance, provided the original property is not cut off. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining the lodging, one may use it for sustenance without cutting off the original property.

60. Sace koci “mayhaṃ tisassasampādanakaṃ mahātaḷākaṃ atthi, taṃ saṃghassa dammī”ti vadati, tañce saṃgho sampaṭicchati, paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpattiyeva. Yo pana taṃ paṭikkhipati, so purimanayeneva na kenaci kiñci vattabbo. Yo hi taṃ codeti, sveva sāpattiko hoti . Tena panekena bahū anāpattikā katā. Yo pana “tādisaṃyeva taḷākaṃ dammī”ti vatvā bhikkhūhi “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitto vadati “asukañca asukañca saṅghassa taḷākaṃ atthi, taṃ kathaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. So vattabbo “kappiyaṃ katvā dinnaṃ bhavissatī”ti. Kathaṃ dinnaṃ kappiyaṃ hotīti. “Cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti vatvā dinnanti. So sace “sādhu, bhante cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti deti, vaṭṭati. Athāpi “taḷākaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vatvā “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitto “kappiyakārako atthī”ti pucchitvā “natthī”ti vutte “idaṃ asuko nāma vicāressati, asukassa vā hatthe mayhaṃ vā hatthe bhavissati, saṅgho kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ paribhuñjatū”ti vadati, vaṭṭati. Sacepi “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitto “udakaṃ paribhuñjissati, bhaṇḍakaṃ dhovissati, migapakkhino pivissantī”ti vadati, evampi vaṭṭati. Athāpi “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhitto vadati “kappiyasīsena gaṇhathā”ti. “Sādhu upāsaka, saṅgho pānīyaṃ pivissati, bhaṇḍakaṃ dhovissati, migapakkhino pivissantī”ti vatvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Athāpi “mama taḷākaṃ vā pokkharaṇiṃ vā saṅghassa dammī”ti vutte “sādhu upāsaka, saṅgho pānīyaṃ pivissatī”tiādīni vatvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

60. If someone says, “I have a great lake fulfilling Tissa’s needs, and I give it to the Sangha,” and the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense both in accepting and using it. But one who refuses it should not be criticized by anyone, as in the previous method. For whoever reproaches him incurs an offense himself. By that one monk, many were kept free of offense. If, when refused by the monks, saying, “It is not permissible,” he says, “The Sangha has such-and-such a lake; how is that permissible?” he should be told, “It must have been given permissibly.” How is it given permissibly? By saying, “Use it for the four requisites.” If he says, “Good, Venerables, use it for the four requisites,” and gives it, it is permissible. Or if, when told, “Take the lake,” and refused, saying, “It is not permissible,” he asks, “Is there a permissible agent?” and when told, “There isn’t,” he says, “So-and-so will manage it, or it will be in so-and-so’s hands or mine; let the Sangha use permissible goods,” it is permissible. Even if, when refused, saying, “It is not permissible,” he says, “It will be used for water, washing goods; animals and birds will drink,” that too is permissible. Or if, when refused, saying, “It is not permissible,” he says, “Take it as a permissible means,” and one says, “Good, layman, the Sangha will drink water, wash goods, and animals and birds will drink,” and uses it, it is permissible. Or if he says, “I give my lake or pond to the Sangha,” saying, “Good, layman, the Sangha will drink water,” and so forth, it is indeed permissible to use it.

60. If someone says, “I have a great lake providing three harvests; I give it to the Sangha,” and if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense both in accepting and in using. But whoever refuses it, just as in the previous method, should not be told anything by anyone. Whoever blames him is himself the one with an offense. But by that one, many have been made without offense. But whoever says, “I give such-and-such a lake,” and, having been refused by the bhikkhus with, “It is not allowable,” says, “Such-and-such and such-and-such lakes belong to the Sangha; how is that allowable?” He should be told, “It will have been given having been made allowable.” How is it given having been made allowable? By being given saying, “Use the four requisites.” If he says, “Good, venerable sirs, use the four requisites,” it is allowable. Or even if, having said, “Take the lake,” and having been refused with, “It is not allowable,” he asks, “Is there an allowable-maker?” and, when told, “There is not,” he says, “This one named so-and-so will manage it, or it will be in the hand of so-and-so, or in my hand; let the Sangha use the allowable goods,” it is allowable. Even if, having been refused with, “It is not allowable,” he says, “They will use the water, they will wash utensils, animals and birds will drink,” even this is allowable. Or even if, having been refused with, “It is not allowable,” he says, “Take it with an allowable head.” Saying, “Good, lay supporter, the Sangha will drink the water, they will wash utensils, animals and birds will drink,” it is allowable to use it. Or even if, when it is said, “I give my lake or pond to the Sangha,” saying, “Good, lay supporter, the Sangha will drink the water,” and so on, it is allowable to use it.

60. If someone says, “I have a large reservoir that fulfills three purposes, and I give it to the Sangha,” and the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both accepting and using it. However, if someone refuses it, they should not be blamed by anyone. Whoever criticizes them incurs an offense. However, that person has caused many to be free from offense. If someone says, “I will give such a reservoir,” and the monks refuse, saying, “It is not permissible,” and they say, “The Sangha has such and such a reservoir, how is it permissible?” they should be told, “It will be permissible if given properly.” How is it given properly? By saying, “Use it for the four requisites.” If they say, “Very well, venerable sirs, use it for the four requisites,” it is permissible. Alternatively, if they say, “Take the reservoir,” and the monks refuse, saying, “It is not permissible,” and they say, “Is there a steward?” and are told, “There is none,” they may say, “This person will manage it, or it will remain in my hands, and the Sangha may use the permissible items,” and it is permissible. Even if they say, “It is not permissible,” and the monks refuse, saying, “They will use the water, wash their belongings, or the animals and birds will drink,” it is permissible. Alternatively, if they say, “It is not permissible,” and the monks refuse, saying, “Take it with a permissible head,” and they say, “Very well, lay follower, the Sangha will drink the water, wash their belongings, or the animals and birds will drink,” it is permissible. Similarly, if they say, “I give my reservoir or pond to the Sangha,” and the monks say, “Very well, lay follower, the Sangha will drink the water,” etc., it is permissible.

Yadi pana bhikkhūhi hatthakammaṃ yācitvā sahatthena ca kappiyapathaviṃ khaṇitvā udakaparibhogatthāya taḷākaṃ kāritaṃ hoti, tañce nissāya sassaṃ nipphādetvā manussā vihāre kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ denti, vaṭṭati. Atha manussā eva saṅghassa upakāratthāya saṅghikabhūmiṃ khaṇitvā taṃ nissāya nipphannasassato kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ denti, etampi vaṭṭati. “Amhākaṃ ekaṃ kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapethā”ti vutte ca ṭhapetumpi labbhati. Atha te manussā rājabalinā upaddutā pakkamanti, aññe paṭipajjanti, na ca bhikkhūnaṃ kiñci denti, udakaṃ vāretuṃ labbhati, tañca kho kasikammakāleyeva, na sassakāle. Sace te vadanti “nanu, bhante, pubbepi manussā imaṃ nissāya sassaṃ akaṃsū”ti, tato vattabbā “te saṅghassa imañca imañca upakāraṃ akaṃsu, idañcidañca kappiyabhaṇḍakaṃ adaṃsū”ti. Sace te vadanti “mayampi dassāmā”ti, evampi vaṭṭati.

If, however, monks request manual labor and dig permissible earth themselves to make a lake for water use, and relying on it, people produce crops and give permissible goods to the monastery, it is permissible. Or if people, for the Sangha’s benefit, dig Sangha land, and from the crops produced give permissible goods, that too is permissible. If they say, “Appoint one permissible agent for us,” one may be appointed. If those people, oppressed by royal tribute, leave, and others take over but give nothing to the monks, the water may be restricted, but only during the plowing season, not the crop season. If they say, “Venerables, didn’t people previously grow crops here?” they should be told, “They gave such-and-such benefits and permissible goods to the Sangha.” If they say, “We will give too,” it is permissible.

But if, having requested manual labor from the bhikkhus, and having dug allowable earth with their own hands, a lake is made for the use of water, and if, relying on that, men produce crops and give allowable goods in the monastery, it is allowable. Or if men themselves, for the sake of benefiting the Sangha, dig Sangha land, and, relying on that, give allowable goods from the produced crops, this too is allowable. And if it is said, “Establish one allowable-maker for us,” it is permitted to establish one. Or if those men, oppressed by royal force, depart, and others take over, and do not give anything to the bhikkhus, it is permitted to stop the water, but that only at the time of cultivation, not at the time of crops. If they say, “But, venerable sirs, previously too men made crops relying on this,” then they should be told, “They made such-and-such and such-and-such benefit for the Sangha, and gave such-and-such and such-and-such allowable goods.” If they say, “We too will give,” even this is allowable.

If monks, having requested manual labor, dig permissible land themselves and construct a reservoir for the sake of using water, and people, relying on it, produce crops and give permissible items to the monastery, it is permissible. If people, for the sake of helping the Sangha, dig Sangha land and, relying on it, produce crops and give permissible items, this is also permissible. If they say, “Appoint one of our stewards,” it is permissible to appoint one. If those people, oppressed by royal taxes, leave and others take over, and they do not give anything to the monks, it is permissible to stop the water, but only during the farming season, not during the harvest season. If they say, “Venerable sirs, did not people in the past also produce crops relying on this?” they should be told, “They did such and such services for the Sangha and gave such and such permissible items.” If they say, “We will also give,” it is permissible.

Sace pana koci abyatto akappiyavohārena taḷākaṃ paṭiggaṇhāti vā kāreti vā, taṃ bhikkhūhi na paribhuñjitabbaṃ, taṃ nissāya laddhakappiyabhaṇḍampi akappiyameva . Sace bhikkhūhi pariccattabhāvaṃ ñatvā sāmiko vā tassa puttadhītaro vā añño vā koci vaṃse uppanno puna kappiyavohārena deti, vaṭṭati. Pacchinne kulavaṃse yo tassa janapadassa sāmiko, so acchinditvā kappiyavohārena puna deti cittalapabbate bhikkhunā nīhaṭaudakavāhakaṃ aḷanāgarājamahesī viya, evampi vaṭṭati. Kappiyavohārepi udakavasena paṭiggahitataḷāke suddhacittānaṃ mattikuddharaṇapāḷibandhanādīni ca kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Taṃ nissāya pana sassaṃ karonte disvā kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yadi te sayameva kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ denti, gahetabbaṃ. No ce denti, na codetabbaṃ. Paccayavasena paṭiggahitataḷāke kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, mattikuddharaṇapāḷibandhanādīni kāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace kappiyakārakā sayameva karonti, vaṭṭati. Abyattena pana lajjibhikkhunā kārāpitesu kiñcāpi paṭiggahaṇaṃ kappiyaṃ, bhikkhussa pana payogapaccayā uppannena missattā visagatapiṇḍapāto viya akappiyamaṃsarasamissabhojanaṃ viya ca dubbinibhogaṃ hoti, sabbesaṃ akappiyameva.

If, however, an unskilled person accepts or makes a lake by impermissible means, monks should not use it, and permissible goods obtained from it are also impermissible. If, after the monks recognize its relinquished state, the owner, his children, or someone from the lineage gives it again by permissible means, it is permissible. If the lineage ends, the ruler of that region, without seizing it, gives it again by permissible means—like Queen Aḷanāga of Cittala Mountain with the water conduit taken by monks—it is permissible. Even by permissible means, in a lake accepted for water, pure-minded monks may repair clay, build embankments, and such. But seeing people growing crops there, it is not permissible to appoint a permissible agent. If they give permissible goods themselves, it should be taken. If not, they should not be urged. In a lake accepted for requisites, a permissible agent may be appointed, but repairing clay or embankments should not be done. If permissible agents do it themselves, it is permissible. But if an unskilled, scrupulous monk has it made, though the acceptance is permissible, due to his effort it becomes mixed, like food mixed with spoiled meat or broth, hard to use properly, and impermissible for all.

But if someone ignorantly accepts or makes a lake with an unallowable transaction, it should not be used by the bhikkhus; even the allowable goods obtained relying on it are unallowable. But if, knowing that it has been abandoned by the bhikkhus, the owner, or his sons and daughters, or someone else born in the lineage, gives it again with an allowable transaction, it is allowable. When the family lineage has ended, whoever is the owner of that region, if he gives it again with an allowable transaction, without taking it away, like the water channel brought by the bhikkhu at Cittala Pabbata for Queen Aḷanāgara, even this is allowable. Even in an allowable transaction, in a lake accepted in terms of water, it is allowable for those with pure minds to do things like removing earth and building embankments. But seeing them making crops relying on that, it is not allowable to establish an allowable-maker. If they themselves give allowable goods, they should be taken. If they do not give, they should not be urged. In a lake accepted in terms of requisites, it is allowable to establish an allowable-maker; it is not allowable to have them do things like removing earth and building embankments. But if the allowable-makers themselves do it, it is allowable. But in those made by an ignorant, shameless bhikkhu, even though the acceptance is allowable, because it arises dependent on the bhikkhu’s action, like a poisoned alms-food due to mixture, and like food mixed with unallowable meat broth, it is difficult to use; it is unallowable for all.

If an incompetent person accepts or constructs a reservoir through non-permissible means, the monks should not use it. Even permissible items obtained through it are non-permissible. If the owner or their children or someone else in the lineage, knowing it was relinquished by the monks, gives it again through permissible means, it is permissible. In the later lineage, whoever is the owner of that region may take it and give it again through permissible means, like the Queen of Aḷanāga who took the water channel constructed by a monk on Cittalapabbata, and this is permissible. Even in permissible exchange, it is permissible to remove mud, build embankments, etc., for the sake of water in an accepted reservoir. However, seeing people producing crops relying on it, one should not appoint a steward. If they themselves give permissible items, they should be accepted. If they do not give, they should not be criticized. In a reservoir accepted for the sake of requisites, it is permissible to appoint a steward, but not to have mud removed or embankments built. If the stewards do it themselves, it is permissible. However, if an incompetent, shameful monk has it done, even though the acceptance is permissible, the monk’s involvement makes it difficult to distinguish, like food mixed with impure meat or fish, and it is non-permissible for all.

61. Sace pana udakassa okāso atthi, taḷākassa pāḷi thirā, “yathā bahuṃ udakaṃ gaṇhāti, evaṃ karohi, tīrasamīpe udakaṃ karohī”ti evaṃ udakameva vicāreti, vaṭṭati. Uddhane aggiṃ na pātenti, “udakakammaṃ labbhatu upāsakā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati, “sassaṃ katvā āharathā”ti vattuṃ pana na vaṭṭati. Sace pana taḷāke atibahuṃ udakaṃ disvā passato vā piṭṭhito vā mātikaṃ nīharāpeti, vanaṃ chindāpetvā kedāre kārāpeti, porāṇakedāresu vā pakatibhāgaṃ aggahetvā atirekaṃ gaṇhāti, navasasse vā aparicchinnabhāge “ettake kahāpaṇe dethā”ti kahāpaṇe uṭṭhāpeti, sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ.

61. If there is a water source and the lake’s embankment is firm, saying, “Make it hold much water; make water near the bank,” and managing only the water, it is permissible. They do not light a fire in the oven, but saying, “Let there be water work, laymen,” is permissible; saying, “Grow crops and bring them,” is not permissible. If, seeing too much water in the lake, one has channels dug from the side or back, cuts trees to make fields, takes more than the natural share in old fields, or in new crops without a fixed share says, “Give this many kahāpaṇas,” raising kahāpaṇas—all this is impermissible for all.

61. But if there is space for water, and the embankment of the lake is firm, if he manages only the water, saying, “Do it so that it holds much water; make water near the bank,” it is allowable. They do not light a fire on the embankment. It is allowable to say, “Let there be water-work, lay supporters,” but it is not allowable to say, “Having made crops, bring [them].” But if, seeing much water in the lake, he has a channel dug from the back or the front, has the forest cut down and fields made, or takes an excess in the old fields without taking the usual share, or in the new crops, without a fixed share, raises kahāpaṇas, saying, “Give so many kahāpaṇas,” it is unallowable for all.

61. If there is space for water and the reservoir’s embankment is strong, one may say, “Take as much water as you need, do it near the shore,” and only the water is considered, and it is permissible. One should not light a fire in the oven, but it is permissible to say, “Lay followers, let the water work be done.” However, it is not permissible to say, “Produce crops and bring them.” If one sees too much water in the reservoir and has the excess removed from the front or back, cuts the forest and makes a field, or takes more than the usual share in old fields, or in a new crop, says, “Give so many coins,” and collects coins, all of this is non-permissible.

Yo pana “kasatha vapathā”ti avatvā “ettakāya bhūmiyā ettako nāma bhāgo”ti evaṃ bhūmiṃ vā patiṭṭhāpeti, “ettake bhūmibhāge amhehi sassaṃ kataṃ, ettakaṃ nāma bhāgaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadantesu kassakesu bhūmippamāṇagahaṇatthaṃ rajjuyā vā daṇḍena vā mināti, khale vā ṭhatvā rakkhati, khalato vā nīharāpeti, koṭṭhāgāre vā paṭisāmeti, tasseva taṃ akappiyaṃ. Sace kassakā kahāpaṇe āharitvā “ime saṅghassa āhaṭā”ti vadanti, aññataro ca bhikkhu “na saṅgho kahāpaṇe khādatī”ti saññāya “ettakehi kahāpaṇehi sāṭake āharatha , ettakehi yāguādīni sampādethā”ti vadati, yaṃ te āharanti, taṃ sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā. Sace dhaññaṃ āharitvā “idaṃ saṅghassa āhaṭa”nti vadanti, aññataro ca bhikkhu purimanayeneva “ettakehi vīhīhi idañcidañca āharathā”ti vadati, yaṃ te āharanti, taṃ tasseva akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Dhaññassa vicāritattā. Sace taṇḍulaṃ vā aparaṇṇaṃ vā āharitvā “idaṃ saṅghassa āhaṭa”nti vadanti, aññataro ca bhikkhu purimanayeneva “ettakehi taṇḍulehi idañcidañca āharathā”ti vadati, yaṃ te āharanti, taṃ sabbesaṃ kappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Kappiyānaṃ taṇḍulādīnaṃ vicāritattā. Kayavikkayepi anāpatti kappiyakārakassa ācikkhitattā.

But if someone, instead of saying “plow and sow,” establishes the land by saying, “for this much land, this much is the portion,” and when the farmers say, “we cultivated crops on this much land, take this much portion,” he measures the land with a rope or stick for the purpose of determining its size, or stands in the threshing floor to guard it, or has it removed from the threshing floor, or stores it in a granary, that is improper for him alone. If the farmers bring kahāpaṇas and say, “these are brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, thinking “the Saṅgha does not consume kahāpaṇas,” says, “with this many kahāpaṇas, bring robes; with this many, prepare gruel and so forth,” whatever they bring is improper for all. Why? Because of the handling of kahāpaṇas. If they bring grain and say, “this is brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says, “with this much rice, bring this or that,” whatever they bring is improper for him alone. Why? Because of the handling of the grain. If they bring taṇḍula or other permissible items and say, “this is brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says, “with this much taṇḍula, bring this or that,” whatever they bring is permissible for all. Why? Because of the handling of permissible items like taṇḍula. In buying and selling, there is no offense, as it is indicated by one who makes it permissible.

But whoever, without saying, “Plough, sow,” establishes either the land, saying, “For so much land, so much is the share,” or, when the cultivators say, “In so much land-share, we have made crops; take so much share,” measures with a rope or a stick for the sake of taking the measure of the land, or stands and guards at the threshing floor, or has it brought from the threshing floor, or stores it in the storehouse – that is unallowable for him. If the cultivators bring kahāpaṇas and say, “These have been brought for the Sangha,” and another bhikkhu, knowing that the Sangha does not eat kahāpaṇas, says, “With so many kahāpaṇas, bring robes; with so many, prepare gruel, etc.,” what they bring is unallowable for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas have been managed. If they bring grain and say, “This has been brought for the Sangha,” and another bhikkhu, just as in the previous method, says, “With so many vīhis, bring such-and-such,” what they bring is unallowable for him. Why? Because the grain has been managed. If they bring rice or other grains and say, “This has been brought for the Sangha,” and another bhikkhu, just as in the previous method, says, “With so many measures of rice, bring such-and-such,” what they bring is allowable for all. Why? Because the allowable rice, etc., have been managed. In buying and selling too, there is no offense because the allowable-maker has been told.

If someone, without saying “kasatha vapathā,” establishes a field by saying, “This much land is such and such a portion,” and when the farmers say, “We have cultivated such and such a portion of the land, take such and such a portion,” he measures the land with a rope or a stick to determine its size, guards it while standing on the threshing floor, has it removed from the threshing floor, or stores it in a granary, that is improper for him. If the farmers bring money and say, “This is brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, knowing that the Saṅgha does not accept money, says, “Bring robes with this money, prepare congee and other things with this,” whatever they bring is improper for all. Why? Because the money has been considered. If they bring grain and say, “This is brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says, “Bring such and such things with this grain,” whatever they bring is improper for him. Why? Because the grain has been considered. If they bring rice or other provisions and say, “This is brought for the Saṅgha,” and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says, “Bring such and such things with this rice,” whatever they bring is proper for all. Why? Because rice and other provisions have been considered as proper. There is no offense in buying and selling if it is done by informing the kappiyakāraka.

62. Pubbe pana cittalapabbate eko bhikkhu catusāladvāre “aho vata sve saṅghassa ettakappamāṇe pūve paceyyu”nti ārāmikānaṃ saññājananatthaṃ bhūmiyaṃ maṇḍalaṃ akāsi. Taṃ disvā cheko ārāmiko tatheva katvā dutiyadivase bheriyā ākoṭitāya sannipatite saṅghe pūvaṃ gahetvā saṅghattheraṃ āha – “bhante, amhehi ito pubbe neva pitūnaṃ, na pitāmahānaṃ evarūpaṃ sutapubbaṃ, ekena ayyena catusāladvāre pūvatthāya saññā katā, ito dāni pabhuti ayyā attano attano cittānurūpaṃ vadantu, amhākampi phāsuvihāro bhavissatī”ti. Mahāthero tatova nivatti, ekabhikkhunāpi pūvo na gahito. Evaṃ pubbe tatruppādaṃ na paribhuñjiṃsu. Tasmā –

62. Previously, at Cittala Mountain, a monk made a circle on the ground at the four-hall entrance, intending to signal the monastery workers, “Oh, if only tomorrow they would cook this much pūva for the Saṅgha.” Seeing this, a clever monastery worker did the same, and on the next day, when the drum was struck and the Saṅgha gathered, he took the pūva and said to the elder of the Saṅgha, “Venerable sir, neither we, nor our fathers, nor our grandfathers have ever heard of such a thing before: a single monk signaling at the four-hall entrance for pūva. From now on, let the venerables speak according to their own wishes, and we too will dwell at ease.” The great elder turned back from there, and not even one monk took the pūva. Thus, in the past, they did not partake of what arose there. Therefore—

62. Once, at Cittala Pabbata, a certain bhikkhu, at the door of the four-halled building, made a circle on the ground to signal to the monastery workers, “Oh, if only tomorrow they would cook so many cakes for the Sangha.” Seeing that, a clever monastery worker, having done just that, on the second day, when the Sangha had gathered at the sound of the drum, took the cakes and said to the Sangha elder, “Venerable sir, we have never before heard of such a thing from our fathers or grandfathers; a single worthy one made a sign at the door of the four-halled building for the sake of cakes. From now on, let the worthy ones speak according to their own minds; it will also be a comfortable dwelling for us.” The great elder turned back from there; not even a single cake was taken by a bhikkhu. Thus, in the past, they did not use what arose from that. Therefore –

62. Previously, on Cittalapabbata, a monk, at the four-doored hall, wishing to inspire the monastery workers, drew a circle on the ground, saying, “Oh, if only tomorrow cakes of such and such size could be made for the Saṅgha.” Seeing this, a clever monastery worker did the same, and the next day, when the drum was beaten and the Saṅgha assembled, he brought the cakes and said to the senior monk, “Venerable sir, neither our fathers nor grandfathers have ever heard of such a thing before. A certain monk made a sign at the four-doored hall for cakes. From now on, let the monks speak according to their own wishes, and we will also live comfortably.” The senior monk then stopped this practice, and not even a single monk took the cakes. Thus, in the past, they did not consume what was produced there. Therefore –

Even permissible things should not be done out of greed for material gain. (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9);

Even in allowable things, craving should not be made for the sake of material gain. (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9);

Yo cāyaṃ taḷāke vutto, pokkharaṇīudakavāhakamātikādīsupi eseva nayo.

And this method, stated regarding a pond, applies also to lotus ponds, water channels, conduits, and the like.

And what has been said about lakes, this same method applies also to ponds, water channels, etc.

The same method applies to what has been said regarding ponds, lotus ponds, water carriers, and similar matters.

63. Pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇaucchuphalāphalādīnaṃ viruhanaṭṭhānaṃ yaṃ kiñci khettaṃ vā vatthuṃ vā “dammī”ti vuttepi “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitvā taḷāke vuttanayeneva yadā kappiyavohārena “catupaccayaparibhogatthāya dammī”ti vadati, tadā sampaṭicchitabbaṃ, “vanaṃ dammi araññaṃ dammī”ti vutte pana vaṭṭati. Sace manussā bhikkhūhi anāṇattāyeva tattha rukkhe chinditvā aparaṇṇādīni sampādetvā bhikkhūnaṃ bhāgaṃ denti, vaṭṭati, adentā na codetabbā. Sace kenacideva antarāyena tesu pakkantesu aññe karonti, na ca bhikkhūnaṃ kiñci denti, te vāretabbā. Sace vadanti “nanu, bhante, pubbe manussā idha sassāni akaṃsū”ti, tato vattabbā “te saṅghassa idañcidañca kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ adaṃsū”ti. Sace vadanti “mayampi dassāmā”ti, evaṃ vaṭṭati.

63. Regarding the growing places of pubbaṇṇa, aparaṇṇa, sugarcane, fruits, and so forth—whether a field or plot—when someone says, “I give it,” even then it is refused with, “It is not allowable,” and only when it is offered in a permissible manner as stated for a pond, “I give it for the use of the four requisites,” should it be accepted. But if they say, “I give a forest, I give a wilderness,” it is allowable. If people, without being instructed by monks, cut trees there and prepare aparaṇṇa and so forth, giving a portion to the monks, it is allowable; if they do not give, they should not be urged. If, due to some obstacle, those people leave and others do the work but give nothing to the monks, they should be stopped. If they say, “Venerable sirs, didn’t people previously cultivate crops here?” they should be told, “Those people gave this or that permissible item to the Saṅgha.” If they say, “We too will give,” then it is allowable.

63. When it is said, “I give” whatever field or property that is the place of growth of grains, other grains, sugarcane, fruits and non-fruits, etc., having refused with, “It is not allowable,” just as in the method stated for lakes, when he says with an allowable transaction, “I give it for the sake of using the four requisites,” then it should be accepted. But when it is said, “I give a forest, I give a wilderness,” it is allowable. If men, even without being instructed by the bhikkhus, cut down trees there, produce other grains, etc., and give a share to the bhikkhus, it is allowable; those who do not give should not be urged. If, when they have departed due to some obstacle, others do it, and do not give anything to the bhikkhus, they should be stopped. If they say, “But, venerable sirs, previously men made crops here,” then they should be told, “They gave such-and-such and such-and-such allowable goods to the Sangha.” If they say, “We too will give,” even this is allowable.

63. If someone offers any field or land for the growth of crops, fruits, or other produce, saying, “I give this,” but it is refused with the words, “It is not allowable,” then, following the method mentioned regarding ponds, when it is said with proper consideration, “I give this for the use of the four requisites,” it should be accepted. If it is said, “I give this forest, this wilderness,” it is allowable. If people, without being asked by the monks, cut trees there and prepare other produce, giving a portion to the monks, it is allowable. If they do not give, they should not be reproached. If, due to some obstacle, they leave and others do the work, and they do not give anything to the monks, they should be stopped. If they say, “Venerable sirs, did not people cultivate crops here before?” they should be told, “They gave such and such proper items to the Saṅgha.” If they say, “We will also give,” then it is allowable.

Kiñci sassuṭṭhānakaṃ bhūmippadesaṃ sandhāya “sīmaṃ demā”ti vadanti, vaṭṭati. Sīmaparicchedanatthaṃ pana thambhā vā pāsāṇā vā sayaṃ na ṭhapetabbā, bhūmi nāma anagghā, appakenapi pārājiko bhaveyya. Ārāmikānaṃ pana vattabbaṃ “iminā ṭhānena amhākaṃ sīmā gatā”ti. Sacepi hi te adhikaṃ gaṇhanti, pariyāyena kathitattā anāpatti. Yadi pana rājarājamahāmattādayo sayameva thambhe ṭhapāpetvā “cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti denti, vaṭṭatiyeva.

When they say, referring to some land where crops arise, “We give it as a sīma,” it is allowable. However, for marking the sīma boundary, pillars or stones should not be placed by oneself; land is priceless, and even a slight misstep could lead to a pārājika offense. But it may be said to the monastery workers, “With this spot, our sīma is established.” Even if they take more, there is no offense since it was stated indirectly. If kings, royal ministers, or the like personally set up pillars and say, “Use it for the four requisites,” it is indeed allowable.

If they say, “We give a boundary,” referring to some place where crops grow, it is allowable. But pillars or stones for marking the boundary should not be established by oneself; land is priceless; even with a little, one could become pārājika. But the monastery workers should be told, “Our boundary has reached this place.” For even if they take more, because it has been stated indirectly, there is no offense. But if kings, royal ministers, and so on, themselves establish pillars and give, saying, “Use the four requisites,” it is allowable.

If someone offers a piece of land suitable for cultivation, saying, “We give a boundary,” it is allowable. However, for the purpose of marking the boundary, one should not personally set up pillars or stones. Land is priceless, and even a small offense could lead to defeat. The monastery workers should be told, “Our boundary extends to this place.” Even if they take more, since it is said indirectly, there is no offense. If kings or high officials themselves set up pillars and say, “Use the four requisites,” it is allowable.

Sace koci antosīmāyaṃ taḷākaṃ vā khaṇati, vihāramajjhena vā mātikaṃ neti, cetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇādīni dussanti, vāretabbo. Sace saṅgho kiñci labhitvā āmisagarukatāya na vāreti, eko bhikkhu vāreti, sova bhikkhu issaro. Sace eko bhikkhu na vāreti “netha tumhe”ti, tesaṃyeva pakkho hoti. Saṅgho vāreti, saṅghova issaro. Saṅghikesu hi kammesu yo dhammakammaṃ karoti, sova issaro. Sace vāriyamānopi karoti, heṭṭhā gahitaṃ paṃsuṃ heṭṭhā pakkhipitvā, upari gahitaṃ paṃsuṃ upari pakkhipitvā pūretabbā.

If someone digs a pond within the sīma, or channels water through the middle of a monastery, or damages the cetiya courtyard, bodhi tree courtyard, and so forth, he should be stopped. If the Saṅgha, out of attachment to material gain after receiving something, does not stop him, but one monk does, that monk alone has authority. If one monk does not stop him, saying, “Don’t bring it here,” he sides with them. If the Saṅgha stops it, the Saṅgha alone has authority. For in communal acts of the Saṅgha, whoever performs a righteous act has authority. If he persists despite being stopped, the soil taken from below should be returned below, and the soil taken from above should be returned above to fill it.

If someone digs a lake within the boundary, or leads a channel through the middle of the monastery, and the grounds of the cetiya and the Bodhi tree, etc., are damaged, he should be stopped. If the Sangha, having obtained something, does not stop him due to material attachment, and one bhikkhu stops him, that bhikkhu alone is in charge. If one bhikkhu does not stop him, saying, “Do not take, you,” their side prevails. If the Sangha stops him, the Sangha alone is in charge. For in Sangha matters, whoever does what is in accordance with Dhamma is in charge. If, even being stopped, he does it, the earth taken from below should be put below, and the earth taken from above should be put above, and it should be filled.

If someone digs a pond within the boundary, or leads a water channel through the middle of the monastery, or damages the courtyard of the shrine, the Bodhi tree, or similar places, they should be stopped. If the Saṅgha, out of respect for material gains, does not stop it, a single monk should stop it, and that monk is the authority. If a single monk does not stop it, saying, “Do not do this,” it becomes their responsibility. If the Saṅgha stops it, the Saṅgha is the authority. In Saṅgha matters, whoever performs the legal act is the authority. If someone continues despite being stopped, they should fill the hole by placing the lower soil below and the upper soil above.

Sace koci yathājātameva ucchuṃ vā aparaṇṇaṃ vā alābukumbhaṇḍādikaṃ vā valliphalaṃ dātukāmo “etaṃ sabbaṃ ucchukhettaṃ aparaṇṇavatthuṃ valliphalāvāṭaṃ dammī”ti vadati, saha vatthunā parāmaṭṭhattā na vaṭṭatīti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero pana “abhilāpamattametaṃ, sāmikānaṃyeva hi so bhūmibhāgo, tasmā vaṭṭatī”ti āha. “Dāsaṃ dammī”ti vadati, na vaṭṭati. “Ārāmikaṃ dammi, veyyāvaccakaraṃ dammi, kappiyakārakaṃ dammī”ti vutte vaṭṭati. Sace ārāmiko purebhattampi pacchābhattampi saṅghasseva kammaṃ karoti, sāmaṇerassa viya sabbaṃ bhesajjaṃ paṭijagganampi tassa kātabbaṃ. Sace purebhattameva saṅghassa kammaṃ karoti, pacchābhattaṃ attano karoti, sāyaṃ nivāpo na dātabbo. Yepi pañcadivasavārena vā pakkhavārena vā saṅghassa kammaṃ katvā sesakāle attano kammaṃ karonti, tesampi karaṇakāleyeva bhattañca nivāpo ca dātabbo. Sace saṅghassa kammaṃ natthi, attanoyeva kammaṃ katvā jīvanti, te ce hatthakammamūlaṃ ānetvā denti, gahetabbaṃ. No ce denti, na kiñci vattabbā. Yaṃ kiñci rajakadāsampi pesakāradāsampi ārāmikanāmena sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati.

If someone wishes to give raw sugarcane, aparaṇṇa, gourds, pumpkins, or creeper fruits, saying, “I give all this sugarcane field, aparaṇṇa plot, or creeper fruit garden,” it is not allowable, as it involves handling the land itself, according to the Elder Mahāsoma. But the Elder Mahāpaduma says, “This is merely a matter of expression; the land belongs to its owners, so it is allowable.” If someone says, “I give a slave,” it is not allowable. If they say, “I give a monastery worker, I give a servant, I give one who makes things permissible,” it is allowable. If a monastery worker performs tasks for the Saṅgha both before and after meals, all medical care should be provided to him as for a novice. If he works for the Saṅgha only before meals and for himself after meals, evening rations should not be given. For those who work for the Saṅgha every five days or fortnightly and do their own tasks the rest of the time, food and rations should be given only during their work period. If there is no work for the Saṅgha, and they sustain themselves by their own tasks, if they bring something earned by manual labor, it may be accepted. If they do not give, nothing should be said. Even slaves of dyers or weavers may be accepted under the name of monastery workers, and it is allowable.

If someone, wanting to give just-grown sugarcane, or other grains, or gourd, kumbhaṇḍa, etc., or creeper fruits, says, “I give all this sugarcane field, this property of other grains, this creeper fruit garden,” Mahāsumma Thera said that it is not allowable because it is touched along with the property. But Mahāpaduma Thera said, “This is mere verbal expression; for that land-share belongs to the owners; therefore, it is allowable.” If he says, “I give a slave,” it is not allowable. When it is said, “I give a monastery worker, I give a servant, I give an allowable-maker,” it is allowable. If the monastery worker does the work of the Sangha both before the meal and after the meal, all medicine, like for a novice, and attending to him should be done. If he does the work of the Sangha only before the meal, and does his own work after the meal, evening gruel should not be given. Even for those who do the work of the Sangha with a turn of five days or a turn of a fortnight, and do their own work at other times, both food and evening gruel should be given only at the time of doing [the work]. If there is no work of the Sangha, and they live doing only their own work, if they bring and give the wages of manual labor, it should be taken. If they do not give, they should not be told anything. Whatever, even a washerman slave, even a weaver slave, it is allowable to accept under the name of a monastery worker.

If someone wishes to give sugarcane, other produce, or items like gourds and pumpkins as they are, saying, “I give this entire sugarcane field, this plot of other produce, this vine fruit pit,” it is not allowable because it is connected with the land, as stated by the elder Mahāsumedha. However, the elder Mahāpaduma said, “This is merely a verbal offer, as the ownership of that portion of land remains with the owners, so it is allowable.” If someone says, “I give a slave,” it is not allowable. If someone says, “I give a monastery worker, a servant, a kappiyakāraka,” it is allowable. If the monastery worker works for the Saṅgha both before and after meals, like a novice, all medicine should be provided for him. If he works for the Saṅgha only before the meal and works for himself after the meal, the evening meal should not be given. Those who work for the Saṅgha for five days or a fortnight and work for themselves the rest of the time should be given food and the evening meal only during the time they work. If there is no work for the Saṅgha, and they work for themselves to make a living, if they bring the proceeds of their labor and offer it, it should be accepted. If they do not offer it, nothing should be said. It is allowable to accept even a washerman’s slave or a weaver’s slave under the name of a monastery worker.

Sace “gāvo demā”ti vadanti, “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitabbā. Imā gāvo kutoti. Paṇḍitehi pañcagorasaparibhogatthāya dinnāti. “Mayampi pañcagorasaparibhogatthāya demā”ti vutte vaṭṭanti. Ajikādīsupi eseva nayo. “Hatthiṃ dema, assaṃ, mahiṃsaṃ, kukkuṭaṃ, sūkaraṃ demā”ti vadanti, sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace keci manussā “appossukkā, bhante, tumhe hotha, mayaṃ ime gahetvā tumhākaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ dassāmā”ti gaṇhanti, vaṭṭati. Kukkuṭasūkare “sukhaṃ jīvantū”ti araññe vissajjāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Imaṃ taḷākaṃ, imaṃ khettaṃ, imaṃ vatthuṃ vihārassa demā”ti vutte paṭikkhipituṃ na labbhati.

If they say, “We give cows,” it should be refused with, “It is not allowable.” Where do these cows come from? From the wise, given for the use of the five products of the cow. If they say, “We too give them for the use of the five products of the cow,” it is allowable. The same applies to goats and so forth. If they say, “We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, a rooster, a pig,” it is not allowable to accept. If some people say, “Venerable sirs, be at ease; we will take these and give you permissible items,” and they take them, it is allowable. For roosters and pigs, it is allowable to release them into the wilderness, saying, “Live happily.” If they say, “We give this pond, this field, this plot to the monastery,” it cannot be refused.

If they say, “We give cows,” they should be refused with, “It is not allowable.” Where are these cows from? They have been given by the wise for the use of the five products of the cow. When it is said, “We too give for the use of the five products of the cow,” they are allowable. This same method applies also to goats, etc. If they say, “We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, a chicken, a pig,” it is not allowable to accept. If some men say, “Be without concern, venerable sirs; we will take these and give you allowable goods,” it is allowable. It is allowable to release chickens and pigs in the forest, [saying] “Let them live happily.” When it is said, “We give this lake, this field, this property to the monastery,” it is not permitted to refuse.

If someone says, “We give cows,” it should be refused. Why? These cows are given by the wise for the use of the five products. If they say, “We also give for the use of the five products,” it is allowable. The same applies to goats and similar animals. If someone says, “We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, a chicken, a pig,” it should not be accepted. If some people say, “Do not worry, venerable sirs, we will take these and give you proper items,” it is allowable. Chickens and pigs should be released into the forest, saying, “May they live happily.” If someone says, “We give this pond, this field, this land to the monastery,” it should not be refused.

64. Sace koci bhikkhuṃ uddissa dūtena hiraññasuvaṇṇādicīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇeyya “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehī”ti, so ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “idaṃ kho, bhante, āyasmantaṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhataṃ, paṭiggaṇhatu āyasmā cīvaracetāpanna”nti, tena bhikkhunā so dūto evamassa vacanīyo “na kho mayaṃ, āvuso, cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma, cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma kālena kappiya”nti. So ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuṃ evaṃ vadeyya “atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti, cīvaratthikena bhikkhunā veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo ārāmiko vā upāsako vā “eso kho, āvuso, bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti. Na vattabbo “tassa dehī”ti vā “so vā nikkhipissati, so vā parivattessati, so vā cetāpessatī”ti . So ce dūto taṃ veyyāvaccakaraṃ saññāpetvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “yaṃ kho, bhante, āyasmā veyyāvaccakaraṃ niddisi, āṇatto so mayā, upasaṅkamatu āyasmā kālena, cīvarena taṃ acchādessatī”ti. Cīvaratthikena bhikkhunā veyyāvaccakaro upasaṅkamitvā dvattikkhattuṃ codetabbo sāretabbo “attho me, āvuso, cīvarenā”ti. Na vattabbo “dehi me cīvaraṃ, āhara me cīvaraṃ, parivattehi me cīvaraṃ, cetāpehi me cīvara”nti. Sace dvattikkhattuṃ codayamāno sārayamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce abhinipphādeti, tattha gantvā catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtena uddissa ṭhātabbaṃ, na āsane nisīditabbaṃ, na āmisaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, na dhammo bhāsitabbo. “Kiṃ kāraṇā āgatosī”ti pucchiyamānena “jānāhi, āvuso”ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ.

64. If someone sends a robe-requisite such as gold or silver to a monk via a messenger, saying, “Having purchased a robe with this robe-requisite, clothe the monk named so-and-so with a robe,” and the messenger approaches that monk and says, “Venerable sir, this robe-requisite has been brought for your reverence; please accept it,” that monk should say to the messenger, “Friend, we do not accept robe-requisites; we accept robes at the proper time, if permissible.” If the messenger says to that monk, “Does your reverence have any attendant?” the monk in need of a robe should designate an attendant—either a monastery worker or a lay follower—saying, “Friend, this is an attendant of monks.” He should not say, “Give it to him,” or “He will store it,” or “He will exchange it,” or “He will purchase with it.” If the messenger instructs that attendant and approaches the monk, saying, “Venerable sir, the attendant you designated has been instructed by me; let your reverence approach him at the proper time, and he will clothe you with a robe,” the monk in need of a robe should approach the attendant and urge or remind him two or three times, saying, “Friend, I have need of a robe.” He should not say, “Give me a robe, bring me a robe, exchange it for me, purchase it for me.” If, after urging or reminding two or three times, he obtains that robe, that is well. If he does not obtain it, he should go there and stand silently for the purpose up to four, five, or at most six times; he should not sit on a seat, accept material offerings, or speak Dhamma. If asked, “Why have you come?” he should say only, “Know it, friend.”

64. If someone should send money for robes, gold, etc., by a messenger for a bhikkhu, [saying] “With this money for robes, having bought a robe, clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe,” and if that messenger, having approached that bhikkhu, should say thus, “This, venerable sir, money for robes has been brought for you; may the venerable sir accept the money for robes,” that messenger should be spoken to thus by that bhikkhu, “We, friend, do not accept money for robes; but we do accept a robe, at the right time, allowable.” If that messenger should say thus to that bhikkhu, “Is there any attendant of the venerable sir?” a bhikkhu in need of a robe should indicate an attendant, either a monastery worker or a lay supporter, [saying] “This, friend, is the attendant of the bhikkhus.” He should not say, “Give it to him,” or “He will deposit it, or he will exchange it, or he will buy it.” If that messenger, having informed that attendant, should approach that bhikkhu and say thus, “The attendant whom the venerable sir indicated, he has been instructed by me; may the venerable sir approach at the right time; he will clothe you with a robe.” The bhikkhu in need of a robe should approach the attendant and urge and remind him two or three times, “I have need, friend, of a robe.” He should not say, “Give me a robe, bring me a robe, exchange for me a robe, buy me a robe.” If, being urged and reminded two or three times, he produces that robe, this is good. If he does not produce it, having gone there, he should stand silently, aiming [at it], up to four, five, or six times; he should not sit on a seat, he should not accept material offerings, he should not speak Dhamma. Being asked, “For what reason have you come?” he should say only this much, “Know, friend.”

64. If someone sends a messenger with gold, silver, or cloth for a monk, saying, “With this cloth and money, have a robe made and clothe such and such a monk,” and the messenger approaches the monk and says, “Venerable sir, this cloth and money have been brought for you, please accept the cloth and money,” the monk should say to the messenger, “We do not accept cloth and money, but we do accept robes at the proper time and in a proper manner.” If the messenger says, “Do you have someone to assist you?” the monk in need of a robe should point out a monastery worker or a lay devotee, saying, “This is the assistant for the monks.” He should not say, “Give it to him,” or “He will store it, exchange it, or have it made.” If the messenger convinces the assistant and approaches the monk, saying, “Venerable sir, the assistant you pointed out has been instructed, please approach him at the proper time, and he will clothe you with the robe,” the monk in need of the robe should approach the assistant and remind him two or three times, saying, “I need a robe.” He should not say, “Give me a robe, bring me a robe, exchange my robe, have a robe made for me.” If, after being reminded two or three times, the assistant produces the robe, that is good. If not, the monk should go there and stand silently four, five, or up to six times. He should not sit on a seat, accept food, or give a Dhamma talk. If asked, “Why have you come?” he should only say, “You know, friend.”

Sace āsane vā nisīdati, āmisaṃ vā paṭiggaṇhāti, dhammaṃ vā bhāsati, ṭhānaṃ bhañjati. Sace catukkhattuṃ codeti, catukkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ. Pañcakkhattuṃ codeti, dvikkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ. Chakkhattuṃ codeti, na ṭhātabbaṃ. Ekāya hi codanāya ṭhānadvayaṃ bhañjati. Yathā chakkhattuṃ codetvā na ṭhātabbaṃ, evaṃ dvādasakkhattuṃ ṭhatvā na codetabbaṃ. Tasmā sace codetiyeva na tiṭṭhati, cha codanā labbhanti. Sace tiṭṭhatiyeva na codeti, dvādasa ṭhānāni labbhanti. Sace codetipi tiṭṭhatipi, ekāya codanāya dve ṭhānāni hāpetabbāni. Tattha yo ekadivasameva punappunaṃ gantvā chakkhattuṃ codeti, sakiṃyeva vā gantvā “attho me, āvuso, cīvarenā”ti chakkhattuṃ vadati, tattha ekadivasameva punappunaṃ gantvā dvādasakkhattuṃ tiṭṭhati, sakimeva vā gantvā tatra tatra ṭhāne tiṭṭhati, sopi sabbacodanāyo sabbaṭṭhānāni ca bhañjati, ko pana vādo nānādivasesu. Tato ce uttari vāyamamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeti, payoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. No ce sakkoti taṃ abhinipphādetuṃ, yato rājato rājamahāmattato vā assa bhikkhuno taṃ cīvaracetāpannaṃ ānītaṃ, tassa santikaṃ sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabbo “yaṃ kho tumhe āyasmanto bhikkhuṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇittha, na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhoti, yuñjantāyasmanto sakaṃ, mā tumhākaṃ santakaṃ vinassatū”ti. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīci. Yo pana neva sāmaṃ gacchati, na dūtaṃ pāheti, vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

If he sits on a seat, accepts material offerings, or speaks Dhamma, he forfeits his standing. If he urges four times, he should stand four times; if he urges five times, he should stand twice; if he urges six times, he should not stand. For with one urging, he forfeits two standings. Just as he should not stand after urging six times, so too he should not urge after standing twelve times. Thus, if he only urges and does not stand, he gets six urgings; if he only stands and does not urge, he gets twelve standings; if he both urges and stands, with each urging he must forfeit two standings. There, if someone goes repeatedly in one day and urges six times, or goes once and says, “Friend, I have need of a robe” six times, or goes repeatedly in one day and stands twelve times, or goes once and stands in various places, he too forfeits all urgings and standings—what to say of doing so on different days? If he strives further and obtains that robe, it is an offense of wrong effort; upon receiving it, it becomes nissaggiya. If he cannot obtain it, he should either go himself or send a messenger to the king or royal minister from whom that robe-requisite was brought, saying, “That robe-requisite you sent for the monk does not benefit him in any way; take care of your own property, lest it be lost to you.” This is the proper conduct there. But if he neither goes himself nor sends a messenger, he incurs an offense of wrong conduct.

If he sits on a seat, or accepts material offerings, or speaks Dhamma, he breaks the standing. 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 standings. Just as he should not stand having urged six times, so too he should not urge having stood twelve times. Therefore, if he urges but does not stand, six urgings are obtained. If he stands but does not urge, twelve standings are obtained. If he both urges and stands, with one urging, two standings should be given up. There, whoever goes repeatedly on a single day and urges six times, or goes only once and says six times, “I have need, friend, of a robe,” there, whoever goes repeatedly on a single day and stands twelve times, or goes only once and stands in various places, he breaks all urgings and all standings; what need to speak of different days? If, striving beyond that, he produces that robe, there is a dukkaṭa in the effort, and a nissaggiya upon obtaining. If he is not able to produce it, from wherever, from a king or a royal minister, that money for robes has been brought for that bhikkhu, either he should go himself to him, or a messenger should be sent, [saying] “The money for robes that you, sirs, sent for the bhikkhu, does not serve any purpose for that bhikkhu; may the sirs use their own; may what belongs to you not be lost.” This is the proper course there. But whoever neither goes himself nor sends a messenger incurs a dukkaṭa in breaking the statement.

If he sits on a seat, accepts food, or gives a Dhamma talk, he breaks the rule. If he reminds four times, he should stand four times. If he reminds five times, he should stand twice. If he reminds six times, he should not stand. For each reminder, two opportunities are lost. Just as one should not stand after reminding six times, one should not remind after standing twelve times. Therefore, if one reminds without standing, six reminders are obtained. If one stands without reminding, twelve standing opportunities are obtained. If one both reminds and stands, for each reminder, two standing opportunities are lost. If one goes repeatedly in a single day and reminds six times, or goes once and says, “I need a robe,” six times, or goes repeatedly in a single day and stands twelve times, or goes once and stands in various places, he loses all reminders and all standing opportunities, let alone over different days. If, after making further efforts, he obtains the robe, there is a wrongdoing in the effort, and it becomes forfeited upon receipt. If he cannot obtain the robe, he should go himself or send a messenger to the king or high official from whom the cloth and money were brought, saying, “Venerable sirs, the cloth and money you sent for the monk are of no use to him, please use it yourselves, do not let your property go to waste.” This is the proper procedure. If one neither goes himself nor sends a messenger, he commits a wrongdoing in the breach of the rule.

65. Kiṃ pana (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9) sabbakappiyakārakesu evaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Na paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Ayañhi kappiyakārako nāma saṅkhepato duvidho niddiṭṭho aniddiṭṭho ca. Tattha niddiṭṭho duvidho bhikkhunā niddiṭṭho dūtena niddiṭṭhoti. Aniddiṭṭhopi duvidho mukhavevaṭikakappiyakārako parammukhakappiyakārakoti. Tesu bhikkhunā niddiṭṭho sammukhāsammukhavasena catubbidho hoti, tathā dūtena niddiṭṭhopi. Kathaṃ? Idhekacco bhikkhussa cīvaratthāya dūtena akappiyavatthuṃ pahiṇati, dūto taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā “idaṃ, bhante, itthannāmena tumhākaṃ cīvaratthāya pahitaṃ, gaṇhatha na”nti vadati, bhikkhu “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhipati, dūto “atthi pana te, bhante, veyyāvaccakaro”ti pucchati, puññatthikehi ca upāsakehi “bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccaṃ karothā”ti āṇattā vā, bhikkhūnaṃ vā sandiṭṭhasambhattā keci veyyāvaccakarā honti, tesaṃ aññataro tasmiṃ khaṇe bhikkhussa santike nisinno hoti, bhikkhu taṃ niddisati “ayaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti, dūto tassa hatthe akappiyavatthuṃ datvā “therassa cīvaraṃ kiṇitvā dehī”ti gacchati, ayaṃ bhikkhunā sammukhāniddiṭṭho.

65. But should one act this way with all permissible agents (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9)? No, one should not act this way. Here, a permissible agent is briefly classified into two types: designated and undesignated. Among them, the designated is twofold: designated by a monk and designated by a messenger. The undesignated is also twofold: an immediate permissible agent and a subsequent permissible agent. Those designated by a monk are fourfold, based on presence or absence, and likewise those designated by a messenger. How so? Here, someone sends an impermissible item to a monk via a messenger for a robe, and the messenger approaches the monk, saying, “Venerable sir, this was sent by so-and-so for your robe; take it.” The monk refuses, saying, “This is not allowable.” The messenger asks, “Do you, venerable sir, have an attendant?” There are some who, either instructed by those desiring merit, “Serve the monks,” or being acquaintances of the monks, act as attendants. One of them is sitting near the monk at that moment, and the monk designates him, saying, “This is an attendant of monks.” The messenger gives the impermissible item to his hand, saying, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it,” and leaves. This is one designated by a monk in his presence.

65. But (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-9) should one act thus with all allowable-makers? One should not act thus. For this allowable-maker is, in brief, twofold: indicated and not indicated. There, the indicated is twofold: indicated by the bhikkhu and indicated by the messenger. The not-indicated too is twofold: the allowable-maker at the face and the allowable-maker behind the back. Among them, the one indicated by the bhikkhu is fourfold, based on being in front and not in front; so too the one indicated by the messenger. How? Here, someone sends unallowable goods by a messenger for the robe of a bhikkhu. The messenger, having approached that bhikkhu, says, “This, venerable sir, has been sent by so-and-so for your robe; take it or not.” The bhikkhu refuses, saying, “This is not allowable.” The messenger asks, “But is there, venerable sir, an attendant of yours?” And because lay supporters have been instructed by those desiring merit, “Do the service of the bhikkhus,” or because of being friends and companions of the bhikkhus, there are some attendants. One of them is at that moment sitting near the bhikkhu. The bhikkhu indicates him, [saying] “This is the attendant of the bhikkhus.” The messenger gives the unallowable goods into his hand and says, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it,” and departs. This is one indicated by the bhikkhu in front.

65. Should one act in this manner with all kappiyakārakas? One should not. Here, the kappiyakāraka is briefly of two kinds: appointed and unappointed. The appointed is of two kinds: appointed by a monk or appointed by a messenger. The unappointed is also of two kinds: the kappiyakāraka who speaks directly and the kappiyakāraka who speaks indirectly. Among these, the one appointed by a monk is of four kinds: directly in person, and similarly, the one appointed by a messenger. How? Here, a certain monk sends an improper item through a messenger for the purpose of a robe. The messenger approaches the monk and says, “Venerable sir, this has been sent by such and such a person for your robe, please take it.” The monk refuses, saying, “This is not proper.” The messenger asks, “Do you have an assistant?” Some assistants, instructed by lay devotees wishing to make merit, saying, “Serve the monks,” or who are known to the monks, are present. One of them is sitting near the monk at that moment. The monk points him out, saying, “This is the assistant for the monks.” The messenger gives the improper item to his hand and says, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it to him,” and leaves. This is the kappiyakāraka appointed by the monk in person.

No ce bhikkhussa santike nisinno hoti, apica kho bhikkhu niddisati “asukasmiṃ nāma gāme itthannāmo bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti, so gantvā tassa hatthe akappiyavatthuṃ datvā “therassa cīvaraṃ kiṇitvā dadeyyāsī”ti āgantvā bhikkhussa ārocetvā gacchati, ayameko bhikkhunā asammukhāniddiṭṭho.

If no one is sitting near the monk, but the monk designates, saying, “In such-and-such a village, so-and-so is an attendant of monks,” and he goes, gives the impermissible item to his hand, saying, “You should buy a robe for the elder and give it,” and returns to inform the monk before leaving—this is one designated by a monk not in his presence.

But if he is not sitting near the bhikkhu, but the bhikkhu indicates, “In such-and-such a village, so-and-so is the attendant of the bhikkhus,” he goes and gives the unallowable goods into his hand and says, “You should buy a robe for the elder and give it,” and, having come, informs the bhikkhu and departs. This is one indicated by the bhikkhu not in front.

If the assistant is not sitting near the monk, but the monk points him out, saying, “In such and such a village, so-and-so is the assistant for the monks,” and the messenger goes and gives the improper item to his hand, saying, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it to him,” and returns to inform the monk, this is one kind of kappiyakāraka appointed by the monk not in person.

Na heva kho so dūto attanā āgantvā āroceti, apica kho aññaṃ pahiṇati “dinnaṃ mayā, bhante, tassa hatthe cīvaracetāpannaṃ, tumhe cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti, ayaṃ dutiyo bhikkhunā asammukhāniddiṭṭho.

If that messenger does not return to inform him himself but sends another, saying, “Venerable sir, I gave the robe-requisite to his hand; you should take the robe,” this is a second one designated by a monk not in his presence.

But that messenger does not come himself and inform, but sends another, [saying] “I have given, venerable sir, the money for robes into his hand; you should take the robe.” This is the second indicated by the bhikkhu not in front.

The messenger does not come himself to inform, but sends another, saying, “Venerable sir, I have given the cloth and money to his hand, you should take the robe.” This is the second kind of kappiyakāraka appointed by the monk not in person.

Na heva kho aññaṃ pahiṇati, apica gacchantova bhikkhuṃ vadati “ahaṃ tassa hatthe cīvaracetāpannaṃ dassāmi, tumhe cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti, ayaṃ tatiyo bhikkhunā asammukhāniddiṭṭhoti evaṃ eko sammukhāniddiṭṭho tayo asammukhāniddiṭṭhāti ime cattāro bhikkhunā niddiṭṭhaveyyāvaccakarā nāma. Etesu idha vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

If he does not send another but says to the monk as he leaves, “I will give the robe-requisite to his hand; you should take the robe,” this is a third one designated by a monk not in his presence. Thus, one designated in presence and three not in presence—these four are called attendants designated by a monk. With these, one should act according to the method stated here.

But he does not send another, but, as he is going, says to the bhikkhu, “I will give the money for robes into his hand; you should take the robe.” This is the third indicated by the bhikkhu not in front. Thus, one indicated in front and three indicated not in front – these are the four attendants indicated by the bhikkhu. With these, one should act just as stated here.

The messenger does not send another, but while going, he says to the monk, “I will give the cloth and money to his hand, you should take the robe.” This is the third kind of kappiyakāraka appointed by the monk not in person. Thus, one is appointed in person, and three are appointed not in person. These are the four kinds of kappiyakārakas appointed by a monk. One should act with them as described here.

Aparo bhikkhu purimanayeneva dūtena pucchito natthitāya vā avicāretukāmatāya vā “natthamhākaṃ kappiyakārako”ti vadati, tasmiṃ khaṇe koci manusso āgacchati, dūto tassa hatthe akappiyavatthuṃ datvā “imassa hatthato cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti vatvā gacchati, ayaṃ dūtena sammukhāniddiṭṭhoti evaṃ eko sammukhāniddiṭṭho.

Another monk, when asked by a messenger in the same way as before, says, “We have no permissible agent,” either because there is none or because he does not wish to consider it. At that moment, a person arrives, and the messenger gives the impermissible item to his hand, saying, “You should take a robe from this person’s hand,” and leaves. This is one designated by a messenger in his presence.

Another bhikkhu, questioned by the messenger just as in the previous method, because of non-existence or because of not wanting to manage, says, “We do not have an allowable-maker.” At that moment, a certain man comes. The messenger gives the unallowable goods into his hand and, having said, “You should take a robe from his hand,” departs. This is one indicated by the messenger in front. Thus, one indicated in front.

Another monk, when asked by a messenger in the manner described before, says, “We have no kappiyakāraka,” either because there is none or because he does not wish to inquire. At that moment, a certain person arrives. The messenger gives the improper item to his hand and says, “Take the robe from his hand,” and leaves. This is the kappiyakāraka appointed by the messenger in person. Thus, one is appointed in person.

Aparo dūto gāmaṃ pavisitvā attanā abhirucitassa kassaci hatthe akappiyavatthuṃ datvā purimanayeneva āgantvā vā āroceti, aññaṃ vā pahiṇati “ahaṃ asukassa nāma hatthe cīvaracetāpannaṃ dassāmi, tumhe cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti vatvā vā gacchati, ayaṃ tatiyo dūtena asammukhāniddiṭṭhoti evaṃ eko sammukhāniddiṭṭho tayo asammukhāniddiṭṭhāti ime cattāro dūtena niddiṭṭhaveyyāvaccakarā nāma. Etesu meṇḍakasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ –

Another messenger enters a village and gives the impermissible item to someone of his own choosing, either returning to inform as before or sending another, or saying as he leaves, “I will give the robe-requisite to so-and-so’s hand; you should take the robe.” This is a third one designated by a messenger not in his presence. Thus, one designated in presence and three not in presence—these four are called attendants designated by a messenger. With these, one should act according to the method stated in the Meṇḍaka training rule. It is said:

Another messenger, having entered the village, gives the unallowable goods into the hand of someone he likes, and, just as in the previous method, either comes and informs, or sends another, or says as he is going, “I will give the money for robes into the hand of so-and-so; you should take the robe.” This is the third indicated by the messenger not in front. Thus, one indicated in front and three indicated not in front – these are the four attendants indicated by the messenger. With these, one should act just as stated in the Meṇḍaka Sikkhāpada. It is stated there –

Another messenger enters the village and gives the improper item to the hand of someone he likes, and then returns to inform or sends another, saying, “I will give the cloth and money to so-and-so’s hand, you should take the robe,” and leaves. This is the third kind of kappiyakāraka appointed by the messenger not in person. Thus, one is appointed in person, and three are appointed not in person. These are the four kinds of kappiyakārakas appointed by a messenger. One should act with them as described in the Meṇḍaka training rule. It is said –

“Santi, bhikkhave, manussā saddhā pasannā, te kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe hiraññaṃ upanikkhipanti ’iminā yaṃ ayyassa kappiyaṃ, taṃ dethā’ti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ tato kappiyaṃ, taṃ sādituṃ, na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, ’kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabbaṃ pariyesitabba’nti vadāmī”ti (mahāva. 299).

“There are, monks, people with faith and confidence who deposit gold in the hands of permissible agents, saying, ‘With this, give what is permissible to the venerable.’ I allow, monks, you to accept what is permissible from that; but I do not say, monks, that gold or silver should be accepted or sought in any way” (mahāva. 299).

“There are, bhikkhus, men who are faithful and devoted; they deposit money in the hands of allowable-makers, [saying] ‘With this, give whatever is allowable to the worthy one.’ I allow, bhikkhus, whatever is allowable from that to be accepted; but I do not say, bhikkhus, ‘By any means should gold and silver be accepted or sought.’” (Mahāva. 299).

“There are, monks, faithful and devoted people who place gold in the hands of kappiyakārakas, saying, ‘Give what is proper for the venerable ones with this.’ I allow, monks, what is proper from that to be used. But I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be sought or accepted in any way.” (Mahāva. 299).

Ettha codanāya parimāṇaṃ natthi, mūlaṃ asādiyantena sahassakkhattumpi codanāya vā ṭhānena vā kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ sādituṃ vaṭṭati. No ce deti, aññaṃ kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetvāpi āharāpetabbaṃ. Sace icchati, mūlasāmikānampi kathetabbaṃ. No ce icchati, na kathetabbaṃ.

Here, there is no limit to urging; without accepting the original item, one may urge or stand even a thousand times to accept a permissible item, and it is allowable. If he does not give, it may be brought through another permissible agent. If he wishes, it may be mentioned to the original owners; if he does not wish, it need not be mentioned.

Here, there is no limit to urging; without accepting the original value, it is allowable to accept allowable goods even a thousand times by urging or by standing. If he does not give, even establishing another allowable-maker, it should be brought. If one wishes, the original owners should also be told. If one does not wish, they should not be told.

Here, there is no limit to the reminders. Even if one does not accept the original, it is allowable to use proper items after a thousand reminders or standing. If it is not given, another kappiyakāraka should be appointed and the item obtained. If desired, one should speak to the original owners. If not desired, one should not speak.

Aparo bhikkhu purimanayeneva dūtena pucchito “natthamhākaṃ kappiyakārako”ti vadati, tadañño samīpe ṭhito sutvā “āhara bho, ahaṃ ayyassa cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā dassāmī”ti vadati. Dūto “handa bho dadeyyāsī”ti tassa hatthe datvā bhikkhussa anārocetvāva gacchati, ayaṃ mukhavevaṭikakappiyakārako. Aparo bhikkhuno upaṭṭhākassa vā aññassa vā hatthe akappiyavatthuṃ datvā “therassa cīvaraṃ dadeyyāsī”ti ettova pakkamati, ayaṃ parammukhākappiyakārakoti ime dve aniddiṭṭhakappiyakārakā nāma. Etesu aññātakaappavāritesu viya paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Sace sayameva cīvaraṃ ānetvā dadanti, gahetabbaṃ. No ce, na kiñci vattabbā. Yathā ca dūtassa hatthe cīvaratthāya akappiyavatthumhi pesite vinicchayo vutto, evaṃ piṇḍapātādīnampi atthāya pesite sayaṃ āgantvā dīyamāne ca vinicchayo veditabbo.

Another monk, when asked by a messenger in the same way as before, says, “We have no permissible agent,” and another person nearby, hearing this, says, “Bring it, sir; I will buy a robe for the venerable and give it.” The messenger says, “Here, sir, you should give it,” gives it to his hand, and leaves without informing the monk. This is an immediate permissible agent. Another gives the impermissible item to the monk’s supporter or another person’s hand, saying, “You should give a robe to the elder,” and departs with just that—this is a subsequent permissible agent. These two are called undesignated permissible agents. With these, one should act as with unknown invited donors. If they bring a robe themselves and give it, it may be accepted; if not, nothing should be said. Just as the ruling is stated for an impermissible item sent via a messenger for a robe, so too it should be understood for almsfood and so forth sent or given personally.

Another bhikkhu, questioned by the messenger just as in the previous method, says, “We do not have an allowable-maker.” Another, standing nearby, hearing that, says, “Bring it, sir; I will buy a robe for the worthy one and give it.” The messenger says, “Here, sir, you should give it,” and, having given it into his hand, departs without informing the bhikkhu. This is the allowable-maker at the face. Another gives the unallowable goods into the hand of the bhikkhu’s attendant or another and just departs, [saying] “You should give a robe to the elder.” This is the allowable-maker behind the back. These are the two not-indicated allowable-makers. With these, one should act just as with non-relatives who have not given permission. If they themselves bring a robe and give it, it should be taken. If not, they should not be told anything. And just as the decision has been stated when unallowable goods have been sent in the hand of a messenger for the sake of a robe, so too the decision should be understood when they have been sent for the sake of alms-food, etc., and when they are being given having come themselves.

Another monk, when asked by a messenger in the manner described before, says, “We have no kappiyakāraka,” and another standing nearby hears and says, “Bring it, friend, I will have a robe made for the venerable one and give it.” The messenger says, “Here, friend, give it,” and gives it to his hand without informing the monk, and leaves. This is the kappiyakāraka who speaks directly. Another gives the improper item to the hand of the monk’s attendant or another, saying, “Give a robe to the elder,” and leaves. This is the kappiyakāraka who speaks indirectly. These are the two kinds of unappointed kappiyakārakas. One should act with them as with unknown and uninvited ones. If they bring the robe themselves and give it, it should be accepted. If not, nothing should be said. Just as the ruling is given regarding improper items sent by a messenger for the purpose of a robe, so too should the ruling be understood for almsfood and other items sent and given personally.

66. Upanikkhittasādiyane pana ayaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) – kiñci akappiyavatthuṃ pādamūle ṭhapetvā “idaṃ ayyassa hotū”ti vutte sacepi cittena sādiyati, gaṇhitukāmo hoti, kāyena vā vācāya vā “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhipati, anāpatti . Kāyavācāhi vā appaṭikkhipitvāpi suddhacitto hutvā “nayidaṃ amhākaṃ kappatī”ti na sādiyati, anāpattiyeva. Tīsu dvāresu hi yena kenaci paṭikkhittaṃ paṭikkhittameva hoti. Sace pana kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā cittena adhivāseti, kāyavācāhi kattabbassa paṭikkhepassa akaraṇato akiriyasamuṭṭhānaṃ kāyadvāre ca vacīdvāre ca āpattiṃ āpajjati, manodvāre pana āpatti nāma natthi.

66. Regarding accepting what is deposited, this is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4): If some impermissible item is placed at the foot, saying, “Let this be for the venerable,” and even if he mentally accepts it, wishing to take it, but refuses with body or speech, saying, “This is not allowable,” there is no offense. Or if he does not refuse with body or speech but, with a pure mind, does not accept it, thinking, “This is not allowable for us,” there is no offense either. For when it is refused through any of the three doors, it is indeed refused. But if he does not refuse with body or speech and mentally consents, he incurs an offense arising from inaction in the physical and verbal doors, due to not performing the refusal that should be done, though there is no offense in the mental door.

66. But in accepting what has been deposited, here is the decision (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) – if some unallowable goods are placed at the foot and it is said, “Let this be for the worthy one,” even if he accepts with the mind, and is desirous of taking, if he refuses with body or speech, [saying] “This is not allowable,” there is no offense. Even without refusing with body or speech, being pure in mind, he does not accept, [thinking] “This is not allowable for us,” there is no offense. For what is refused by any of the three doors is refused. But if, without refusing with body or speech, he consents with the mind, because of not doing the refusal that should be done with body or speech, he incurs an offense arising from inaction at the body door and at the speech door; but there is no offense at the mind door.

66. Regarding the acceptance of what is placed down, this is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) – if someone places an improper item at the foot, saying, “This is for the venerable one,” even if one mentally accepts it, desires to take it, but refuses it with body or speech, saying, “This is not proper,” there is no offense. Even if one does not refuse it with body or speech, but with a pure mind does not accept it, thinking, “This is not proper for us,” there is no offense. For in the three doors, whatever is refused by any means is considered refused. However, if one does not refuse it with body or speech but mentally consents, due to not doing what should be done by body or speech, an offense arises at the bodily and verbal doors, but there is no offense at the mental door.

Eko sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vā pādamūle ṭhapeti “tuyhidaṃ hotū”ti, bhikkhu “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhipati, upāsako “pariccattaṃ mayā tumhāka”nti gato, añño tattha āgantvā pucchati “kiṃ, bhante, ida”nti, yaṃ tena ca attanā ca vuttaṃ, taṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. So ce vadati “gopayissāmahaṃ, bhante, guttaṭṭhānaṃ dassethā”ti, sattabhūmikampi pāsādaṃ abhiruhitvā “idaṃ guttaṭṭhāna”nti ācikkhitabbaṃ, “idha nikkhipāhī”ti na vattabbaṃ. Ettāvatā kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hoti, dvāraṃ pidahitvā rakkhantena vasitabbaṃ. Sace kiñci vikkāyikabhaṇḍaṃ pattaṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā gahetvā āgacchati, “idaṃ gahessatha, bhante”ti vutte “upāsaka, atthi amhākaṃ iminā attho, vatthu ca evarūpaṃ nāma saṃvijjati, kappiyakārako natthī”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace so vadati “ahaṃ kappiyakārako bhavissāmi, dvāraṃ vivaritvā dethā”ti, dvāraṃ vivaritvā “imasmiṃ okāse ṭhapita”nti vattabbaṃ, “idaṃ gaṇhā”ti na vattabbaṃ. Evampi kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitameva hoti. So ce taṃ gahetvā tassa kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ deti, vaṭṭati. Sace adhikaṃ gaṇhāti, “na mayaṃ tava bhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhāma, nikkhamāhī”ti vattabbo.

Someone places a hundred or a thousand at the foot, saying, “Let this be yours,” and the monk refuses, saying, “This is not allowable.” The layperson says, “I have relinquished it to you,” and leaves. Another comes there and asks, “Venerable sir, what is this?” What was said by him and by oneself should be explained. If he says, “I will guard it, venerable sir; show me a secure place,” even if one climbs a seven-story mansion, it should be indicated, “This is a secure place,” but “Place it here” should not be said. To this extent, it remains dependent on both permissible and impermissible means, and one should dwell there guarding it with the door closed. If he takes some item for sale—whether a bowl or robe—and comes, saying, “Venerable sir, will you take this?” it should be said, “Layperson, we have a need for this, and there is such an item; there is no permissible agent.” If he says, “I will be the permissible agent; open the door and give it,” the door should be opened, and it should be said, “It is placed in this spot,” but “Take this” should not be said. Even so, it remains dependent on both permissible and impermissible means. If he takes it and gives a permissible item, it is allowable. If he takes more, it should be said, “We do not take your goods; leave.”

A single person, or a hundred, or a thousand place it at the foot of his feet, saying, “Let this be yours.” The monk refuses, saying, “This is not allowable.” The lay follower, saying, “I have relinquished this to you,” departs. Another person comes there and asks, “What is this, venerable sir?” He should relate what was said by that person and by himself. If he says, “I will keep it safe, venerable sir, show me a secure place,” even ascending a seven-storied palace, he should point out, “This is a secure place,” but he should not say, “Deposit it here.” By this much, he stands relying on what is allowable and unallowable; he should reside guarding the door shut. If he comes bringing any merchandise for sale, a bowl, or a robe, and says, “Take this, venerable sir,” he should say, “Lay follower, we have a need for this, and such and such an item exists, but there is no one to make it allowable.” If he says, “I will be the one to make it allowable, open the door and give it,” opening the door, he should say, “It is placed in this location,” but he should not say, “Take this.” Even so, he stands relying on what is allowable and unallowable. If he takes it and gives allowable goods for it, it is permissible. If he takes more, he should be told, “We do not take your goods, get out.”

If a layperson places one hundred or one thousand coins at the foot of a monk, saying, “This is for you,” and the monk refuses, saying, “This is not allowable,” and the layperson departs, saying, “I have relinquished it to you,” and another person arrives and asks, “What is this, Venerable?” then what has been said by both the layperson and the monk should be explained. If the layperson says, “I will guard it, Venerable, please show me a secure place,” then even if he ascends a seven-story palace, it should be pointed out, saying, “This is a secure place,” but it should not be said, “Place it here.” By this much, the matter remains dependent on what is allowable and what is not. The monk should reside there, closing the door and guarding it. If someone brings merchandise for sale, such as a bowl or robe, and says, “Take this, Venerable,” the monk should say, “Layperson, we have no need for this, and such an item is not permissible for us; we have no steward.” If the layperson says, “I will act as the steward; please open the door,” the door should be opened, and it should be said, “Place it in this spot,” but it should not be said, “Take this.” Even in this way, the matter remains dependent on what is allowable and what is not. If the layperson takes it and gives permissible goods in exchange, it is acceptable. If he takes more than what is permissible, the monk should say, “We do not accept your goods; leave.”

67. Yena pana jātarūpādicatubbidhaṃ nissaggiyavatthu paṭiggahitaṃ, tena kiṃ kātabbanti? Saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Tena bhikkhunā (pārā. 584) saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā vuḍḍhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pāde vanditvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “ahaṃ, bhante, rūpiyaṃ paṭiggahesiṃ, idaṃ me nissaggiyaṃ, imāhaṃ nissajjāmī”ti nissajjitvā āpatti desetabbā. Byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena āpatti paṭiggahetabbā. Sace tattha āgacchati ārāmiko vā upāsako vā, so vattabbo “āvuso, idaṃ jānāhī”ti. Sace so bhaṇati “iminā kiṃ āharissāmī”ti, na vattabbo “imaṃ vā imaṃ vā āharā”ti, kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ sappiṃ vā telaṃ vā madhuṃ vā phāṇitaṃ vā. Ācikkhantena ca “iminā sappiṃ vā telaṃ vā madhuṃ vā phāṇitaṃ vā āharā”ti na vattabbaṃ, “idañcidañca saṅghassa kappiya”nti ettakameva vattabbaṃ. Sace so tena parivattetvā kappiyaṃ āharati, rūpiyapaṭiggāhakaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbeheva bhājetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, rūpiyapaṭiggāhakena bhāgo na gahetabbo.

67. But what should be done by one who has accepted one of the fourfold nissaggiya items such as gold or silver? It should be relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha. How? That monk should approach the Saṅgha (pārā. 584), arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage at the feet of the senior monks, sit in a squatting position, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Venerable sirs, I have accepted rūpiya; this is my nissaggiya item; I relinquish it.” Having relinquished it, he should confess the offense. A competent and capable monk should accept the offense. If a monastery worker or layperson comes there, he should be told, “Friend, know this.” If he says, “What shall I bring with this?” it should not be said, “Bring this or that”; permissible items should be indicated—ghee, oil, honey, or molasses. And in indicating, it should not be said, “With this, bring ghee or oil or honey or molasses”; only, “This and that are permissible for the Saṅgha,” should be said. If he exchanges it and brings a permissible item, it should be divided and used by all except the one who accepted the rūpiya; the one who accepted the rūpiya should not take a share.

67. But what should be done by one who has accepted any of the four kinds of unallowable objects, such as unworked gold? It should be relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha. How? That monk (pārā. 584) should approach the Saṅgha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage at the feet of the senior monks, sit on his heels, raise his joined hands, and say these words: “Venerable sir, I accepted money. This is my relinquishment; I relinquish this.” After relinquishing it, he should confess the offense. A wise and competent monk should receive the confession. If there comes an attendant of the monastery or a lay follower, he should be told, “Friend, know this.” If he asks, “What shall I bring with this?” he should not be told, “Bring this or that,” but allowable things should be mentioned: ghee, oil, honey, or molasses. And in mentioning, he should not say, “With this, bring ghee, oil, honey, or molasses,” but only, “This and this are allowable for the Saṅgha.” If he exchanges it and brings allowable things, everyone except the one who accepted the money should divide and use it; the one who accepted the money should not take a share.

67. What should be done with the fourfold nissaggiya objects, such as gold, that have been received? They should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha. How? The monk should approach the Sangha (pārā. 584), arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect to the senior monks, sit in a kneeling position, raise his joined palms, and say, “Venerable sirs, I have received money. This is to be relinquished. I relinquish it.” After relinquishing it, he should confess the offense. A competent and capable monk should receive the confession. If a monastery worker or layperson arrives there, he should be told, “Friend, be aware of this.” If he says, “What shall I bring with this?” it should not be said, “Bring this or that,” but permissible items such as ghee, oil, honey, or molasses should be indicated. However, it should not be said, “Bring ghee, oil, honey, or molasses with this,” but only, “This is permissible for the Sangha.” If the layperson exchanges it and brings permissible items, the money should be set aside, and all the monks should share and use the permissible items. The one who received the money should not take a share.

Aññesaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4) bhikkhūnaṃ vā ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāgampi labhitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati, antamaso makkaṭādīhi tato haritvā araññe ṭhapitaṃ vā tesaṃ hatthato gaḷitaṃ vā tiracchānapaṭiggahitampi paṃsukūlampi na vaṭṭatiyeva. Tato āhaṭena phāṇitena senāsanadhūpanampi na vaṭṭati. Sappinā vā telena vā padīpaṃ katvā dīpāloke nipajjituṃ, kasiṇaparikammaṃ kātuṃ, potthakampi vācetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Telamadhuphāṇitehi pana sarīre vaṇaṃ makkhetuṃ na vaṭṭatiyeva. Tena vatthunā mañcapīṭhādīni vā gaṇhanti, uposathāgāraṃ vā bhojanasālaṃ vā karonti, paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Chāyāpi gehaparicchedena ṭhitāva na vaṭṭati, paricchedātikkantā āgantukattā vaṭṭati. Taṃ vatthuṃ vissajjetvā katena maggenapi setunāpi nāvāyapi uḷumpenāpi gantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tena vatthunā khaṇāpitāya pokkharaṇiyā ubbhidodakaṃ pātuṃ vā paribhuñjituṃ vā na vaṭṭati. Anto udake pana asati aññaṃ āgantukaṃ udakaṃ vā vassodakaṃ vā paviṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭati. Kītāya yena saddhiṃ kītā, taṃ āgantukampi na vaṭṭati. Taṃ vatthuṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjati, tepi paccayā tassa na vaṭṭanti. Ārāmo gahito hoti, sopi paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Yadi bhūmipi bījampi akappiyaṃ, neva bhūmiṃ, na phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace bhūmiṃyeva kiṇitvā aññāni bījāni ropitāni, phalaṃ vaṭṭati. Atha bījāni kiṇitvā kappiyabhūmiyaṃ ropitāni, phalaṃ na vaṭṭati, bhūmiyaṃ nisīdituṃ vā nipajjituṃ vā vaṭṭati.

For others (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4)—whether monks or monastery workers—it is not allowable to use even a portion of a bowl received from it; even what is carried away by monkeys and left in the wilderness, or dropped from their hands, or accepted by animals, or reckoned as refuse, is not allowable. Even fumigating a dwelling with molasses obtained from it is not allowable. Lighting a lamp with ghee or oil from it, lying down in its light, preparing a kasiṇa, or reading a book is not allowable. Even smearing a wound on the body with oil, honey, or molasses from it is not allowable. If they take furniture like beds or chairs with that item, or build an uposatha hall or dining hall, it is not allowable to use them. Even the shade cast by a house boundary is not allowable while within the boundary; beyond the boundary, as it is incidental, it is allowable. Traveling by a road, bridge, boat, or raft made by relinquishing that item is not allowable. Drinking or using spring water from a lotus pond dug with that item is not allowable. But when there is no water inside, and other incidental water or rainwater enters, it is allowable. What is traded with what it was traded for is not allowable, even if incidental. If the Saṅgha uses requisites apart from depositing that item, those requisites are not allowable for him. If a monastery has been taken, it too is not allowable to use. If both the land and seeds are impermissible, neither the land nor the fruit is allowable to use. If only the land is bought and permissible seeds are planted, the fruit is allowable. If the seeds are bought and planted in permissible land, the fruit is not allowable, but sitting or lying on the land is allowable.

It is not permissible for others (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-4), monks or monastery attendants, to partake of even a bowl-share received, even if ultimately it has been carried away by monkeys or others and placed in the forest, or has slipped from their hands, or even pamsukūla accepted by animals, it is still not permissible. Even fumigating the dwelling with molasses obtained from it is not permissible. It is not permissible to make a lamp with ghee or oil and lie down in the lamplight, to perform kasiṇa meditation, or even to read a book. It is certainly not permissible to smear a wound on the body with oil, honey, or molasses. If they take a couch, seat, or other things with that object, or build an uposatha hall or a dining hall, it is not permissible to use them. Even the shade, as long as it is within the boundary of the building, is not permissible; beyond the boundary, it is permissible as it is incidental. It is not permissible to travel by a road, bridge, boat, or raft made after discarding that object. It is not permissible to drink or use the water that has sprung up from a well dug with that object. But if there is no water inside, other incidental water or rainwater that has entered is permissible. Even if bought together with what was bought, the incidental item is not permissible. If the Saṅgha keeps that object as a deposit and uses the requisites, even those requisites are not permissible for him. If a monastery is acquired, that too is not permissible to use. If both the land and the seeds are unallowable, it is permissible to use neither the land nor the fruit. If only the land was purchased and other seeds were planted, the fruit is permissible. But if the seeds were purchased and planted on allowable land, the fruit is not permissible, but it is permissible to sit or lie down on the land.

For other monks or monastery workers, even if they obtain a share of the alms, it is not permissible to use it. Even if it is taken by monkeys and left in the forest, or if it falls from their hands and is received by animals, it is still not permissible. Even molasses brought from there cannot be used for fumigating the dwelling. It is not permissible to use ghee or oil to light a lamp and lie down in the light, to practice kasiṇa meditation, or to recite texts. It is also not permissible to apply ghee, oil, honey, or molasses to a wound on the body. If beds, chairs, or other items are acquired through such means, or if an Uposatha hall or dining hall is built, it is not permissible to use them. Even the shade of a house, if it is within the boundaries, is not permissible; it becomes permissible only if the boundaries are crossed. It is not permissible to travel on a road, bridge, boat, or raft built with such means. It is not permissible to drink or use water drawn from a well dug with such means. However, if there is no water inside, other water that has entered, such as rainwater, is permissible. Water mixed with insects is not permissible, even if it is brought from elsewhere. The Sangha may use requisites acquired by setting aside such items, but those requisites are not permissible for the one who received the money. If a monastery is acquired, it is also not permissible to use it. If the land and seeds are not permissible, neither the land nor the fruit may be used. If only the land is purchased and other seeds are planted, the fruit is permissible. But if the seeds are purchased and planted on permissible land, the fruit is not permissible, though it is permissible to sit or lie on the land.

Sace pana tattha āgato kappiyakārako taṃ parivattetvā saṅghassa kappiyaṃ sappitelādiṃ āharituṃ na jānāti, so vattabbo “āvuso, imaṃ chaḍḍehī”ti. Sace so chaḍḍeti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce chaḍḍeti, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgato bhikkhu rūpiyachaḍḍako sammannitabbo yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya, chaḍḍitāchaḍḍitañca jāneyya. Evañca pana sammannitabbo, paṭhamaṃ bhikkhu yācitabbo, yācitvā byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –

But if a permissible agent who comes there does not know how to exchange it and bring permissible items like ghee or oil for the Saṅgha, he should be told, “Friend, discard this.” If he discards it, that is well. If he does not discard it, a monk endowed with five qualities should be appointed as a discarder of rūpiya: one who does not act out of desire, aversion, delusion, or fear, and who knows what is discarded and what is not. And he should be appointed thus: First, a monk should be requested; having been requested, a competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha:

But if an allowable-maker who has come there does not know how to exchange it and bring allowable ghee, etc., for the Saṅgha, he should be told, “Friend, discard this.” If he discards it, that is good. If he does not discard it, a monk endowed with five factors should be appointed as a money-discarder: one who would not go to a wrong course through desire, would not go to a wrong course through aversion, would not go to a wrong course through delusion, would not go to a wrong course through fear, and would know what has been discarded and what has not been discarded. And he should be appointed thus: first, the monk should be requested; after requesting, the Saṅgha should be informed by a wise and competent monk –

If a steward arrives there and does not know how to exchange it and bring permissible items such as ghee or oil for the Sangha, he should be told, “Friend, discard this.” If he discards it, that is good. If he does not discard it, a monk who possesses five qualities should be appointed as the money-discarder: one who does not act out of favoritism, hatred, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been discarded and what has not. He should be appointed as follows: first, a monk should be asked, and then a competent monk should announce to the Sangha –

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ rūpiyachaḍḍakaṃ sammanneyya, esā ñatti. Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ rūpiyachaḍḍakaṃ sammannati, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno rūpiyachaḍḍakassa sammuti , so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu rūpiyachaḍḍako, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (pārā. 585).

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha appoint the monk named so-and-so as a discarder of rūpiya. This is the motion. Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. The Saṅgha appoints the monk named so-and-so as a discarder of rūpiya. Whoever agrees with the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as a discarder of rūpiya should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak. The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the Saṅgha as a discarder of rūpiya; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it” (pārā. 585).

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as a money-discarder. This is the motion. Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. The Saṅgha appoints the monk named so-and-so as a money-discarder. If it is agreeable to any venerable one that the monk named so-and-so be appointed as a money-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 money-discarder. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.” (pārā. 585).

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the monk so-and-so as the money-discarder. This is the motion. Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. The Sangha appoints the monk so-and-so as the money-discarder. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones that the monk so-and-so be appointed as the money-discarder, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, let them speak. The monk so-and-so has been appointed by the Sangha as the money-discarder. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.” (pārā. 585)

68. Tena sammatena (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585) bhikkhunā nimittaṃ akatvā akkhīni nimīletvā nadiyā vā papāte vā vanagahane vā gūthaṃ viya anapekkhena patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabbaṃ. Sace nimittaṃ katvā pāteti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Evaṃ jigucchitabbepi rūpiye bhagavā pariyāyena bhikkhūnaṃ paribhogaṃ ācikkhi. Rūpiyapaṭiggāhakassa pana kenaci pariyāyena tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo na vaṭṭati. Yathā cāyaṃ etassa na vaṭṭati, evaṃ asantasambhāvanāya vā kuladūsakakammena vā kuhanādīhi vā uppannapaccayā neva tassa, na aññassa vaṭṭanti, dhammena samena uppannāpi apaccavekkhitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭanti. Cattāro hi paribhogā – theyyaparibhogo iṇaparibhogo dāyajjaparibhogo sāmiparibhogoti. Tattha saṅghamajjhepi nisīditvā paribhuñjantassa dussīlassa paribhogo theyyaparibhogo nāma. Sīlavato apaccavekkhitaparibhogo iṇaparibhogo nāma. Tasmā cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhoge paccavekkhitabbaṃ, piṇḍapāto ālope ālope , tathā asakkontena purebhattapacchābhattapurimayāmamajjhimayāmapacchimayāmesu. Sacassa apaccavekkhato aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhoge paccavekkhitabbaṃ. Bhesajjassa paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi satipaccayatā vaṭṭati, evaṃ santepi paṭiggahaṇe satiṃ katvā paribhoge akarontasseva āpatti, paṭiggahaṇe pana satiṃ akatvā paribhoge karontassa anāpatti. Catubbidhā hi suddhi – desanāsuddhi saṃvarasuddhi pariyeṭṭhisuddhi paccavekkhaṇasuddhīti.

68. That appointed monk (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), without making a sign and closing his eyes, should discard it like excrement into a river, a precipice, a dense forest, or an unsuitable place, with indifference. If he makes a sign and discards it, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Even though rūpiya is to be regarded with disgust, the Blessed One indirectly indicated its use for monks. But for the one who accepted the rūpiya, use of requisites arising from it is not allowable in any way. Just as it is not allowable for him, so too requisites arising from flattery, wrongdoing that corrupts families, deceit, and so forth are not allowable for him or others; even those obtained righteously and evenly, if used without reflection, are not allowable. There are four types of use: use as a thief, use as a debtor, use as an heir, and use as an owner. Among them, the use of an immoral person sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha is called use as a thief. The use of a virtuous person without reflection is called use as a debtor. Therefore, a robe should be reflected upon each time it is used; almsfood should be reflected upon with each morsel—or, if unable, before and after meals, in the first, middle, and last watches of the night. If the dawn rises while he has not reflected, he stands as a debtor. A dwelling too should be reflected upon each time it is used. For medicine, mindfulness as a condition is allowable in both acceptance and use; even so, if mindfulness is applied at acceptance but not at use, there is an offense; if mindfulness is not applied at acceptance but is at use, there is no offense. For there are four purities: purity of confession, purity of restraint, purity of seeking, and purity of reflection.

68. That appointed monk (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), without making a mark, closing his eyes, should discard it like excrement in a river, a precipice, or a dense forest, without looking back, not considering where it has fallen. If he throws it after making a mark, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Even though money is to be so abhorred, the Blessed One taught a method for monks to use it. But for the one who accepted the money, there is no method whatsoever for using the requisites obtained from it. Just as this is not permissible for him, so too requisites obtained through insincere flattery, corrupting families, or deceit, etc., are not permissible for him or anyone else; even those obtained righteously and properly are not permissible 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 a master. Among these, the use by an immoral person, even sitting 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 with each use, almsfood with each morsel, likewise, if unable to do so, before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch, middle watch, and last watch of the night. If dawn arises on him without reflection, he stands in the position of using as a debtor. A dwelling should also be reflected upon with each use. For medicine, mindfulness at the time of receiving and using is permissible; even so, there is an offense for one who, having established mindfulness at the time of receiving, does not do so at the time of using, but there is no offense for one who, not having established mindfulness at the time of receiving, does so at the time of using. For there are four kinds of purity: purity through confession, purity through restraint, purity through searching, and purity through reflection.

68. The appointed monk (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585) should discard the money without making a sign, closing his eyes, and dropping it into a river, a precipice, or a dense forest, as if discarding excrement, without concern for a suitable place. If he makes a sign and drops it, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. Even though money is to be despised, the Buddha, in a roundabout way, allowed monks to use it. However, for the one who received the money, there is no permissible use of any requisites arising from it. Just as it is not permissible for him, so too, requisites obtained through improper means, such as deceiving families or through fraud, are not permissible for him or anyone else. Even requisites obtained righteously should not be used without reflection. There are four types of use: theft-use, debt-use, inheritance-use, and ownership-use. Among these, the use by an immoral monk sitting in the midst of the Sangha is called theft-use. The use by a virtuous monk without reflection is called debt-use. Therefore, robes should be reflected upon each time they are used, alms food each time it is eaten, and so too for those who cannot reflect before and after meals or during the three watches of the night. If one uses without reflection until dawn breaks, it remains in the category of debt-use. The dwelling should also be reflected upon each time it is used. Even in receiving and using medicine, mindfulness is required. Thus, even if one is mindful when receiving but not when using, there is an offense. If one is not mindful when receiving but is mindful when using, there is no offense. There are four types of purification: purification by confession, purification by restraint, purification by searching, and purification by reflection.

Tattha desanāsuddhi nāma pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Tañhi desanāya sujjhanato “desanāsuddhī”ti vuccati. Saṃvarasuddhi nāma indriyasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Tañhi “na punevaṃ karissāmī”ti cittādhiṭṭhānasaṃvareneva sujjhanato “saṃvarasuddhī”ti vuccati. Pariyeṭṭhisuddhi nāma ājīvapārisuddhisīlaṃ. Tañhi anesanaṃ pahāya dhammena samena paccaye uppādentassa pariyesanāya suddhattā “pariyeṭṭhisuddhī”ti vuccati. Paccavekkhaṇasuddhi nāma paccayaparibhogasannissitasīlaṃ. Tañhi “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmī”tiādinā (ma. ni. 1.23; a. ni. 6.58) nayena vuttena paccavekkhaṇena sujjhanato “paccavekkhaṇasuddhī”ti vuccati, tena vuttaṃ “paṭiggahaṇe pana satiṃ akatvā paribhoge karontassa anāpattī”ti.

Here, purity of confession is the pātimokkha restraint sila. It is called “purity of confession” because it is purified through confession. Purity of restraint is the indriya-saṃvara sila. It is called “purity of restraint” because it is purified by the mental resolve, “I will not do so again.” Purity of seeking is the ājīvapārisuddhi sila. It is called “purity of seeking” because it is purified by seeking requisites righteously and evenly, abandoning improper search. Purity of reflection is the sila tied to the use of requisites. It is called “purity of reflection” because it is purified by reflection as stated, “Reflecting wisely, I use the robe,” and so forth (ma. ni. 1.23; a. ni. 6.58). Thus it is said, “If mindfulness is not applied at acceptance but is at use, there is no offense.”

Among these, purity through confession is the restraint of the Pātimokkha. Because it is purified through confession, it is called “purity through confession.” Purity through restraint is the restraint of the senses. Because it is purified only through restraint by the determination of the mind, “I will not do this again,” it is called “purity through restraint.” Purity through searching is the purity of livelihood. Because it is pure through searching for requisites righteously and properly, abandoning wrong livelihood, it is called “purity through searching.” Purity through reflection is the virtue connected with the use of requisites. Because it is purified by reflection as stated in the passage, “Reflecting wisely, I use the robe…” (ma. ni. 1.23; a. ni. 6.58) and so on, it is called “purity through reflection,” therefore it was said, “But there is no offense for one who, not having established mindfulness at the time of receiving, does so at the time of using.”

Here, purification by confession refers to the Pātimokkha restraint. It is called “purification by confession” because it is purified through confession. Purification by restraint refers to sense restraint. It is called “purification by restraint” because it is purified through the resolve, “I will not do this again.” Purification by searching refers to purity of livelihood. It is called “purification by searching” because it is purified by abandoning wrong search and righteously seeking requisites. Purification by reflection refers to the reflection on the use of requisites. It is called “purification by reflection” because it is purified through reflection, as stated, “I use the robe after reflecting wisely” (ma. ni. 1.23; a. ni. 6.58). Therefore, it is said, “There is no offense for one who is not mindful when receiving but is mindful when using.”

Sattannaṃ sekkhānaṃ paccayaparibhogo dāyajjaparibhogo nāma. Te hi bhagavato puttā, tasmā pitusantakānaṃ paccayānaṃ dāyādā hutvā te paccaye paribhuñjanti. Kiṃ pana te bhagavato paccaye paribhuñjanti, gihīnaṃ paccaye paribhuñjantīti? Gihīhi dinnāpi bhagavatā anuññātattā bhagavato santakā honti, tasmā bhagavato paccaye paribhuñjantīti veditabbaṃ. Dhammadāyādasutta (ma. ni. 1.29 ādayo) ñcettha sādhakaṃ. Khīṇāsavānaṃ paribhogo sāmiparibhogo nāma. Te hi taṇhāya dāsabyaṃ atītattā sāmino hutvā paribhuñjanti. Iti imesu paribhogesu sāmiparibhogo ca dāyajjaparibhogo ca sabbesampi vaṭṭati, iṇaparibhogo na vaṭṭati, theyyaparibhoge kathāyeva natthi.

The use of requisites by the seven trainees is called use as an heir. For they are sons of the Blessed One; thus, as heirs to their father’s property, they use those requisites. But do they use the Blessed One’s requisites, or those of householders? Even those given by householders are the Blessed One’s property because they are permitted by him; thus, it should be understood that they use the Blessed One’s requisites. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta (ma. ni. 1.29 and following) is evidence here. The use of the arahants is called use as an owner. For, having transcended servitude to craving, they use it as owners. Thus, among these uses, use as an owner and use as an heir are allowable for all; use as a debtor is not allowable; as for use as a thief, there is no question.

The use of requisites by the seven trainees is called use as an heir. For they are the sons of the Blessed One, therefore, as heirs to the requisites belonging to their father, they use those requisites. But do they use the requisites of the Blessed One, or do they use the requisites of householders? Although given by householders, because they are allowed by the Blessed One, they become the property of the Blessed One, therefore it should be understood that they use the requisites of the Blessed One. And the Dhammadāyādasutta (ma. ni. 1.29 ff.) is evidence here. The use by those with destroyed āsavas is called use as a master. For they, having gone beyond the state of slavery to craving, use as masters. Thus, among these uses, use as a master and use as an heir are permissible for all; use as a debtor is not permissible; there is no question of use as a thief.

The use of requisites by the seven types of trainees is called inheritance-use. They are the Buddha’s sons, and thus they inherit the requisites of their father and use them. But do they use the Buddha’s requisites or the requisites of laypeople? Even though given by laypeople, they are permitted by the Buddha and thus belong to the Buddha. Therefore, it should be understood that they use the Buddha’s requisites. The Dhammadāyādasutta (ma. ni. 1.29 ff.) is relevant here. The use by the arahants is called ownership-use. They have transcended the slavery of craving and thus use requisites as owners. Among these uses, ownership-use and inheritance-use are permissible for all, but debt-use is not permissible, and theft-use is not even worth discussing.

Aparepi cattāro paribhogā – lajjiparibhogo alajjiparibhogo dhammiyaparibhogo adhammiyaparibhogoti. Tattha alajjino lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogo vaṭṭati, āpattiyā na kāretabbo. Lajjino alajjinā saddhiṃ yāva na jānāti, tāva vaṭṭati. Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthi, tasmā yadāssa alajjibhāvaṃ jānāti, tadā vattabbo “tumhe kāyadvāre vacīdvāre ca vītikkamaṃ karotha, taṃ appatirūpaṃ, mā evamakatthā”ti. Sace anādiyitvā karotiyeva, yadi tena saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karoti, sopi alajjīyeva hoti. Yopi attano bhārabhūtena alajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karoti, sopi nivāretabbo. Sace na oramati, ayampi alajjīyeva hoti. Evaṃ eko alajjī alajjisatampi karoti. Alajjino pana alajjināva saddhiṃ paribhoge āpatti nāma natthi. Lajjino lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogo dvinnaṃ khattiyakumārānaṃ suvaṇṇapātiyaṃ bhojanasadiso. Dhammiyādhammiyaparibhogo paccayavaseneva veditabbo. Tattha sace puggalopi alajjī, piṇḍapātopi adhammiyo, ubho jegucchā. Puggalo alajjī, piṇḍapāto dhammiyo, puggalaṃ jigucchitvā piṇḍapāto na gahetabbo. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “dussīlo saṅghato uddesabhattādīni labhitvā saṅghasseva deti, etāni yathādānameva gahitattā vaṭṭantī”ti vuttaṃ. Puggalo lajjī, piṇḍapāto adhammiyo, piṇḍapāto jeguccho na gahetabbo. Puggalo lajjī, piṇḍapātopi dhammiyo, vaṭṭati.

There are also four other uses: use with shame, use without shame, righteous use, and unrighteous use. Here, the use of one without shame with one who has shame is allowable; he should not be made to incur an offense. The use of one with shame with one without shame is allowable as long as he does not know; for initially, there is no one without shame. When he knows his lack of shame, he should be told, “You transgress with body and speech; that is improper; do not do so.” If he persists without heeding, and one uses with him, that one too becomes shameless. One who uses with a shameless person who is his burden should also be restrained; if he does not desist, he too becomes shameless. Thus, one shameless person can make hundreds shameless. But there is no offense in the use of a shameless person with another shameless person. The use of one with shame with another with shame is like two princely youths eating from a golden bowl. Righteous and unrighteous use should be understood based on the requisites. Here, if both the person is shameless and the almsfood is unrighteous, both are detestable. If the person is shameless but the almsfood is righteous, the person is to be detested, and the almsfood should not be taken. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “An immoral person who receives designated meals and so forth from the Saṅgha and gives them back to the Saṅgha—those are allowable as they were taken as given.” If the person has shame but the almsfood is unrighteous, the almsfood is detestable and should not be taken. If both the person has shame and the almsfood is righteous, it is allowable.

There are also four other uses: use by the shameless, use by the shameful, righteous use, and unrighteous use. Among these, it is permissible for the shameless to use together with the shameful; he should not be made to undergo the penalty for an offense. For the shameful, it is permissible as long as he does not know about the shameless one. For from the beginning, there is no such thing as a shameless one; therefore, when he knows his shamelessness, he should be told, “You transgress with body and speech; that is improper, do not do so.” If he does not heed and continues to do so, if he uses together with him, he too becomes shameless. Whoever uses together with a shameless one who is his responsibility should also be warned. If he does not desist, he too becomes shameless. Thus, one shameless one makes even a hundred shameless. But for the shameless, there is no offense in using together with the shameless. The use by the shameful together with the shameful is like two young khattiyas eating from a golden bowl. Righteous and unrighteous use should be understood in terms of requisites. Among these, if the person is shameless and the almsfood is unrighteous, both are to be abhorred. If the person is shameless and the almsfood is righteous, the person should be abhorred, but the almsfood should not be taken. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “If an immoral person receives designated almsfood, etc., from the Saṅgha and gives it to the Saṅgha, these are permissible because they were taken as originally given.” If the person is shameful and the almsfood is unrighteous, the almsfood is to be abhorred and should not be taken. If the person is shameful and the almsfood is righteous, it is permissible.

There are another four types of use: use by the conscientious, use by the shameless, righteous use, and unrighteous use. Here, the use by the shameless with the conscientious is permissible, but they should not be made to commit an offense. The use by the conscientious with the shameless is permissible as long as they do not know. From the beginning, there is no shameless person, so when they come to know of his shamelessness, they should be told, “You transgress with body and speech; that is improper; do not do so.” If he disregards this and continues, and if one uses requisites with him, one also becomes shameless. Even if one uses requisites with a shameless person who is a burden to oneself, one should be restrained. If he does not desist, he too becomes shameless. Thus, one shameless person makes a hundred shameless. However, there is no offense for the shameless using requisites with the shameless. The use by the conscientious with the conscientious is like two princes eating from a golden plate. Righteous and unrighteous use should be understood based on the requisites. Here, if the person is shameless and the alms food is unrighteous, both are despicable. If the person is shameless but the alms food is righteous, the person should be despised, and the alms food should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “An immoral monk who receives food designated for the Sangha, such as Uposatha food, gives it to the Sangha; since it is received according to the rule, it is permissible.” If the person is conscientious but the alms food is unrighteous, the alms food is despicable and should not be accepted. If the person is conscientious and the alms food is righteous, it is permissible.

Apare dve paggahā dve ca paribhogā – lajjipaggaho alajjipaggaho, dhammaparibhogo āmisaparibhogoti. Tattha alajjino lajjiṃ paggahetuṃ vaṭṭati, na so āpattiyā kāretabbo . Sace pana lajjī alajjiṃ paggaṇhāti, anumodanāya ajjhesati, dhammakathāya ajjhesati, kulesu upatthambheti, itaropi “amhākaṃ ācariyo īdiso ca īdiso cā”ti tassa parisati vaṇṇaṃ bhāsati, ayaṃ sāsanaṃ osakkāpeti antaradhāpetīti veditabbo. Dhammaparibhogaāmisaparibhogesu pana yattha āmisaparibhogo vaṭṭati, dhammaparibhogopi tattha vaṭṭati. Yo pana koṭiyaṃ ṭhito, gantho tassa puggalassa accayena nassissati, taṃ dhammānuggahena uggaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Tatridaṃ vatthu – mahābhaye kira ekasseva bhikkhuno mahāniddeso paguṇo ahosi. Atha catunikāyikatissattherassa upajjhāyo mahātipiṭakatthero nāma mahārakkhitattheraṃ āha “āvuso mahārakkhita, etassa santike mahāniddesaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti. “Pāpo kirāyaṃ, bhante, na gaṇhāmī”ti. “Gaṇhāvuso, ahaṃ te santike nisīdissāmī”ti. “Sādhu, bhante, tumhesu nisinnesu gaṇhissāmī”ti paṭṭhapetvā rattindivaṃ nirantaraṃ pariyāpuṇanto osānadivase heṭṭhāmañce itthiṃ disvā “bhante, sutaṃyeva me pubbe, sacāhaṃ evaṃ jāneyyaṃ, na īdisassa santike dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇeyya”nti āha. Tassa pana santike bahū mahātherā uggaṇhitvā mahāniddesaṃ patiṭṭhāpesunti.

There are also two efforts and two uses: effort with shame, effort without shame, righteous use, and material use. Here, it is allowable for one without shame to support one with shame; he should not be made to incur an offense. But if one with shame supports one without shame—rejoicing with him, requesting him for Dhamma talks, supporting him in households—and the other says in his assembly, “My teacher is like this or that,” praising him, he causes the teaching to decline and disappear, so it should be understood. In righteous use and material use, wherever material use is allowable, righteous use is also allowable there. It is said that for one at a critical point, whose knowledge will perish with that person’s passing, it is allowable to learn it with righteous support. Here is a story: In a time of great peril, only one monk was proficient in the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of the Elder Tissa of the Four Nikāyas, named Mahātipiṭaka Thera, said to the Elder Mahārakkhita, “Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him.” He said, “Venerable sir, he is said to be wicked; I will not learn.” “Learn, friend; I will sit near you.” “Very well, venerable sir; if you sit, I will learn.” Starting then, he studied day and night without interruption, and on the final day, seeing a woman beneath the lower bed, he said, “Venerable sir, I had heard of this before; had I known this, I would not have studied Dhamma from such a one.” Yet many great elders learned from him and established the Mahāniddesa.

There are two other supports and two uses: support of the shameful, support of the shameless, use of Dhamma, and use of material things. Among these, it is permissible for the shameless to support the shameful, but he should not be made to undergo the penalty for an offense. But if the shameful supports the shameless, encourages him with approval, encourages him with talk of Dhamma, supports him among families, and the other one praises his retinue, saying, “Our teacher is such and such,” he should be understood to be causing the teaching to decline and disappear. But as for the use of Dhamma and the use of material things, wherever the use of material things is permissible, the use of Dhamma is also permissible there. But it is said that it is permissible to learn from one who stands at the end, whose text will disappear with the passing of that person, through the support of Dhamma. Here is a story about this: In a great famine, it is said that only one monk was proficient in the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of the four-nikāya Tissatthera, named Mahātipiṭakatthera, said to Mahārakkhitatthera, “Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him.” “He is said to be wicked, venerable sir, I will not learn it.” “Learn it, friend, I will sit near you.” “Very well, venerable sir, I will learn it while you are seated,” and beginning, he recited continuously day and night; on the final day, seeing a woman on the lower bed, he said, “Venerable sir, I heard it before; if I had known thus, I would not have learned the Dhamma from such a one.” But many great elders learned from him and established the Mahāniddesa.

There are another two types of effort and two types of use: effort by the conscientious and effort by the shameless, and use of the Dhamma and use of material goods. Here, it is permissible for the shameless to make an effort with the conscientious, but they should not be made to commit an offense. If the conscientious make an effort with the shameless, they should request them to rejoice, request them to give a Dhamma talk, support them in families, and the shameless should also praise them in their assembly, saying, “Our teacher is like this and like that.” This causes the Dispensation to decline and disappear. Regarding the use of the Dhamma and material goods, where the use of material goods is permissible, the use of the Dhamma is also permissible there. However, if one stands at the boundary, the text will be lost with the passing of that person, so it is permissible to learn it by following the Dhamma. Here is the story: During a great famine, it is said that only one monk was proficient in the Mahāniddesa. Then, the preceptor of Catunikāyikatissatthera, the great Tipiṭaka elder named Mahārakkhitatthera, said, “Venerable Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him.” “Venerable, he is wicked; I will not learn from him.” “Learn, friend; I will sit near you.” “Good, Venerable, I will learn while you are seated.” He began learning and, day and night without interruption, mastered it. On the final day, seeing a woman under the bed, he said, “Venerable, I had heard before that if I had known this, I would not have learned the Dhamma from such a person.” However, many great elders learned from him and established the Mahāniddesa.

The discussion on the ruling regarding the acceptance of rūpiya and so forth is completed.

the discussion on the adjudication of receiving money and the like is concluded.

13. Dānalakkhaṇādivinicchayakathā

13. Discussion on the Characteristics of Giving and Related Rulings

13. Discussion of the Determination of the Characteristics of Giving, etc.

13. Discussion on the Characteristics of Gifts and Adjudication

69. Dānavissāsaggāhehi lābhassa pariṇāmananti ettha tāva dānanti attano santakassa cīvarādiparikkhārassa saddhivihārikādīsu yassa kassaci dānaṃ. Tatridaṃ dānalakkhaṇaṃ – “idaṃ tuyhaṃ demi dadāmi dajjāmi oṇojemi pariccajāmi vissajjāmī”ti vā “itthannāmassa demi…pe… vissajjāmī”ti vā vadati, sammukhāpi parammukhāpi dinnaṃyeva hoti. “Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vutte “mayhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti vadati, sudinnaṃ suggahitañca. “Tava santakaṃ karohi, tava santakaṃ hotu, tava santakaṃ hotī”ti vutte “mama santakaṃ karomi, mama santakaṃ hotu, mama santakaṃ karissāmī”ti vadati, dudinnaṃ duggahitañca. Neva dātā dātuṃ jānāti, na itaro gahetuṃ, sace pana “tava santakaṃ karohī”ti vutte “sādhu, bhante, mayhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti gaṇhāti, suggahitaṃ. Sace pana eko “idaṃ cīvaraṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, itaro “na gaṇhāmī”ti vadati, puna so “dinnaṃ mayā tuyhaṃ, gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, itaropi “na mayhaṃ iminā attho”ti vadati, tato purimopi “mayā dinna”nti dasāhaṃ atikkāmeti, pacchimopi “mayā paṭikkhitta”nti, kassa āpattīti? Na kassaci. Yassa pana ruccati, tena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. “Itthannāmassa dehī”ti dinnaṃ yāva parassa hatthaṃ na pāpuṇāti, tāva yo pahiṇati, tasseva santakaṃ, “itthannāmassa dammī”ti dinnaṃ pana yassa pahīyati, tassa santakaṃ. Tasmā bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “idaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dehī”ti. So antarāmagge yo pahiṇati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, suggahitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, duggahitaṃ.

69. Through giving, trust, and gain direction—Here, first, dāna means giving one’s own belongings, such as robes and other requisites, to a co-dwelling student or anyone else. Here is the characteristic of giving: He says, “I give this to you, I offer it, I bestow it, I present it, I relinquish it, I release it,” or “I give it to so-and-so… I release it,” whether in person or indirectly—it is given indeed. If he says, “Take it for yourself,” and the other says, “I take it for myself,” it is well-given and well-taken. If he says, “Make it your own, let it be yours, it is yours,” and the other says, “I make it my own, let it be mine, I will make it mine,” it is poorly given and poorly taken. Neither the giver knows how to give, nor the other how to take. But if he says, “Make it your own,” and the other says, “Very well, venerable sir, I take it for myself,” it is well-taken. If one says, “Take this robe,” and the other says, “I won’t take it,” and again he says, “I have given it to you; take it,” and the other says, “I have no need for this,” and then the first says, “I have given it,” letting ten days pass, and the latter says, “I have refused it”—whose offense is it? No one’s. Whoever desires it should determine it and use it. If given with, “Give it to so-and-so,” until it reaches the other’s hand, it belongs to the sender; if given with, “I give it to so-and-so,” it belongs to the one for whom it is sent. Thus, a monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” If the carrier takes it with trust in the sender along the way, it is well-taken; if he takes it with trust in the recipient, it is poorly taken.

69. By gifts, familiar acceptance, and diversion of gain, here, giving is the giving of one’s own requisites, such as robes, to anyone, such as co-residents. Here is the characteristic of giving: If one says, “I give this to you, I bestow, I offer, I relinquish, I hand over, I discard,” or “I give… to so-and-so… I discard,” it is given whether face-to-face or not face-to-face. If one says, “Take it for yourself,” and the other says, “I take it for myself,” it is well-given and well-taken. If one says, “Make it yours, let it be yours, it is yours,” and the other says, “I make it mine, let it be mine, I will make it mine,” it is ill-given and ill-taken. Neither the giver knows how to give, nor the other how to take, but if one says, “Make it yours,” and the other takes it saying, “Very well, venerable sir, I take it for myself,” it is well-taken. But if one says, “Take this robe,” and the other says, “I do not take it,” and again he says, “I have given it to you, take it,” and the other says, “I have no need of this,” and then the former exceeds ten days saying, “I have given it,” and the latter saying, “I have refused it,” to whom is there an offense? To none. Whoever desires it should determine it and use it. What is given saying, “Give it to so-and-so,” as long as it does not reach the hand of the other, belongs to the one who sends it; but what is given saying, “I give it to so-and-so,” belongs to the one for whom it is sent. Therefore, a monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he takes it through familiarity with the one who sends it, it is well-taken. If he takes it through familiarity with the one for whom it is sent, it is ill-taken.

69. The transfer of merit through gifts and trust—here, first, gift refers to the giving of one’s own belongings, such as robes or other requisites, to a fellow monk or disciple. The characteristic of a gift is as follows: “I give this to you, I offer this to you, I relinquish this to you, I release this to you,” or “I give this to so-and-so… I release this to you,” whether face-to-face or in absence, it is considered given. If it is said, “Take this for yourself,” and one says, “I take it for myself,” it is well-given and well-received. If it is said, “Make this yours, let this be yours, let this be yours,” and one says, “I make this mine, let this be mine, I will make this mine,” it is doubly given and poorly received. If neither the giver knows how to give nor the receiver knows how to receive, but if it is said, “Make this yours,” and the receiver says, “Good, Venerable, I take it for myself,” it is well-received. If one says, “Take this robe,” and the other says, “I will not take it,” and the first says again, “I have given it to you, take it,” and the other says, “I have no need for this,” then the first has exceeded ten days in saying, “I have given it,” and the latter has refused, saying, “I have rejected it.” Whose offense is it? It is no one’s. Whoever wishes may resolve to use it. If it is said, “Give this to so-and-so,” and it has not yet reached the other’s hand, it belongs to the one who sent it. If it is said, “Give this to so-and-so,” and it is released, it belongs to the one to whom it is released. Therefore, if a monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so,” and the sender dies on the way, the robe is resolved to belong to the deceased, and it is well-resolved. If it is released, it is poorly resolved.

Bhikkhu (mahāva. 378-379) bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dehī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “yo pahiṇati, so kālakato”ti, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, duggahitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dehī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “yassa pahīyati, so kālakato”ti, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yo pahiṇati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, suggahitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dehī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “ubho kālakatā”ti, yo pahiṇati, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti. So antarāmagge yo pahiṇati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, duggahitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, suggahitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “yo pahiṇati, so kālakato”ti, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, suggahitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “yassa pahīyati, so kālakato”ti, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yo pahiṇati, tassa vissāsā gaṇhāti, duggahitaṃ. Bhikkhu bhikkhussa hatthe cīvaraṃ pahiṇati “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti. So antarāmagge suṇāti “ubho kālakatā”ti. Yo pahiṇati, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Yassa pahīyati, tassa matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhāti, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ.

A monk (mahāva. 378-379) sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “The sender has passed away,” and determines it as a dead person’s robe—it is well-determined. If he takes it with trust in the recipient, it is poorly taken. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “The recipient has passed away,” and determines it as a dead person’s robe—it is poorly determined. If he takes it with trust in the sender, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “Both have passed away,” and determines it as the sender’s dead person’s robe—it is well-determined. If he determines it as the recipient’s dead person’s robe, it is poorly determined. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, if he takes it with trust in the sender, it is poorly taken; if he takes it with trust in the recipient, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “The sender has passed away,” and determines it as a dead person’s robe—it is poorly determined. If he takes it with trust in the recipient, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “The recipient has passed away,” and determines it as a dead person’s robe—it is well-determined. If he takes it with trust in the sender, it is poorly taken. A monk sends a robe in another monk’s hand, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” Along the way, he hears, “Both have passed away.” If he determines it as the sender’s dead person’s robe, it is poorly determined; if he determines it as the recipient’s dead person’s robe, it is well-determined.

A monk (mahāva. 378-379) sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “The one who sent it has passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe; it is well-determined. If he takes it through familiarity with the one for whom it is sent, it is ill-taken. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “The one for whom it is sent has passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe; it is doubly-determined. If he takes it through familiarity with the one who sends it, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “Both have passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe of the one who sends it; it is well-determined. He determines it as the deceased’s robe of the one for whom it is sent; it is doubly-determined. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he takes it through familiarity with the one who sends it, it is ill-taken. If he takes it through familiarity with the one for whom it is sent, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “The one who sent it has passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe; it is doubly-determined. If he takes it through familiarity with the one for whom it is sent, it is well-taken. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “The one for whom it is sent has passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe; it is well-determined. If he takes it through familiarity with the one who sends it, it is ill-taken. A monk sends a robe in the hand of a monk, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” If in the meantime he hears, “Both have passed away,” he determines it as the deceased’s robe of the one who sends it; it is doubly-determined. He determines it as the deceased’s robe of the one for whom it is sent; it is well-determined.

A monk (mahāva. 378-379) sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, he hears, “The one who sent it has died,” and the robe is resolved to belong to the deceased, and it is well-resolved. If it is released, it is poorly resolved. A monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, he hears, “The one to whom it is released has died,” and the robe is resolved to belong to the deceased, and it is doubly resolved. If it is sent, it is well-resolved. A monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, he hears, “Both have died,” and the robe is resolved to belong to the sender, and it is well-resolved. If it is released, it is doubly resolved. A monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, the sender dies, and the robe is resolved to belong to the deceased, and it is doubly resolved. If it is released, it is well-resolved. A monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, the one to whom it is released dies, and the robe is resolved to belong to the deceased, and it is well-resolved. If it is sent, it is poorly resolved. A monk sends a robe to another monk’s hand, saying, “Give this robe to so-and-so.” On the way, he hears, “Both have died,” and the robe is resolved to belong to the sender, and it is doubly resolved. If it is released, it is well-resolved.

Pariccajitvā dinnaṃ puna kenaci kāraṇena kupito āharāpetuṃ na labhati. Attanā dinnampi hi cīvaraṃ sakasaññāya acchindato nissaggiyaṃ, aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ antamaso sūcimpi acchindato dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana “bhante, tumhākaṃ idaṃ sāruppa”nti sayameva deti, gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Atha pana “āvuso, mayaṃ tuyhaṃ ’vattapaṭivattaṃ karissati, amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissati, dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇissatī’ti cīvaraṃ adamhā, so dāni tvaṃ na vattaṃ karosi, na upajjhaṃ gaṇhāsi, na dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇāsī”ti evamādīni vutto “bhante, cīvaratthāya maññe bhaṇatha, idaṃ vo cīvara”nti deti, evampi vaṭṭati. Disāpakkamantaṃ vā pana daharaṃ “nivattetha na”nti bhaṇati, so na nivattati, cīvare gahetvā nirundhathāti, evañce nivattati, sādhu. Sace “pattacīvaratthāya maññe tumhe bhaṇatha, gaṇhatha na”nti deti, evampi vaṭṭati. Vibbhamantaṃ vā disvā “mayaṃ tuyhaṃ ’vattaṃ karissatī’ti pattacīvaraṃ adamhā, so dāni tvaṃ vibbhamitvā carasī”ti vadati, itaro “gaṇhatha tumhākaṃ pattacīvara”nti deti, evampi vaṭṭati. “Mama santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhantasseva demi, aññattha gaṇhantassa na demi, vattaṃ karontasseva demi, akarontassa na demi, dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇantasseva demi, apariyāpuṇantassa na demi, avibbhamantasseva demi, vibbhamantassa na demī”ti evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭati, dadato dukkaṭaṃ, āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭati, vissajjetvā dinnaṃ acchinditvā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Ayaṃ tāva dāne vinicchayo.

Once given and relinquished, it cannot be taken back for any reason, even if angered. Even if one snatches back a robe he gave, thinking it still his own, it is nissaggiya; for other requisites, even a needle, it is a dukkaṭa. But if he says, “Venerable sir, this suits you,” and gives it himself, it is allowable to take. Or if he says, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking, ‘He will serve and be served, he will take a preceptor from us, he will study the Dhamma,’ but now you do not serve, do not take a preceptor, do not study the Dhamma,” and the other says, “Venerable sir, you must be speaking for the sake of a robe; here is your robe,” even then it is allowable. Or if he says to a young monk departing to another region, “Turn him back,” and he does not return, and he says, “Hold him by the robe and restrain him,” and if he returns, that is good. If he says, “You must be speaking for the sake of bowl and robe; take them,” even then it is allowable. Or seeing one disrobing, he says, “We gave you bowl and robe thinking, ‘He will serve,’ but now you disrobe and wander,” and the other says, “Take your bowl and robe,” even then it is allowable. But it is not allowable to give with, “I give it only if he takes a preceptor from me, not elsewhere; only if he serves, not if he does not; only if he studies the Dhamma, not if he does not; only if he does not disrobe, not if he does.” Giving thus incurs a dukkaṭa; however, it is allowable to take it back. One who takes back what was relinquished and given, snatching it, should be made to compensate its value. This is the ruling on giving.

Having relinquished and given, he cannot take it back through anger for any reason. For even a robe given by oneself, if he snatches it away with the perception of it being his own, it is a nissaggiya offense; snatching away any other requisite, even a needle, is a dukkaṭa offense. But if he himself says, “Venerable sir, this is suitable for you,” it is permissible to take it. But if he says, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking, ‘He will perform duties and counter-duties for us, he will take the preceptor under us, he will learn the Dhamma,’ but now you do not perform duties, you do not take the preceptor, you do not learn the Dhamma,” and so on, and he says, “Venerable sir, I think you are speaking for the sake of the robe, here is your robe,” even so, it is permissible. Or if he says to a young one going in another direction, “Turn back,” and he does not turn back, “Seize him by the robe and restrain him,” and if he turns back, that is good. But if he says, “I think you are speaking for the sake of the bowl and robe, take them,” even so, it is permissible. Or seeing one wandering about, he says, “We gave you the bowl and robe thinking, ‘He will perform duties,’ but now you are wandering about erratically,” and the other says, “Take your bowl and robe,” even so, it is permissible. But it is not permissible to give saying, “I give only to one who takes the preceptor under me, I do not give to one who takes it elsewhere; I give only to one who performs duties, I do not give to one who does not; I give only to one who learns the Dhamma, I do not give to one who does not; I give only to one who does not wander about, I do not give to one who wanders about,” for the giver there is a dukkaṭa offense; but it is permissible to take it back; one who takes what has been relinquished and given without snatching it away should be made to undergo the penalty for theft. This is the determination concerning giving.

Having given something away, one cannot, out of anger for any reason, take it back. Even if one has given a robe oneself, if one takes it back with the intention of reclaiming it, it entails a nissaggiya offense. Taking back any other requisite, even as small as a needle, entails a dukkaṭa offense. However, if one says, “Venerable, this is suitable for you,” and gives it willingly, it is permissible to accept it. If one says, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking, ‘He will perform duties for us, he will take guidance from us, he will learn the Dhamma from us,’ but now you do not perform duties, do not take guidance, and do not learn the Dhamma,” and if the other replies, “Venerable, you seem to be speaking for the sake of a robe; here is your robe,” and gives it, this is also permissible. If one sees a young monk leaving and says, “Do not go,” but the other does not return, and one takes the robe and stops him, and if he then returns, it is good. If one says, “You seem to be speaking for the sake of a bowl and robe; take it,” and gives it, this is also permissible. If one sees a monk disrobing and says, “We gave you a bowl and robe thinking, ‘He will perform duties for us,’ but now you are disrobing and wandering,” and the other replies, “Take your bowl and robe,” this is also permissible. However, it is not permissible to say, “I give only to one who takes guidance from me, not to one who takes guidance elsewhere; I give only to one who performs duties, not to one who does not; I give only to one who learns the Dhamma, not to one who does not; I give only to one who does not disrobe, not to one who disrobes.” Giving in such a way entails a dukkaṭa offense, but it is permissible to request it back. If one takes back something given after reclaiming it, one should be dealt with as a thief. This is the judgment regarding giving.

70. The characteristic of taking with trust should be known through this discourse:

70. The characteristic of familiar acceptance should be known by this sutta:

70. The characteristic of taking something on trust should be understood through this discourse:

“Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatassa vissāsaṃ gahetuṃ sandiṭṭho ca hoti, sambhatto ca, ālapito ca, jīvati ca, gahite ca attamano hotī”ti (mahāva. 356).

“I allow, monks, taking with trust from one endowed with five qualities: he is seen, he is an acquaintance, he is spoken to, he is alive, and he is pleased when it is taken” (mahāva. 356).

“I allow, monks, the acceptance of familiarity from one endowed with five factors: he is a seen friend, he is a close friend, he has been addressed, he is alive, and he is pleased when it is taken.” (mahāva. 356).

“I allow, monks, that one endowed with five qualities may take something on trust: he is seen, he is familiar, he is addressed, he is alive, and he is pleased when something is taken” (Mahāvagga 356).

Tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.131) sandiṭṭhoti diṭṭhamattakamitto. Sambhattoti daḷhamitto. Ālapitoti “mama santakaṃ yaṃ icchasi, taṃ gaṇheyyāsi, āpucchitvā gahaṇe kāraṇaṃ natthī”ti vutto. Jīvatīti anuṭṭhānaseyyāya sayitopi yāvajīvitindriyupacchedaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Gahite ca attamanoti gahite tuṭṭhacitto hoti. “Evarūpassa santakaṃ gahite me attamano bhavissatī”ti jānantena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Anavasesapariyādānavasena cetāni pañcaṅgāni vuttāni, vissāsaggāho pana tīhi aṅgehi ruhati sandiṭṭho, jīvati, gahite attamano, sambhatto, jīvati, gahite attamano, ālapito, jīvati, gahite attamanoti. Yo pana na jīvati, na ca gahite attamano hoti, tassa santakaṃ vissāsaggāhena gahitampi puna dātabbaṃ. Dadamānena ca matakadhanaṃ tāva ye tassa dhane issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā, tesaṃ dātabbaṃ. Anattamanassa santakaṃ tasseva dātabbaṃ, yo pana paṭhamaṃyeva “suṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā”ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā anumoditvā pacchā kenaci kāraṇena kupito, paccāharāpetuṃ na labhati, yopi adātukāmo, cittena pana adhivāseti, na kiñci vadati, sopi puna paccāharāpetuṃ na labhati. Yo pana “mayā tumhākaṃ santakaṃ gahitaṃ vā paribhuttaṃ vā”ti vutte “gahitaṃ vā hotu paribhuttaṃ vā, mayā pana taṃ kenacideva karaṇīyena ṭhapitaṃ, taṃ pākatikaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadati, ayaṃ paccāharāpetuṃ labhati. Ayaṃ vissāsaggāhe vinicchayo.

Here (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.131), sandiṭṭha means a casual friend merely seen. Sambhatta means a firm friend. Ālapita means one who has been told, “Take whatever of mine you wish; there is no need to ask.” Jīvati means alive, even if lying on a sickbed, as long as the faculty of life is not cut off. Gahite ca attamano means he is delighted when it is taken. It is allowable to take from one knowing, “He will be pleased if I take his property.” These five qualities are stated to cover all cases, but taking with trust is established with three: seen, alive, and pleased when taken; acquainted, alive, and pleased when taken; spoken to, alive, and pleased when taken. But if he is not alive and not pleased when it is taken, even if taken with trust, it must be returned. When returning, the property of the deceased should be given to those who have authority over it—householders or monastics. The property of one not pleased should be returned to him. But if he first consents, either by word or mere mental approval, saying, “You did well by taking my property,” and later becomes angry for some reason, he cannot take it back. One who is unwilling but mentally consents and says nothing also cannot take it back. But if he says, when told, “I took or used your property,” “Whether taken or used, I had set it aside for some purpose; it is allowable to restore it,” he can take it back. This is the ruling on taking with trust.

Here (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.131), seen friend means a friend merely seen. Close friend means a firm friend. Addressed means one who has been told, “You may take whatever you desire of my possessions, there is no need to ask before taking.” Alive means, even if lying down in a terminal illness, he has not yet reached the cutting off of the life faculty. And he is pleased when it is taken means he is pleased in mind when it is taken. It is permissible to take knowing, “He will be pleased with me taking his possessions.” These five factors are stated in terms of non-exhaustion without remainder, but familiar acceptance arises with three factors: seen friend, alive, pleased when it is taken; close friend, alive, pleased when it is taken; addressed, alive, pleased when it is taken. But what is taken by familiar acceptance from one who is not alive and is not pleased when it is taken should be given back. And in giving, the deceased’s wealth should be given to those who are in charge of his wealth, whether householders or renunciants. What belongs to one who is not pleased should be given to him; but one who at first approved with a different speech or a mere thought, saying, “It is well done by you taking my possessions,” but later is angry for some reason, cannot take it back; and one who does not wish to give, but consents in mind, does not say anything, he too cannot take it back later. But one who, when told, “I have taken or used your possessions,” says, “Whether taken or used, but I had put it aside for some purpose, it should be made as it was,” this one can take it back. This is the determination concerning familiar acceptance.

Here (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 1.131), seen means a casual friend. Familiar means a close friend. Addressed means one who has been told, “You may take whatever you wish from my belongings; there is no need to ask permission.” Alive means one who has not reached the cessation of the life faculty, even if lying in a state of inactivity. Pleased when something is taken means one who is happy when something is taken. One may take something knowing, “He will be pleased when I take this.” These five factors are stated without omission, but taking on trust grows with three factors: being seen, being alive, and being pleased when something is taken; being familiar, being alive, and being pleased when something is taken; being addressed, being alive, and being pleased when something is taken. If one is not alive or not pleased when something is taken, even if something is taken on trust, it should be given back. When giving, the wealth of the deceased should first be given to those who have authority over it, whether laypeople or monastics. The belongings of one who is displeased should be given back to them. If one initially says, “Well done, you have taken my belongings,” expressing approval either verbally or mentally, but later becomes angry for some reason and cannot take it back, or if one does not wish to give but mentally consents and says nothing, one cannot take it back. However, if one says, “What I have taken or used from your belongings has been set aside for some purpose by me, and now it is permissible to make it public,” one can take it back. This is the judgment regarding taking on trust.

71. Lābhassa pariṇāmananti idaṃ pana aññesaṃ atthāya pariṇatalābhassa attano aññassa vā pariṇāmanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.659-660) – saṅghassa pariṇataṃ sahadhammikānaṃ vā gihīnaṃ vā antamaso mātusantakampi “idaṃ mayhaṃ dehī”ti saṅghassa pariṇatabhāvaṃ ñatvā attano pariṇāmetvā gaṇhantassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, “imassa bhikkhuno dehī”ti evaṃ aññassa pariṇāmentassa suddhikapācittiyaṃ. Tasmā yopi vassikasāṭikasamaye mātugharepi saṅghassa pariṇataṃ vassikasāṭikaṃ ñatvā attano pariṇāmeti, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, parassa pariṇāmeti, suddhikapācittiyaṃ. Manussā “saṅghabhattaṃ karissāmā”ti sappitelādīni āharanti, gilāno cepi bhikkhusaṅghassa pariṇatabhāvaṃ ñatvā kiñci yācati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyameva. Sace pana so “tumhākaṃ sappiādīni ābhatāni atthī”ti pucchitvā “āma, atthī”ti vutte “mayhampi dethā”ti vadati, vaṭṭati. Athāpi naṃ kukkuccāyantaṃ upāsakā vadanti “saṅghopi amhehi dinnameva labhati, gaṇhatha, bhante”ti, evampi vaṭṭati.

71. Directing gain means directing a gain designated for others to oneself or another, and this is stated with that in mind. Here is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.659-660): If something designated for the Saṅgha, co-dwellers, or even one’s mother’s property is taken for oneself, knowing it was designated for the Saṅgha, saying, “Give it to me,” and redirecting it, it is nissaggiya pācittiya. If redirected to another, saying, “Give it to this monk,” it is a simple pācittiya. Thus, even at the time of the rainy-season robe, if one knows the rainy-season robe designated for the Saṅgha at one’s mother’s house and redirects it to oneself, it is nissaggiya pācittiya; if to another, it is a simple pācittiya. If people bring ghee, oil, and so forth, saying, “We will make a meal for the Saṅgha,” and a sick monk, knowing it was designated for the Saṅgha, requests something, it is nissaggiya pācittiya. But if he asks, “Have you brought ghee and so forth?” and they say, “Yes, we have,” and he says, “Give some to me too,” it is allowable. Or if the laypeople, noticing his hesitation, say, “The Saṅgha receives only what we give; take it, venerable sir,” even then it is allowable.

71. Diversion of gain, this is said with reference to diverting gain intended for others to oneself or another. Here is the determination (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.659-660): If one, knowing that what is intended for the Saṅgha, fellow Dhamma-farers, or householders, even one’s mother’s possessions, has been diverted to the Saṅgha, diverts it to himself, saying, “Give this to me,” and takes it, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense; if he diverts it to another, saying, “Give it to this monk,” there is a suddhika pācittiya offense. Therefore, even if one, knowing that a rainy-season cloth intended for the Saṅgha, even in his mother’s house, has been diverted to the Saṅgha, diverts it to himself, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense; if he diverts it to another, there is a suddhika pācittiya offense. If people bring ghee, etc., saying, “We will make a meal for the Saṅgha,” and even a sick person, knowing that it has been diverted to the Saṅgha, asks for anything, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. But if he, having asked, “Do you have ghee, etc., brought?” and they say, “Yes, we have,” says, “Give some to me too,” it is permissible. Or if lay followers, seeing him hesitant, say, “The Saṅgha also receives only what has been given by us, take it, venerable sir,” even so, it is permissible.

71. The redirection of gains refers to the redirection of gains intended for others, whether for oneself or for another. Here is the judgment (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 2.659-660): If one redirects what has been designated for the Saṅgha or for lay followers, even as little as one’s mother’s belongings, knowing it was designated for the Saṅgha, and takes it for oneself, it entails a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If one redirects it for another, saying, “Give this to such-and-such monk,” it entails a suddhika pācittiya offense. Therefore, even during the robe season, if one redirects a robe designated for the Saṅgha at one’s mother’s house, knowing it was designated for the Saṅgha, it entails a nissaggiya pācittiya offense; if one redirects it for another, it entails a suddhika pācittiya offense. If people bring ghee and other items, saying, “We will prepare a Saṅgha meal,” and a sick monk, knowing it was designated for the Saṅgha, asks for some of it, it entails a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. However, if he asks, “Do you have ghee and other items?” and they reply, “Yes, we do,” and he says, “Give me some,” it is permissible. If he is hesitant, lay devotees may say, “The Saṅgha receives what we give; take it, Venerable,” and this is also permissible.

Ekasmiṃ vihāre saṅghassa pariṇataṃ aññavihāraṃ uddisitvā “asukasmiṃ nāma vihāre saṅghassa dethā”ti pariṇāmeti, “kiṃ saṅghassa dānena, cetiyassa pūjaṃ karothā”ti evaṃ cetiyassa vā pariṇāmeti, dukkaṭaṃ. Cetiyassa pariṇataṃ aññacetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, dukkaṭameva. Niyametvā aññacetiyassa atthāya ropitamālāvacchato aññacetiyamhi pupphampi āropetuṃ na vaṭṭati, ekassa cetiyassa pana chattaṃ vā paṭākaṃ vā āropetvā ṭhitaṃ disvā sesaṃ aññacetiyassa dāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Antamaso sunakhassapi pariṇataṃ “imassa sunakhassa mā dehi, etassa dehī”ti evaṃ aññapuggalassa pariṇāmeti, dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana dāyakā “mayaṃ saṅghabhattaṃ kātukāmā, cetiyapūjaṃ kātukāmā, ekassa bhikkhuno parikkhāraṃ dātukāmā, tumhākaṃ ruciyā dassāma, bhaṇatha kattha demā”ti vadanti, evaṃ vutte tena bhikkhunā “yattha icchatha, tattha dethā”ti vattabbā. Sace pana kevalaṃ “kattha demā”ti pucchanti, “yattha tumhākaṃ deyyadhammo paribhogaṃ vā labheyya, paṭisaṅkhāraṃ vā labheyya, ciraṭṭhitiko vā assa, yattha vā pana tumhākaṃ cittaṃ pasīdati, tattha dethā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati.

In one monastery, if something designated for the Saṅgha is redirected to another monastery, saying, “Give it to the Saṅgha at such-and-such a monastery,” or saying, “What use is giving to the Saṅgha? Make an offering to the cetiya,” thus redirecting it to a cetiya, it is a dukkaṭa. If something designated for a cetiya is redirected to another cetiya, the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, it is a dukkaṭa. Even flowers planted for one cetiya without designation should not be offered to another cetiya; but if a canopy or flag is placed on one cetiya, it is allowable to give the rest to another cetiya. Even for something designated for a dog, saying, “Don’t give it to this dog, give it to that one,” redirecting it to another individual is a dukkaṭa. But if the donors say, “We wish to make a meal for the Saṅgha, offer to a cetiya, give requisites to one monk; we will give according to your wish—tell us where to give,” then the monk should say, “Give wherever you wish.” If they simply ask, “Where should we give?” it is allowable to say, “Give where your offering will be used, repaired, long-lasting, or where your mind finds confidence.”

If one diverts what is intended for the Saṅgha in one monastery to another monastery, saying, “Give it to the Saṅgha in such-and-such a monastery,” or diverts it to a cetiya, saying, “What is the use of giving to the Saṅgha, make an offering to the cetiya,” there is a dukkaṭa offense. If he diverts what is intended for a cetiya to another cetiya, or to the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, there is a dukkaṭa offense. It is not permissible to place even a flower from a flower-plot planted for a specific cetiya on another cetiya. But seeing a banner or flag placed on one cetiya, it is permissible to give the remainder to another cetiya. Even what is intended for a dog, if one diverts it to another individual, saying, “Do not give it to this dog, give it to this one,” there is a dukkaṭa offense. But if donors say, “We wish to make a meal for the Saṅgha, to make an offering to the cetiya, to give requisites to a monk, we will give according to your wish, tell us where to give,” when thus told, that monk should say, “Give wherever you wish.” But if they only ask, “Where shall we give?” it is permissible to say, “Give where your gift may be used, or may be repaired, or may last long, or where your mind is pleased.”

In one monastery, if something designated for the Saṅgha is redirected to another monastery, saying, “Give this to the Saṅgha in such-and-such monastery,” or if one redirects it for a shrine, saying, “What is the use of giving to the Saṅgha? Make an offering to the shrine,” it entails a dukkaṭa offense. If something designated for one shrine is redirected to another shrine, the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, it entails a dukkaṭa offense. Flowers planted for one shrine cannot be offered to another shrine. However, if one sees a canopy or flag raised at one shrine, the rest may be offered to another shrine. Even if something is designated for a dog, saying, “Do not give this to that dog; give it to this person,” it entails a dukkaṭa offense. If donors say, “We wish to prepare a Saṅgha meal, make an offering to a shrine, or give requisites to a monk; tell us where to give,” the monk should say, “Give where you wish.” If they simply ask, “Where should we give?” it is permissible to say, “Give where the gift will be used, where it will be maintained, where it will last long, or where your mind is pleased.”

The discussion on the characteristics of giving and related rulings is completed.

The discussion of the determination of the characteristics of giving, etc., is concluded.

14. Pathavīkhaṇanavinicchayakathā

14. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Digging the Earth

14. Discussion of the Determination of Digging the Earth

14. The Discussion on the Judgment of Digging the Earth

72. Pathavīti dve pathavī jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavīti. Tattha jātā nāma pathavī suddhapaṃsukā suddhamattikā appapāsāṇā appasakkharā appakaṭhalā appamarumbā appavālukā yebhuyyenapaṃsukā yebhuyyenamattikā, adaḍḍhāpi vuccati “jātā pathavī”ti. Yopi paṃsupuñjo vā mattikāpuñjo vā atirekacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho, sopi vuccati “jātā pathavī”ti. Ajātā nāma pathavī suddhapāsāṇā suddhasakkharā suddhakaṭhalā suddhamarumbā suddhavālukā appapaṃsukā appamattikā yebhuyyenapāsāṇā yebhuyyenasakkharā yebhuyyenakaṭhalā yebhuyyenamarumbā yebhuyyenavālukā, daḍḍhāpi vuccati “ajātā pathavī”ti. Yopi paṃsupuñjo vā mattikāpuñjo vā omakacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho, sopi vuccati “ajātā pathavī”ti (pāci. 84-86).

72. Earth—There are two kinds of earth: mature earth and immature earth. Here, mature earth means pure soil, pure clay, with little stone, little gravel, little potsherds, little pebbles, little sand—mostly soil or mostly clay; even unburnt, it is called “mature earth.” A heap of soil or clay soaked for more than four months is also called “mature earth.” Immature earth means pure stone, pure gravel, pure potsherds, pure pebbles, pure sand, with little soil, little clay—mostly stone, mostly gravel, mostly potsherds, mostly pebbles, mostly sand; even burnt, it is called “immature earth.” A heap of soil or clay soaked for less than four months is also called “immature earth” (pāci. 84-86).

72. Earth is of two kinds: born earth and unborn earth. Here, born earth is pure soil, pure clay, with few stones, few gravels, few potsherds, few pebbles, few sands, mostly soil, mostly clay, even unburnt it is called “born earth.” And any heap of soil or clay that has been rained upon for more than four months is also called “born earth.” Unborn earth is pure stones, pure gravels, pure potsherds, pure pebbles, pure sands, with little soil, little clay, mostly stones, mostly gravels, mostly potsherds, mostly pebbles, mostly sands, even burnt it is called “unborn earth.” And any heap of soil or clay that has been rained upon for less than four months is also called “unborn earth.” (pāci. 84-86).

72. Earth is of two kinds: born earth and unborn earth. Born earth refers to pure soil, pure clay, with few stones, few pebbles, few gravel, few sand, mostly soil, mostly clay, even if not baked, it is called “born earth.” Even a heap of soil or clay left for more than four months is called “born earth.” Unborn earth refers to pure stones, pure pebbles, pure gravel, pure sand, with little soil, little clay, mostly stones, mostly pebbles, mostly gravel, mostly sand, even if baked, it is called “unborn earth.” Even a heap of soil or clay left for less than four months is called “unborn earth” (Pācittiya 84-86).

Tattha jātapathaviṃ khaṇantassa khaṇāpentassa vā pācittiyaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pāci. aṭṭha. 86) – sace sayaṃ khaṇati, pahāre pahāre pācittiyaṃ. Sace aññaṃ āṇāpeti, sakiṃ āṇatto sacepi sakaladivasaṃ khaṇati, āṇāpakassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana kusīto hoti, punappunaṃ āṇāpetabbo, taṃ āṇāpetvā khaṇāpentassa vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ. Sace “pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇāhī”ti vadati, vaṭṭati. Khatāyeva hi pokkharaṇī nāma hoti. Tasmā ayaṃ kappiyavohāro. Esa nayo “vāpiṃ taḷākaṃ āvāṭaṃ khaṇā”tiādīsupi. “Imaṃ okāsaṃ khaṇa, imasmiṃ okāse pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇā”ti vattuṃ pana na vaṭṭati. “Kandaṃ khaṇa, mūlaṃ khaṇā”ti aniyametvā vattuṃ vaṭṭati, “imaṃ valliṃ khaṇa, imasmiṃ okāse kandaṃ vā mūlaṃ vā khaṇā”ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati.

Here, digging or causing to dig mature earth incurs a pācittiya. This is the ruling (pāci. aṭṭha. 86): If he digs himself, it is a pācittiya with each strike. If he orders another, ordering once, even if they dig all day, incurs only one pācittiya for the one who orders. But if the other is lazy and must be ordered repeatedly, ordering and causing to dig incurs a pācittiya with each word. If he says, “Dig a lotus pond,” it is allowable; for a lotus pond exists only when dug. Thus, this is a permissible expression. The same applies to “Dig a tank, a pond, a pit,” and so forth. But saying, “Dig this place,” or “Dig a lotus pond in this place,” is not allowable.

Here, for one who digs or causes to dig born earth, there is a pācittiya offense. Here is the determination (pāci. aṭṭha. 86): If he digs himself, with each stroke there is a pācittiya offense. If he commands another, if commanded once he digs even for the whole day, for the commander there is only one pācittiya offense. But if he is lazy, he should be commanded again and again; for one who commands him and causes him to dig, with each word there is a pācittiya offense. If he says, “Dig a pond,” it is permissible. For a pond is what has been dug. Therefore, this is an allowable expression. This method applies also to “Dig a well, a tank, a pit,” etc. But it is not permissible to say, “Dig this spot, dig a pond in this spot.” It is permissible to say without specifying, “Dig a tuber, dig a root,” but it is not permissible to say, “Dig this creeper, dig a tuber or root in this spot.”

Here, digging born earth oneself or having it dug entails a pācittiya offense. Here is the judgment (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 86): If one digs oneself, each strike entails a pācittiya offense. If one orders another, even if the other digs all day after being ordered once, the one who ordered incurs only one pācittiya offense. If the other is lazy, one must order repeatedly, and each order entails a pācittiya offense. If one says, “Dig a pond,” it is permissible, for a pond is already dug. This is a permissible expression. The same applies to saying, “Dig a reservoir, a pit,” etc. However, it is not permissible to say, “Dig this area, dig a pond in this area.” It is permissible to say, “Dig a tuber, dig a root,” without specifying, but it is not permissible to say, “Dig this creeper, dig a tuber or root in this area.”

73. Pokkharaṇiṃ sodhentehi yo kuṭehi ussiñcituṃ sakkā hoti tanukakaddamo, taṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, bahalo na vaṭṭati. Ātapena sukkhakaddamo phalati, tatra yo heṭṭhā pathaviyā asambandho, tameva apanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Udakena gataṭṭhāne udakapappaṭako nāma hoti, vātapahārena calati, taṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Pokkharaṇīādīnaṃ taṭaṃ bhijjitvā udakasāmantā patati. Sace omakacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhaṃ, chindituṃ bhindituṃ vā vaṭṭati, cātumāsato uddhaṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana udakeyeva patati, devena atirekacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhepi udakeyeva udakassa patitattā vaṭṭati.

73. When cleaning a lotus pond, thin mud that can be scooped with a vessel may be removed; thick mud may not. When sun-dried mud cracks, only what is not connected to the earth below may be removed. Where water has gone, there is a water crust that moves with the wind—it may be removed. If the bank of a lotus pond or the like breaks and falls near the water, if soaked for less than four months, it may be cut or broken; after four months, it may not. But if it falls into the water, even if soaked by rain for more than four months, it is allowable as it remains water Fallen into water.

73. While cleaning a pond, it is permissible to remove the thin mud that can be scooped out with pots, but not the thick mud. The mud dried by the sun cracks; only that which is unconnected to the earth below is permissible to remove. Where water has flowed, there is a water-crust; it moves with the wind, it is permissible to remove it. The bank of a pond, etc., breaks and falls near the water. If it has been rained upon for less than four months, it is permissible to cut or break it; after four months, it is not permissible. But if it falls into the water itself, even if it has been rained upon by the rain for more than four months, because water has fallen on water, it is permissible.

73. When cleaning a pond, if the thin mud can be removed with a scoop, it is permissible to remove it, but not the thick mud. Dry mud cracked by the sun can be removed, but only what is not connected to the earth below. A water scum formed where water has receded is called udakapappaṭaka; it moves with the wind, and it is permissible to remove it. If the bank of a pond or similar breaks and falls near the water, if it has been there for less than four months, it can be cut or broken, but not if it has been there for more than four months. If it falls into the water, even if it has been there for more than four months, since it has fallen into the water, it is permissible.

Pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ soṇḍiṃ khaṇanti, sace tattha paṭhamameva sukhumarajaṃ patati, taṃ devena ovaṭṭhaṃ hoti, cātumāsaccayena akappiyapathavīsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Udake pariyādinne soṇḍiṃ sodhentehi vikopetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace paṭhamameva udakena pūrati, pacchā rajaṃ patati, taṃ vikopetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha hi deve vassantepi udakeyeva udakaṃ patati. Piṭṭhipāsāṇe sukhumarajaṃ hoti, deve phusāyante allīyati, tampi cātumāsaccayena vikopetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Akatapabbhāre vammiko uṭṭhito hoti, yathāsukhaṃ vikopetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace abbhokāse uṭṭhahati, omakacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhoyeva vaṭṭati. Rukkhādīsu āruḷhaupacikamattikāyampi eseva nayo. Gaṇḍuppādagūthamūsikukkaragokaṇṭakādīsupi eseva nayo. Gokaṇṭako nāma gāvīnaṃ khuracchinnakaddamo vuccati. Sace pana heṭṭhimatalena bhūmisambandho hoti, ekadivasampi na vaṭṭati. Kasitaṭṭhāne naṅgalacchinnamattikāpiṇḍaṃ gaṇhantassa eseva nayo.

When digging a trench on a stone surface, if fine dust falls there first and is soaked by rain, after four months it is reckoned as impermissible earth. When cleaning a trench filled with water, it may not be disturbed. If it fills with water first and dust falls later, it may be disturbed; for even when rain falls, only water falls into water. On a stone surface, fine dust becomes sticky when touched by rain; after four months, it may not be disturbed. If an anthill rises in an unprepared mountain area, it may be disturbed as desired. If it rises in an open space, it is allowable only if soaked for less than four months. The same applies to termite clay on trees and the like, as well as to worms, dung, mice, cow hooves, and thorns. Cow hooves mean mud cut by cows’ hooves. If connected to the ground below, even one day is not allowable. The same applies to a clod of clay cut by a plow in a plowed field.

They dig a channel on a stone surface; if at first only fine dust falls there, that has been rained upon by the rain, after four months it goes under the category of unallowable earth. When the water has dried up, it is not permissible for those cleaning the channel to disturb it. But if at first it fills with water, and later dust falls, it is permissible to disturb it. For there, even when it rains, water falls on water. There is fine dust on the surface of a stone; when it rains, it sticks; even that is not permissible to disturb after four months. A termite mound has arisen on an unprepared slope; it is permissible to disturb it as desired. If it arises in the open, only if it has been rained upon for less than four months is it permissible. This same method applies also to the clay of ants that have climbed on trees, etc. This same method applies also to the excrement of earthworms, the dung of mice, cow-dung, thorns, etc. Cow-dung means the mud cut by the hooves of cows. But if it is connected to the ground with the lower surface, even for one day it is not permissible. This same method applies to one taking a clod of earth cut by a plough in a ploughed field.

When digging a trench on a stone slab, if fine dust falls there first, it is considered to have been there for four months and becomes classified as non-permissible earth. When cleaning a trench filled with water, it is not permissible to disturb it. If water fills it first and dust falls later, it is permissible to disturb it. There, even when rain falls, the water falls into the water. On a stone slab, fine dust exists; when rain falls, it sticks, and even after four months, it is not permissible to disturb it. An anthill that has not been built up can be disturbed as one wishes. If it arises in the open, it is considered to have been there for less than four months. The same applies to clay clinging to trees, etc. The same applies to the excrement of worms, rats, dogs, and thorns. A thorn refers to the mud cut by a cow’s hoof. If it is connected to the ground below, even for one day, it is not permissible. The same applies to taking a lump of mud cut by a plow in a plowed field.

Purāṇasenāsanaṃ hoti acchadanaṃ vā vinaṭṭhacchadanaṃ vā atirekacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhaṃ jātapathavīsaṅkhyameva gacchati, tato avasesaṃ chadaniṭṭhakaṃ vā gopānasīādikaṃ upakaraṇaṃ vā “iṭṭhakaṃ gaṇhāmi, gopānasiṃ bhittipādaṃ padarattharaṇaṃ pāsādatthambhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti saññāya gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati, tena saddhiṃ mattikā patati, anāpatti, bhittimattikaṃ gaṇhantassa pana āpatti. Sace yā yā atintā, taṃ taṃ gaṇhāti, anāpatti. Antogehe mattikāpuñjo hoti, tasmiṃ ekadivasaṃ ovaṭṭhe gehaṃ chādenti. Sace sabbo tinto, cātumāsaccayena jātapathavīyeva. Athassa uparibhāgoyeva tinto, anto atinto, yattakaṃ tintaṃ, taṃ kappiyakārakehi kappiyavohārena apanāmetvā sesaṃ yathāsukhaṃ vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati udakena temitattā. Ekābaddhāyeva hi jātapathavī hoti, na itarāti. Abbhokāse mattikāpākāro hoti, atirekacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho jātapathavīsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, tattha laggapaṃsuṃ pana allahatthena chupitvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace iṭṭhakapākāro hoti, yebhuyyenakaṭhalaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, yathāsukhaṃ vikopetuṃ vaṭṭati. Abbhokāse ṭhitamaṇḍapatthambhaṃ ito cito ca sañcāletvā pathaviṃ vikopentena gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati, ujukameva uddharituṃ vaṭṭati. Aññampi sukkharukkhaṃ sukkhakhāṇukaṃ vā gaṇhantassa eseva nayo.

An old dwelling, without a roof or with a ruined roof, soaked for more than four months, is reckoned as mature earth. From it, remaining roof tiles, gables, or implements may be taken with the thought, “I take a brick, I take a gable, a wall base, a floor mat, a mansion pillar,” and if clay falls with it, there is no offense; but taking wall clay incurs an offense. If he takes whatever is untinted, there is no offense. If a heap of clay inside a house is soaked for one day and the house is roofed, if all is tinted, after four months it is mature earth. If only the upper part is tinted and the inside untinted, whatever is tinted should be removed by permissible agents with a permissible expression, and the rest may be used as desired, being moistened with water. For only what is continuous is mature earth, not otherwise. A clay wall in an open space, soaked for more than four months, is reckoned as mature earth; but dust stuck to it may be taken by touching with a wet hand. If it is a brick wall, standing mostly on firm ground, it may be disturbed as desired. A pavilion pillar in an open space may not be taken by shaking it side to side and disturbing the earth; it may be lifted straight up. The same applies to taking a dry tree or dry stump.

An old dwelling, or one without a roof, or one with a ruined roof, that has been rained upon for more than four months goes under the category of born earth; the remaining roofing bricks, rafters, etc., or other equipment, it is permissible to take with the perception, “I am taking bricks, rafters, wall-supports, threshold-beams, palace-pillars,” if clay falls with them, there is no offense; but for one taking wall-clay, there is an offense. But if he takes whatever is untainted, there is no offense. There is a heap of clay inside the house; on that, rained upon for one day, they roof the house. If it is all tainted, after four months it is born earth. But if only its upper part is tainted, the inside untainted, whatever is tainted should be removed by allowable-makers with allowable expressions, and the rest may be used as desired because it has been moistened with water. For only what is connected is born earth, not otherwise. There is a clay wall in the open; rained upon for more than four months, it goes under the category of born earth; but it is permissible to touch the dust clinging to it with a wet hand and take it. If it is a brick wall, it stands mostly in the place of potsherds; it is permissible to disturb it as desired. It is not permissible to move a pillar of a pavilion standing in the open here and there and disturb the earth while taking it; it should be lifted straight up. This same method applies to one taking a dry tree or a dry stump.

An old dwelling with a roof or a ruined roof that has been there for more than four months is classified as born earth. The remaining tiles or roofing materials, such as rafters, can be taken with the intention, “I am taking a tile, a rafter, a wall post, a floor covering, a pillar,” etc. If clay falls with it, there is no offense, but taking wall clay entails an offense. If one takes only what is needed, there is no offense. If there is a heap of clay inside a house, and the house is roofed after being there for one day, if the entire heap is needed, after four months, it is classified as born earth. If only the upper part is needed and the inside is not, the needed portion can be removed by permissible means, and the rest can be used as one wishes, as it is moistened by water. Only the connected earth is born earth, not the other. A clay wall in the open that has been there for more than four months is classified as born earth, but the dust clinging to it can be touched with a wet hand and taken. If it is a brick wall, mostly standing on gravel, it can be disturbed as one wishes. When moving a standing pillar in the open from here and there and disturbing the earth, it is not permissible to take it; it should be lifted straight. The same applies to taking dry wood or dry branches.

74. Navakammatthaṃ thambhaṃ vā pāsāṇaṃ vā rukkhaṃ vā daṇḍakehi uccāletvā pavaṭṭentā gacchanti , tattha jātapathavī bhijjati, sace suddhacittā pavaṭṭenti, anāpatti. Atha pana tena apadesena pathaviṃ bhinditukāmāyeva honti, āpatti. Sākhādīni kaḍḍhantānampi pathaviyaṃ dārūni phālentānampi eseva nayo. Pathaviyaṃ aṭṭhisūcikaṇṭakādīsupi yaṃ kiñci ākoṭetuṃ vā pavesetuṃ vā na vaṭṭati, “passāvadhārāya vegena pathaviṃ bhindissāmī”ti evaṃ passāvampi kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Karontassa bhijjati, āpatti, “visamabhūmiṃ samaṃ karissāmī”ti sammajjaniyā ghaṃsitumpi na vaṭṭati. Vattasīseneva hi sammajjitabbaṃ. Keci kattarayaṭṭhiyā bhūmiṃ koṭṭenti, pādaṅguṭṭhakena vilikhanti, “caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmā”ti punappunaṃ bhūmiṃ bhindantā caṅkamanti, sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati, vīriyasampaggahatthaṃ pana samaṇadhammaṃ karontena suddhacittena caṅkamituṃ vaṭṭati. “Hatthaṃ khovissāmā”ti pathaviyaṃ ghaṃsanti, na vaṭṭati, aghaṃsantena pana allahatthaṃ pathaviyaṃ ṭhapetvā rajaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

74. For new construction, when lifting a pillar, stone, or tree with poles and rolling it along, if mature earth breaks, if they roll it with a pure mind, there is no offense. But if they intend to break the earth by that pretext, there is an offense. The same applies to dragging branches or splitting wood in the earth. Sticking bones, needles, thorns, or anything into the earth or inserting them is not allowable. Even urinating with the thought, “I will break the earth with the force of the stream,” is not allowable; if it breaks while doing so, there is an offense. Sweeping with a broom to level uneven ground is not allowable; it should be swept only with a rounded head. Some strike the ground with a staff, scratch it with a toe, or walk repeatedly breaking the ground to show a walking path—all this is not allowable. But walking with a pure mind to fulfill the monk’s duty with energy is allowable. Rubbing the hand on the ground, saying, “I will wash my hand,” is not allowable; but placing a wet hand on the ground to take dust without rubbing is allowable.

74. For the purpose of new work, they move a pillar, a stone, or a tree by lifting it with sticks and rolling it; there, born earth is broken; if they roll it with a pure mind, there is no offense. But if they are intent on breaking the earth by that pretext, there is an offense. This same method applies to those dragging branches, etc., and to those splitting wood on the earth. It is not permissible to strike or insert anything, such as a bone needle, thorn, etc., into the earth; it is not permissible even to urinate thinking, “I will break the earth with the force of the stream of urine.” For one doing so, it breaks, there is an offense; it is not permissible even to rub with a broom thinking, “I will level the uneven ground.” For it should be swept only with the tip. Some strike the ground with a walking stick, scratch with a toe, walk repeatedly breaking the ground thinking, “We will show the place for walking meditation,” all this is not permissible; but one making an effort in the practice of a samaṇa, with a pure mind, it is permissible to walk. They rub their hands on the earth thinking, “We will wash our hands,” it is not permissible; but it is permissible to place a wet hand on the earth without rubbing and take the dust.

74. When moving a pillar, stone, or tree for new construction by pushing it with poles, if born earth breaks, there is no offense if they push with a pure mind. However, if they intend to break the earth, there is an offense. The same applies to pulling branches or splitting wood on the earth. It is not permissible to strike or insert anything into the earth, such as bones, thorns, etc. It is not permissible to urinate with the intention, “I will break the earth with the force of the stream.” If one does so and the earth breaks, there is an offense. It is not permissible to smooth uneven ground with a broom. Only the surface should be swept. Some sweep the ground with a broomstick or scratch it with a toe, saying, “I will show the walking meditation path,” and repeatedly break the ground while walking. All this is not permissible, but walking with a pure mind for the sake of effort is permissible. It is not permissible to scratch the earth with the intention, “I will dig with my hand,” but it is permissible to place a wet hand on the earth and take dust without scratching.

Keci kaṇḍukacchuādīhi ābādhikā chinnataṭādīsu aṅgapaccaṅgāni ghaṃsanti, na vaṭṭati. Jātapathaviṃ dahati vā dahāpeti vā, pācittiyaṃ, antamaso pattampi pacanto yattakesu ṭhānesu aggiṃ deti vā dāpeti vā, tattakāni pācittiyāni, tasmā pattaṃ pacantenapi pubbe pakkaṭṭhāneyeva pacitabbo. Adaḍḍhāya pathaviyā aggiṃ ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭati, pattapacanakapālassa pana upari aggiṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. Dārūnaṃ upari ṭhapeti, so aggi tāni dahanto gantvā pathaviṃ dahati, na vaṭṭati. Iṭṭhakakapālādīsupi eseva nayo. Tatrāpi hi iṭṭhakādīnaṃyeva upari ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Tesaṃ anupādānattā. Na hi tāni aggissa upādānasaṅkhyaṃ gacchanti, sukkhakhāṇusukkharukkhādīsupi aggiṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana “pathaviṃ appattameva nibbāpetvā gamissāmī”ti deti, vaṭṭati. Pacchā nibbāpetuṃ na sakkoti, avisayattā anāpatti. Tiṇukkaṃ gahetvā gacchanto hatthe ḍayhamāne bhūmiyaṃ pāteti, anāpatti. Patitaṭṭhāneyeva upādānaṃ datvā aggiṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Daḍḍhapathaviyā ca yattakaṃ ṭhānaṃ usumāya anugataṃ, sabbaṃ vikopetuṃ vaṭṭati.

Some with itching or sores rub limbs on cut banks and the like—it is not allowable. Burning or causing to burn mature earth incurs a pācittiya; even when cooking a bowl, for each place where fire is lit or caused to be lit, there are that many pācittiyas. Thus, even when cooking a bowl, it should be cooked only in a previously baked spot. Placing fire on unburnt earth is not allowable; but placing fire on top of a cooking pot or shard is allowable. If fire is placed on wood, and it burns the wood and reaches the earth, it is not allowable. The same applies to bricks or shards; fire may be placed only on top of them. Why? Because they are not fuel. For they are not reckoned as fuel for the fire. Placing fire on dry stumps or dry trees is not allowable. But if he gives it, thinking, “I will extinguish it before it reaches the earth,” it is allowable; if he cannot extinguish it later, there is no offense as it is beyond his control. If, while carrying a grass torch, his hand burns and he drops it on the ground, there is no offense. Making a fire by adding fuel at the spot where it fell is allowable. Whatever area of burnt earth is permeated by heat may all be disturbed.

Some, afflicted with itching, scabies, etc., rub their limbs and minor limbs on broken banks, etc., it is not permissible. If one burns or causes to burn born earth, there is a pācittiya offense; even one cooking a bowl, in as many places as he gives or causes to give fire, there are that many pācittiya offenses; therefore, even one cooking a bowl should cook only in a place previously cooked. It is not permissible to place fire on unburnt earth; but it is permissible to place fire on top of a bowl-cooking stand. He places it on top of wood; that fire, burning them, goes and burns the earth, it is not permissible. This same method applies to bricks, potsherds, etc. For there too, it is permissible to place it only on top of the bricks, etc. Why? Because of their non-fuel nature. For they do not go under the category of fuel for the fire; it is not permissible to give fire even to dry stumps, dry trees, etc. But if he gives it thinking, “I will extinguish it before it reaches the earth,” it is permissible. Later he is unable to extinguish it; because it is beyond his control, there is no offense. One carrying a burning torch, when it burns his hand, throws it on the ground; there is no offense. It is permissible to give fuel and make a fire only in the place where it has fallen. And as much of the burnt earth as is permeated by heat, all that is permissible to disturb.

Some, due to illness, scratch their limbs on broken banks, etc., with a ball or stick; this is not permissible. Burning born earth oneself or having it burned entails a pācittiya offense, even if one is cooking a bowl and lights a fire in as many places as necessary, each entails a pācittiya offense. Therefore, even when cooking a bowl, one should cook it in a previously cooked place. It is not permissible to place fire on unburned earth, but it is permissible to place fire on a bowl-cooking tile. If one places fire on wood, and the fire burns the wood and reaches the earth, it is permissible. The same applies to bricks and tiles. There, it is permissible to place fire on bricks, etc., because they are not fuel. They do not count as fuel for the fire. It is not permissible to light fire on dry branches or dry wood. However, if one lights a fire intending, “I will extinguish it before it reaches the earth,” it is permissible. If one cannot extinguish it later, there is no offense due to lack of intent. If one carries a torch and, when the hand is burning, drops it on the ground, there is no offense. It is permissible to light a fire where it falls. On burned earth, wherever the heat has spread, it is permissible to disturb it.

Yo pana ajānanako bhikkhu araṇisahitena aggiṃ nibbattetvā hatthena ukkhipitvā “kiṃ karomī”ti vadati, “jālehī”ti vattabbo. “Hattho ḍayhatī”ti vadati, “yathā na ḍayhati, tathā karohī”ti vattabbo. “Bhūmiyaṃ pātehī”ti pana na vattabbo. Sace hatthe ḍayhamāne pāteti, “pathaviṃ dahissāmī”ti apātitattā anāpatti, patitaṭṭhāne pana aggiṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. “Imassa thambhassa āvāṭaṃ jāna, mahāmattikaṃ jāna, thusamattikaṃ jāna, mahāmattikaṃ dehi, thusamattikaṃ dehi, mattikaṃ āhara, paṃsuṃ āhara, mattikāya attho, paṃsunā attho , imassa thambhassa āvāṭaṃ kappiyaṃ karohi, imaṃ mattikaṃ kappiyaṃ karohi, imaṃ paṃsuṃ kappiyaṃ karohī”ti evaṃ kappiyavohārena yaṃ kiñci kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Aññavihito kenaci saddhiṃ kiñci kathento pādaṅguṭṭhakena kattarayaṭṭhiyā vā pathaviṃ vilikhanto tiṭṭhati, evaṃ asatiyā vilikhantassa bhindantassa vā anāpatti.

If an unknowing monk generates fire with a firestick, lifts it with his hand, and says, “What should I do?” he should be told, “Light it.” If he says, “My hand is burning,” he should be told, “Do it so it doesn’t burn.” But “Drop it on the ground” should not be said. If he drops it while his hand burns, there is no offense, as he did not drop it intending, “I will burn the earth”; making a fire at the spot where it fell is allowable. Saying, “Know this pillar’s pit, know the thick clay, know the fine clay, give thick clay, give fine clay, bring clay, bring soil, I need clay, I need soil, make this pillar’s pit permissible, make this clay permissible, make this soil permissible,” with such permissible expressions, anything may be caused to be done. While talking with someone about something else, standing and scratching the ground with a toe or staff, if he scratches or breaks it unintentionally, there is no offense.

But if an unknowing monk, having produced fire with fire-sticks, lifts it with his hand and says, “What shall I do?” he should be told, “Kindle it.” If he says, “My hand is burning,” he should be told, “Do as it does not burn.” But he should not be told, “Throw it on the ground.” If, while it is burning his hand, he throws it, because it was not thrown thinking, “I will burn the earth,” there is no offense; but it is permissible to make a fire in the place where it has fallen. “Know the pit for this pillar, know the great clay, know the chaff-clay, give the great clay, give the chaff-clay, bring clay, bring soil, there is a need for clay, there is a need for soil, make the pit for this pillar allowable, make this clay allowable, make this soil allowable,” with such allowable expressions, it is permissible to cause anything to be done. One engaged in conversation with another stands scratching the earth with his toe or a walking stick; for one thus scratching or breaking without mindfulness, there is no offense.

If an ignorant monk generates fire with a fire drill and lifts it with his hand, saying, “What should I do?” he should be told, “Extinguish it.” If he says, “My hand is burning,” he should be told, “Do it in a way that it does not burn.” However, he should not be told, “Drop it on the ground.” If he drops it while his hand is burning, there is no offense because he did not intend to burn the earth, but it is permissible to light a fire where it falls. It is permissible to say in a permissible manner, “Know the pit for this post, know the large clay, know the chaff clay, give large clay, give chaff clay, bring clay, bring soil, there is a need for clay, there is a need for soil, make the pit for this post permissible, make this clay permissible, make this soil permissible.” If one is engaged in conversation with someone and absentmindedly scratches the ground with a toe or a broomstick, there is no offense for scratching or breaking the ground.

15. Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathā

15. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Plant Life

15. Discussion of the Determination of Plant Life

15. The Discussion on the Judgment of Living Plants

75. Bhūtagāmoti pañcahi bījehi jātānaṃ rukkhalatādīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Tatrimāni pañca bījāni – mūlabījaṃ khandhabījaṃ phaḷubījaṃ aggabījaṃ bījabījanti. Tattha mūlabījaṃ nāma haliddi siṅgiveraṃ vacā vacattaṃ ativisaṃ kaṭukarohiṇī usīraṃ bhaddamuttakaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūle jāyanti mūle sañjāyanti, etaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma. Khandhabījaṃ nāma assattho nigrodho pilakkho udumbaro kacchako kapitthano, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi khandhe jāyanti khandhe sañjāyanti, etaṃ khandhabījaṃ nāma. Phaḷubījaṃ nāma ucchu veḷu naḷo, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi pabbe jāyanti pabbe sañjāyanti, etaṃ phaḷubījaṃ nāma. Aggabījaṃ nāma ajjukaṃ phaṇijjakaṃ hiriveraṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi agge jāyanti agge sañjāyanti, etaṃ aggabījaṃ nāma. Bījabījaṃ nāma pubbaṇṇaṃ aparaṇṇaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi bīje jāyanti bīje sañjāyanti, etaṃ bījabījaṃ nāma (pāci. 91). Tattha bhūtagāme bhūtagāmasaññī chindati vā chindāpeti vā bhindati vā bhindāpeti vā pacati vā pacāpeti vā, pācittiyaṃ. Bhūtagāmañhi vikopentassa pācittiyaṃ, bhūtagāmaparimocitaṃ pañcavidhampi bījagāmaṃ vikopentassa dukkaṭaṃ.

75. Bhūtagāma—This is a designation for trees, creepers, and so forth born from five kinds of seeds. These are the five seeds: root-seed, stem-seed, joint-seed, tip-seed, and true seed. Here, root-seed means turmeric, ginger, vacā, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, and whatever else is born from the root, arises from the root—this is called root-seed. Stem-seed means banyan, fig, pilakkha, udumbara, kacchaka, kapitthana, and whatever else is born from the stem, arises from the stem—this is called stem-seed. Joint-seed means sugarcane, bamboo, reed, and whatever else is born from the joint, arises from the joint—this is called joint-seed. Tip-seed means ajjuka, phaṇijjaka, hirivera, and whatever else is born from the tip, arises from the tip—this is called tip-seed. True seed means pubbaṇṇa, aparaṇṇa, and whatever else is born from the seed, arises from the seed—this is called true seed (pāci. 91). Here, one who perceives bhūtagāma as bhūtagāma and cuts it, causes it to be cut, breaks it, causes it to be broken, cooks it, or causes it to be cooked incurs a pācittiya. For disturbing bhūtagāma incurs a pācittiya; disturbing the five kinds of bījagāma freed from bhūtagāma incurs a dukkaṭa.

75. Bhūtagāmo refers to trees, creepers, and other plants that originate from five kinds of seeds. These five seeds are: root-seeds, stem-seeds, joint-seeds, top-seeds, and seed-seeds. Root-seed includes turmeric, ginger, sweet flag, vacattaṃ, ativisaṃ, kaṭukarohiṇī, fragrant root, bhaddamuttakaṃ, and any others that grow from roots, that develop from roots; this is called root-seed. Stem-seed includes the banyan tree, the nigrodha tree, the pilakkha tree, the cluster fig tree, kacchaka, kapitthana, and any others that grow from stems, that develop from stems; this is called stem-seed. Joint-seed includes sugarcane, bamboo, reeds, and any others that grow from joints, that develop from joints; this is called joint-seed. Top-seed includes ajjukaṃ, phaṇijjakaṃ, hiriveraṃ, and any others that grow from the top, that develop from the top; this is called top-seed. Seed-seed includes early grains and late grains, and any others that grow from seeds, that develop from seeds; this is called seed-seed (pāci. 91). In that case, one who, with the perception of ‘bhūtagāma’ in regard to ‘bhūtagāma’, cuts or causes to cut, breaks or causes to break, cooks or causes to cook, incurs a pācittiya. For one who destroys ‘bhūtagāma’, there is a pācittiya. For one who destroys the fivefold ‘bījagāma’ that is distinct from ‘bhūtagāma’, there is a dukkaṭa.

75. Bhūtagāmo means the collective term for trees, creepers, etc., that have grown from five types of seeds. These five types of seeds are: root-seeds, stem-seeds, joint-seeds, tip-seeds, and seed-seeds. Among these, root-seeds refer to turmeric, ginger, orris root, ativisa, katukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, and any other plants that grow or originate from roots. Stem-seeds refer to the banyan tree, fig tree, pilakkha, udumbara, kacchaka, kapitthana, and any other plants that grow or originate from stems. Joint-seeds refer to sugarcane, bamboo, reeds, and any other plants that grow or originate from nodes. Tip-seeds refer to ajjuka, phaṇijjaka, hirivera, and any other plants that grow or originate from tips. Seed-seeds refer to pubbaṇṇa, aparaṇṇa, and any other plants that grow or originate from seeds (pāci. 91). If one, perceiving a plant as a plant, cuts, causes to cut, breaks, causes to break, cooks, or causes to cook it, a pācittiya offense is incurred. For damaging a plant, a pācittiya offense is incurred; for damaging the five types of seed-plants, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred.

76. Bījagāmabhūtagāmo (pāci. aṭṭha. 922) nāmesa atthi udakaṭṭho, atthi thalaṭṭho. Tattha udakaṭṭho sāsapamattikatilabījakādibhedā sapaṇṇikā ca apaṇṇikā ca sabbā sevālajāti, antamaso udakapappaṭakaṃ upādāya “bhūtagāmo”ti veditabbo. Udakapappaṭako nāma upari thaddho pharusavaṇṇo heṭṭhā mudu nīlavaṇṇo hoti. Tattha yassa sevālassa mūlaṃ oruhitvā pathaviyaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ, tassa pathavī ṭhānaṃ. Yo udake sañcarati, tassa udakaṃ. Pathaviyaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ yattha katthaci vikopentassa, uddharitvā vā ṭhānantaraṃ saṅkāmentassa pācittiyaṃ, udake sañcarantaṃ vikopentasseva pācittiyaṃ. Hatthehi pana ito cito ca viyūhitvā nahāyituṃ vaṭṭati. Sakalañhi udakaṃ tassa ṭhānaṃ, tasmā na so ettāvatā ṭhānantaraṃ saṅkāmito hoti. Udakato pana udakena vinā sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati, udakena saddhiṃ ukkhipitvā puna udake pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭati. Uppalinipaduminiādīni jalajavallitiṇāni udakato uddharantassa vā tattheva vikopentassa vā pācittiyaṃ, parehi uppāṭitāni vikopentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Tāni hi bījagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchanti, tilabījakasāsapamattikasevālopi udakato uddhaṭo amilāto aggabījasaṅgahaṃ gacchati. Mahāpaccariyādīsu “anantakatilabījakaudakapappaṭakādīni dukkaṭavatthūnī”ti vuttaṃ, tattha kāraṇaṃ na dissati. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sampuṇṇabhūtagāmaṃ na hoti, tasmā dukkaṭa”nti vuttaṃ, tampi na sameti. Bhūtagāme hi pācittiyaṃ bījagāme dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāma tatiyo koṭṭhāso neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāsu āgato, athetaṃ bījagāmasaṅgahaṃ gamissatīti, tampi na yuttaṃ abhūtagāmamūlattā tādisassa bījagāmassāti. Apica “garukalahukesu garuke ṭhātabba”nti etaṃ vinayalakkhaṇaṃ.

76. Bījagāma and bhūtagāma (pāci. aṭṭha. 922)—these exist as water-dwelling and land-dwelling. Among them, the water-dwelling include mustard-sized seeds, sesame seeds, and so forth, with leaves or without—all types of algae, even including the water crust—are to be understood as “bhūtagāma.” The water crust is firm and rough-colored on top, soft and blue-colored below. Here, for algae whose roots descend and establish in the earth, the earth is its place. For that which moves in water, water is its place. Disturbing what is established in the earth anywhere, or uprooting it and moving it to another place, incurs a pācittiya; disturbing what moves in water incurs a pācittiya only when disturbed. But moving it from side to side with hands while bathing is allowable; for all the water is its place, so it is not moved to another place by this much. It is not allowable to intentionally lift it out of the water without water; but lifting it with water and placing it back in water is allowable. Uprooting water lilies, lotuses, and other aquatic creepers or grasses from the water, or disturbing them there, incurs a pācittiya; disturbing those uprooted by others incurs a dukkaṭa. For these are included in bījagāma; even sesame seeds or mustard-sized algae, when lifted from water unfaded, are included in tip-seed. In the Mahāpaccariya and others, it is said, “Unfinished sesame seeds, water crusts, and so forth are objects of dukkaṭa,” but no reason is seen there. In the Andhaka Commentary, it is said, “It is not complete bhūtagāma, thus a dukkaṭa,” but this does not fit. For bhūtagāma incurs a pācittiya, and bījagāma a dukkaṭa. An incomplete bhūtagāma as a third category is not found in either the Pali or the commentaries; nor is it fitting to say this goes into bījagāma, as such bījagāma lacks a bhūtagāma root. Moreover, “In heavy and light matters, one should stand on the heavy” is a Vinaya principle.

76. The ‘bījagāma-bhūtagāma’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 922) has that which is water-based and that which is land-based. Among them, the water-based includes all types of water plants (sevālajāti) with or without leaves, from the size of mustard seeds and sesame seeds, including even water-scum (udakapappaṭakaṃ), and should be understood as ‘bhūtagāma’. The water-scum is firm on the top and rough in color, soft below and blue in color. Among them, the root of the water plant which has descended and is established in the earth, the earth is its place. For that which moves in the water, water is its place. For destroying in any way, or uprooting, or transferring to another place that which is established in the earth, there is a pācittiya; for destroying that which moves in the water, there is a pācittiya. However, it is allowable to bathe, moving it here and there with the hands. The entire water is its place, therefore it is not 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 in the water. For uprooting or destroying water lilies, lotuses, and other aquatic creepers and grasses from the water, there is a pācittiya; for destroying those uprooted by others, there is a dukkaṭa. These are included in the ‘bījagāma’. Sesame seeds, mustard seeds, and water plants uprooted from the water, before they wither, are included as top-seeds. In the Mahāpaccariya and other texts, it is said, “Sesame seeds, water-scum, etc., without roots are objects of dukkaṭa,” but the reason for this is not seen. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “It is not complete ‘bhūtagāma’, therefore it is a dukkaṭa,” but that also does not fit. Because in ‘bhūtagāma’ a pācittiya is stated, and in ‘bījagāma’ a dukkaṭa is stated. A third category called incomplete ‘bhūtagāma’ is not found in the Pāḷi or the Commentaries, so this would be included in the ‘bījagāma’, but that is also not proper, because such a ‘bījagāma’ is rooted in non-‘bhūtagāma’. Moreover, “In cases of grave and light offenses, one should stand on the grave offense,” this is the characteristic of the Vinaya.

76. The term bījagāma (pāci. aṭṭha. 922) refers to both aquatic and terrestrial plants. Among these, aquatic plants include mustard-sized seeds, sesame seeds, and various types of algae, including those with and without leaves, all of which are considered part of the algae family, even down to the water moss. Water moss refers to a plant that is hard and rough in texture on the surface and soft and blue underneath. If the roots of such algae have descended and established themselves in the ground, the ground is their place. If they float in water, the water is their place. If one damages them where they are established in the ground, or removes them and relocates them elsewhere, a pācittiya offense is incurred. If one damages them while they are floating in water, a pācittiya offense is also incurred. However, it is permissible to bathe after separating them with one’s hands. The entire water body is their place, so relocating them within the water does not count as moving them to a different place. It is not permissible to intentionally lift them out of the water without water, but it is permissible to lift them with water and then return them to the water. For lotus and lily plants, which are aquatic plants, if one removes them from the water or damages them there, a pācittiya offense is incurred. If others have uprooted them and one damages them, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. These plants are included in the category of seed-plants. Even sesame seeds, mustard seeds, and algae, when removed from the water and not dried, are included in the category of tip-seeds. In the Mahāpaccariyā, it is said that “anantaka, sesame seeds, water moss, etc., are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense,” but the reason for this is not clear. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said that “it is not a complete plant, so it is a dukkaṭa offense,” but this also does not align. For plants, a pācittiya offense is incurred; for seed-plants, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. The term “incomplete plant” refers to a third category, which is not mentioned in the Pāḷi or the commentaries, but it is suggested that it might be included in the seed-plant category. However, this is not appropriate because it lacks the characteristics of a plant. Moreover, “in grave and minor matters, one should adhere to the grave,” which is a characteristic of the Vinaya.

Thalaṭṭhe chinnarukkhānaṃ avasiṭṭho haritakhāṇu nāma hoti, tattha kakudhakarañjapiyaṅgupanasādīnaṃ khāṇu uddhaṃ vaḍḍhati, so bhūtagāmena saṅgahito. Tālanāḷikerādīnaṃ khāṇu uddhaṃ na vaḍḍhati, so bījagāmena saṅgahito. Kadaliyā pana aphalitāya khāṇu bhūtagāmena saṅgahito, phalitāya bījagāmena. Kadalī pana phalitā yāva nīlapaṇṇā, tāva bhūtagāmeneva saṅgahitā, tathā phalito veḷu. Yadā pana aggato paṭṭhāya sussati, tadā bījagāmena saṅgahaṃ gacchati. Katarabījagāmena? Phaḷubījagāmena. Kiṃ tato nibbattati? Na kiñci. Yadi hi nibbatteyya, bhūtagāmena saṅgahaṃ gaccheyya. Indasālādirukkhe chinditvā rāsiṃ karonti, kiñcāpi rāsikatadaṇḍakehi ratanappamāṇāpi sākhā nikkhamanti, bījagāmeneva pana saṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Maṇḍapatthāya vā vatiatthāya vā valliāropanatthāya vā bhūmiyaṃ nikhaṇanti, mūlesu ceva paṇṇesu ca niggatesu puna bhūtagāmasaṅkhyaṃ gacchanti, mūlamattesu pana paṇṇamattesu vā niggatesupi bījagāmena saṅgahitā eva.

In land-dwelling, the remaining green stump of a cut tree is called a live stump; there, stumps of kakudha, karañja, piyaṅgu, panasa, and so forth grow upward, and these are included in bhūtagāma. Stumps of palm, coconut, and so forth do not grow upward, and these are included in bījagāma. For a banana that has not fruited, the stump is included in bhūtagāma; for one that has fruited, in bījagāma. But a banana that has fruited, as long as it has green leaves, is included only in bhūtagāma; likewise bamboo after fruiting. When it dries from the tip downward, it is included in bījagāma. Which bījagāma? Joint-seed. What arises from it? Nothing. For if something arose, it would be included in bhūtagāma. When trees like indasāla are cut and made into a pile, even if shoots as long as a cubit emerge from the stacked sticks, they are included only in bījagāma. If planted in the ground for a pavilion, fence, or to grow creepers, once roots and leaves emerge, they are reckoned as bhūtagāma again; but with only roots or only leaves emerging, they remain included in bījagāma.

On land, there is the green stump remaining from felled trees. On it, the stumps of kakudha, karañja, piyaṅgu, panasa, and other trees grow upwards; this is included in ‘bhūtagāma’. The stumps of palm, coconut, and other trees do not grow upwards; this is included in ‘bījagāma’. But the stump of a banana tree before it has borne fruit is included in ‘bhūtagāma’, and after it has borne fruit, in ‘bījagāma’. A banana tree that has borne fruit, as long as it has green leaves, is included in ‘bhūtagāma’, and so is a bamboo that has borne fruit. But when it begins to dry from the top, then it is included in ‘bījagāma’. With which ‘bījagāma’? With joint-seed. What is produced from it? Nothing. If something were produced, it would be included in ‘bhūtagāma’. They chop down trees like indasāla and make a pile; even if branches the size of a ratana measure sprout from the piled-up logs, they are included in ‘bījagāma’. They dig into the ground for a pavilion, or for a fence, or for planting a creeper; when roots and leaves emerge, they are again counted as ‘bhūtagāma’, but when only roots or only leaves emerge, they are included in ‘bījagāma’.

In terrestrial plants, the remaining green stumps of cut trees are called haritakhāṇu. Among these, the stumps of kakudha, karañja, piyaṅgu, and panasa grow upward and are included in the plant category. The stumps of tāla and coconut trees do not grow upward and are included in the seed-plant category. The stump of a banana tree without fruit is included in the plant category, but with fruit, it is included in the seed-plant category. A banana tree with fruit is included in the plant category as long as its leaves are green, and the same applies to bamboo with fruit. However, when it begins to dry from the tip, it is included in the seed-plant category. Which seed-plant category? The joint-seed category. What grows from it? Nothing. If something were to grow, it would be included in the plant category. For trees like indasāla, even if branches as large as jewels grow from the cut stumps, they are still included in the seed-plant category. If they are planted in the ground for the purpose of building a pavilion, supporting a fence, or training a creeper, and roots and leaves grow again, they regain the status of plants. However, if only roots or leaves grow, they remain in the seed-plant category.

Yāni kānici bījāni pathaviyaṃ vā udakena siñcitvā ṭhapitāni, kapālādīsu vā allapaṃsuṃ pakkhipitvā nikkhittāni honti, sabbāni mūlamatte vā paṇṇamatte vā niggatepi bījāniyeva. Sacepi mūlāni ca upari aṅkuro ca niggacchati, yāva aṅkuro harito na hoti, tāva bījāniyeva. Muggādīnaṃ pana paṇṇesu uṭṭhitesu, vīhiādīnaṃ vā aṅkure harite nīlavaṇṇe jāte bhūtagāmasaṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Tālaṭṭhīnaṃ paṭhamaṃ sūkaradāṭhā viya mūlaṃ niggacchati, niggatepi yāva upari pattavaṭṭi na niggacchati, tāva bījagāmo nāmayeva. Nāḷikerassa tacaṃ bhinditvā dantasūci viya aṅkuro niggacchati, yāva migasiṅgasadisā nīlapattavaṭṭi na hoti, tāva bījagāmoyeva. Mūle aniggatepi tādisāya pattavaṭṭiyā jātāya amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchati.

Any seeds placed in the earth or moistened with water, or put in a pot with wet soil, are all just seeds even when roots or leaves emerge. Even if roots and a shoot emerge above, as long as the shoot is not green, they remain seeds. For mung beans and the like, when leaves arise, or for rice and the like, when a green, blue shoot emerges, they are included in bhūtagāma. For a palm seed, first a root emerges like a pig’s tusk; even when it emerges, as long as the upper leaf-roll does not emerge, it remains only bījagāma. For a coconut, a shoot emerges like an elephant’s tusk breaking through the husk; as long as a blue leaf-roll like a deer’s horn does not form, it remains bījagāma. Even if the root does not emerge, once such a leaf-roll forms, it is included in rootless bhūtagāma.

Any seeds that are placed on the earth or watered, or placed in pots, etc., with fresh soil, all of them, even if only roots or only leaves emerge, are still seeds. Even if roots and a sprout above emerge, as long as the sprout is not green, they are still seeds. But when leaves emerge from beans and other such plants, or when the sprout of rice and other such plants becomes green and blue in color, they are included in ‘bhūtagāma’. From palm seeds, first a root like a pig’s tusk emerges; even when it has emerged, as long as the leaf-bud above does not emerge, it is still ‘bījagāma’. From the coconut, an অঙ্কুর like a tooth-needle emerges, breaking through the shell; as long as a blue leaf-bud like a deer’s horn does not appear, it is still ‘bījagāma’. Even if the root has not emerged, when such a leaf-bud has appeared, it is included in rootless ‘bhūtagāma’.

Any seeds that are placed in the ground or watered, or placed in pots filled with moist soil, remain as seeds even if roots or leaves grow. Even if roots grow and a sprout emerges, as long as the sprout is not green, they remain as seeds. For mung beans, etc., when leaves have grown, and for rice, etc., when green sprouts have emerged, they are included in the plant category. For tāla trees, the first root that emerges resembles a boar’s tusk, and as long as the upper leaf circle has not emerged, it remains in the seed-plant category. For coconut trees, when the sprout emerges like a toothpick after breaking the husk, as long as the blue leaf circle resembling a deer’s horn has not emerged, it remains in the seed-plant category. Even if the root has not emerged, if such a leaf circle has grown, it is included in the category of rootless plants.

Ambaṭṭhiādīni vīhiādīhi vinicchinitabbāni. Vandākā vā aññā vā yā kāci rukkhe jāyitvā rukkhaṃ ottharati, rukkhova tassā ṭhānaṃ, taṃ vikopentassa vā tato uddharantassa vā pācittiyaṃ. Ekā amūlikā latā hoti, aṅguliveṭhako viya vanappagumbadaṇḍake veṭheti, tassāpi ayameva vinicchayo. Gehapamukhapākāravedikā cetiyādīsu nīlavaṇṇo sevālo hoti, yāva dve tīṇi pattāni na sañjāyanti, tāva aggabījasaṅgahaṃ gacchati. Pattesu jātesu pācittiyavatthu, tasmā tādisesu ṭhānesu sudhālepampi dātuṃ na vaṭṭati, anupasampannena littassa upari sinehalepo dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace nidāghasamaye sukkhasevālo tiṭṭhati, taṃ sammuñjanīādīhi ghaṃsitvā apanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Pānīyaghaṭādīnaṃ bahi sevālo dukkaṭavatthu, anto abbohāriko, dantakaṭṭhapūvādīsu kaṇṇakampi abbohārikameva. Vuttañhetaṃ “sace gerukaparikammakatā bhitti kaṇṇakitā hoti, coḷakaṃ temetvā pīḷetvā pamajjitabbā”ti (mahāva. 66).

Mango seeds and the like should be judged like rice and the like. Vandākā or any other creeper born on a tree and spreading over it—the tree is its place; disturbing it or uprooting it from there incurs a pācittiya. There is one rootless creeper, like a finger-twist, winding around a forest bush stem; the same ruling applies to it. On house fronts, walls, railings, cetiyas, and so forth, blue-green algae appear; as long as two or three leaves do not form, it is included in tip-seed. When leaves form, it becomes an object of pācittiya; thus, even applying plaster in such places is not allowable, though an unordained person may apply a top layer of plaster over what is smeared. If dry algae remain in the summer, they may be swept away with a broom or the like. Algae on the outside of water pots are an object of dukkaṭa; inside, they are unfit for use. Even ear-spots on tooth-sticks or cakes are unfit for use. It is said, “If a wall treated with red ochre is scratched, it should be wiped with a moist cloth pressed down” (mahāva. 66).

Mango seeds and others should be determined in the same way as rice and others. A vandāka or any other plant that grows on a tree and covers the tree, the tree is its place; for destroying it or uprooting it from there, there is a pācittiya. There is a rootless creeper that coils around the branches of forest bushes like a finger-ring; the determination is the same for it. On the walls of houses, verandahs, stūpas, etc., there is a blue water plant; as long as two or three leaves do not appear, it is included in top-seed. When leaves appear, it is an object of pācittiya, therefore in such places, it is not allowable to even apply a plaster of clay; it is allowable to apply an oil coating over what has been plastered by a non-ordained person. If dry moss remains during the hot season, it is allowable to scrape it off with a broom and remove it. Moss on the outside of water pots and other such things is an object of dukkaṭa, inside it is insignificant (abbohārika). Even the residue on tooth-sticks, snacks and other things is insignificant. It is said, “If a wall plastered with red chalk is stained with residue, it should be wiped after wetting and squeezing a cloth” (mahāva. 66).

Ambaṭṭhi, etc., should be distinguished from rice, etc. Vandākā or any other creeper that grows on a tree and covers it is considered part of the tree. Damaging it or removing it incurs a pācittiya offense. There is also a rootless creeper that wraps around tree branches like a finger ring. The same rule applies to it. On the walls of houses, temples, etc., blue algae grow, and as long as two or three leaves have not grown, they are included in the tip-seed category. When leaves have grown, it becomes a ground for a pācittiya offense. Therefore, in such places, even applying whitewash is not permissible, but a novice may apply lime wash over it. If algae dry up during the hot season, it is permissible to scrub them off with a broom, etc., and remove them. Algae on the outside of water pots, etc., are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense, but the inside is not an offense. Similarly, in tooth-cleaning sticks, cakes, etc., even a small particle is not an offense. It is said, “If a wall prepared with red chalk becomes moldy, a cloth should be soaked and pressed to clean it” (mahāva. 66).

77. Pāsāṇajāti pāsāṇadaddusevālaseleyyakādīni aharitavaṇṇāni apattakāni ca dukkaṭavatthukāni. Ahicchattakaṃ yāva makuṭaṃ hoti, tāva dukkaṭavatthu, pupphitakālato paṭṭhāya abbohārikaṃ, allarukkhato pana ahicchattakaṃ gaṇhanto rukkhatacaṃ vikopeti, tasmā tattha pācittiyaṃ. Rukkhapapaṭikāyapi eseva nayo. Yā pana indasālakakudhādīnaṃ papaṭikā rukkhato muccitvā tiṭṭhati, taṃ gaṇhantassa anāpatti. Niyyāsampi rukkhato muccitvā ṭhitaṃ sukkharukkhe vā laggaṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati, allarukkhato na vaṭṭati. Lākhāyapi eseva nayo. Rukkhaṃ cāletvā paṇḍupalāsaṃ vā pariṇatakaṇikārādipupphaṃ vā pātentassa pācittiyameva. Hatthakukkuccena mudukesu indasālanuhīkhandhādīsu vā tatthajātakatālapaṇṇādīsu vā akkharaṃ chindantassapi eseva nayo. Sāmaṇerānaṃ pupphaṃ ocinantānaṃ sākhaṃ onāmetvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tehi pana pupphehi pānīyaṃ na vāsetabbaṃ, pānīyavāsatthikena sāmaṇeraṃ ukkhipitvā ocināpetabbāni. Phalasākhāpi attanā khāditukāmena na onāmetabbā, sāmaṇeraṃ ukkhipitvā phalaṃ gāhāpetabbaṃ. Kiñci gacchaṃ vālataṃ vā uppāṭentehi sāmaṇerehi saddhiṃ gahetvā ākaḍḍhituṃ na vaṭṭati, tesaṃ pana ussāhajananatthaṃ anākaḍḍhantena kaḍḍhanākāraṃ dassentena viya agge gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhati, tesaṃ sākhaṃ makkhikabījanādīnaṃ atthāya kappiyaṃ akārāpetvā gahitaṃ, tace vā patte vā antamaso nakhenapi vilekhantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Allasiṅgiverādīsupi eseva nayo. Sace pana kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā sītale padese ṭhapitassa mūlaṃ sañjāyati, uparibhāge chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace aṅkuro jāyati, heṭṭhābhāge chindituṃ vaṭṭati, mūle ca aṅkure ca jāte na vaṭṭati.

77. Stone-born types—stone algae, lichen, and so forth—green-colored, leafless, are objects of dukkaṭa. The snake-plant, as long as it has a bud, is an object of dukkaṭa; from the time it flowers, it is unfit for use. But taking a snake-plant from a green tree disturbs the tree’s bark, so there it incurs a pācittiya. The same applies to tree bark. But bark of indasāla, kaku, and so forth, detached from the tree, or dry bark stuck to a dry tree, may be taken; from a green tree, it may not. The same applies to resin. Shaking a tree to drop yellowed leaves or ripe flowers like kṇikāra incurs a pācittiya. Even cutting letters with a hesitant hand on soft stems of indasāla, nuhī, or palm leaves born there incurs the same. Giving novices branches bent down to pick flowers is allowable. But they should not flavor water with those flowers; one desiring flavored water should lift a novice to pick them. A fruit branch should not be bent down by oneself to eat; a novice should be lifted to take the fruit. Pulling some shrub or creeper with novices to uproot it is not allowable; but holding the tip as if pulling, without pulling, to encourage their effort is allowable. For trees whose branches grow, taking a branch for bees’ nests or the like without making it permissible, even scratching the bark or leaf with a nail, incurs a dukkaṭa. The same applies to green ginger and the like. But if made permissible and placed in a cool spot, and roots form, cutting the upper part is allowable; if a shoot forms, cutting the lower part is allowable; if both root and shoot form, it is not allowable.

77. Stone formations, lichens, mosses, seleyyaka, and other things that are not green in color and without leaves are objects of dukkaṭa. A mushroom, as long as it is a cap, is an object of dukkaṭa; from the time of flowering, it is insignificant. But one taking a mushroom from a living tree damages the bark of the tree, therefore there is a pācittiya in that case. The same applies to tree bark. But when the bark of indasāla, kakudha, and other trees has separated from the tree and remains, there is no offense in taking it. It is allowable to take resin that has separated from the tree and remains, or that is attached to a dry tree, but not from a living tree. The same applies to lac. For shaking a tree and causing ripe leaves or mature kaṇikāra and other flowers to fall, there is a pācittiya. The same applies to scratching letters with the fingernail on soft indasāla, nuhī stems, etc., or on palm leaves growing there. It is allowable to bend down a branch and give it to novices picking flowers. But water should not be scented with those flowers; one desiring scented water should have a novice climb up and pick them. One desiring to eat fruit himself should not bend down a fruit branch; he should have a novice climb up and take the fruit. While walking, it is not allowable to pull along with novices who are uprooting grass or creepers; but for the purpose of encouraging them, it is allowable to hold the front as if showing the manner of pulling without pulling. For trees whose branches grow, a branch taken without making it allowable for the sake of bees’ nests, etc., for scratching the bark or leaves, even with a fingernail, there is a dukkaṭa. The same applies to fresh ginger and other such things. But if, after making it allowable, a root appears in a cool place where it has been kept, it is allowable to cut the upper part. If a sprout appears, it is allowable to cut the lower part; if both a root and a sprout appear, it is not allowable.

77. Stone-like substances, such as stone moss, lichen, etc., which are colorless and leafless, are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense. The ahicchattaka plant is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense until it forms a crown, but after flowering, it is not an offense. However, if one takes an ahicchattaka from a fresh tree and damages the tree bark, a pācittiya offense is incurred. The same applies to tree bark. If the bark of indasāla, kakudha, etc., has fallen off and remains separate from the tree, taking it is not an offense. Sap that has fallen from a tree or is attached to a dry tree may be taken, but not from a fresh tree. The same applies to lac. Shaking a tree to cause yellow leaves or fully bloomed kanikāra flowers to fall incurs a pācittiya offense. The same applies to cutting letters on soft indasāla branches or cutting tāla leaves that have grown there. It is permissible for novices to pick flowers by bending a branch, but they should not use those flowers to flavor drinking water. A novice should be lifted to pick flowers for flavoring water. One should not bend a fruit-bearing branch to eat the fruit oneself; a novice should be lifted to pick the fruit. One should not pull a walking stick or a broom together with novices, but to encourage them, one may pretend to pull while holding the end. For trees whose branches grow, if a branch is taken without making it allowable for the purpose of planting fly eggs, etc., even scratching the bark, leaves, or even with a nail incurs a dukkaṭa offense. The same applies to fresh ginger, etc. If, after making it allowable, roots grow in a cool place, it is permissible to cut the upper part. If a sprout grows, it is permissible to cut the lower part, but if both roots and sprouts have grown, it is not permissible.

“Sammuñjanīsalākāyapi tiṇāni chindissāmī”ti bhūmiyaṃ sammajjanto sayaṃ vā chindati, aññena vā chedāpeti, na vaṭṭati. Caṅkamantopi “chijjanakaṃ chijjatu, bhijjanakaṃ bhijjatu, caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmī”ti sañcicca pādehi akkamanto tiṇavalliādīni sayaṃ vā chindati, aññena vā chedāpeti, na vaṭṭati. Sacepi hi tiṇaṃ vā lataṃ vā ganthiṃ karontassa bhijjati, ganthimpi kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tālarukkhādīsu pana corānaṃ anāruhaṇatthāya dārumakkaṭakaṃ ākoṭenti, kaṇṭake bandhanti, bhikkhussa evaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace dārumakkaṭako rukkhe allīnamattova hoti, rukkhaṃ na pīḷeti, vaṭṭati. “Rukkhaṃ chinda, lataṃ chinda, kandaṃ vā mūlaṃ vā uppāṭehī”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati aniyamitattā. Niyametvā pana “imaṃ rukkhaṃ chindā”tiādi vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Nāmaṃ gahetvāpi “ambarukkhaṃ caturaṃsavalliṃ āluvakandaṃ muñjatiṇaṃ asukarukkhacchalliṃ chinda bhinda uppāṭehī”tiādivacanampi aniyamitameva hoti. “Imaṃ ambarukkha”ntiādivacanameva hi niyamitaṃ nāma, taṃ na vaṭṭati. Pattampi pacitukāmo tiṇādīnaṃ upari sañcicca aggiṃ karonto sayaṃ vā pacati, aññena vā pacāpeti, na vaṭṭati. Aniyametvā pana “mugge paca, māse pacā”tiādi vattuṃ vaṭṭati, “ime mugge pacā”ti evaṃ vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Imaṃ mūlabhesajjaṃ jāna, imaṃ mūlaṃ vā paṇṇaṃ vā dehi, imaṃ rukkhaṃ vā lataṃ vā āhara, iminā pupphena phalena vā attho, imaṃ rukkhaṃ vā lataṃ vā phalaṃ vā kappiyaṃ karohī”ti evaṃ pana vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Ettāvatā bhūtagāmaparimocitaṃ kataṃ hoti.

Sweeping the ground with a broomstick, thinking, “I will cut grass,” and cutting it oneself or causing another to cut it, is not allowable. Even while walking, intentionally stepping with the feet, thinking, “Let what can be cut be cut, let what can be broken be broken, I will show the walking place,” and cutting or causing to cut grass or creepers oneself or by another, is not allowable. Even if grass or a creeper breaks while making a knot, making a knot is not allowable. On palm trees and the like, to prevent thieves from climbing, they attach wooden spikes or thorns; a monk may not do so. If a wooden spike is merely stuck to the tree and does not harm it, it is allowable. Saying, “Cut a tree, cut a creeper, uproot a bulb or root,” is allowable as it is unspecified. But specifying, “Cut this tree,” and so forth, is not allowable. Even naming, “Cut an mango tree, a four-cornered creeper, an āluva bulb, muñja grass, such-and-such tree’s bark,” and so forth, is unspecified. Only saying, “Cut this mango tree,” and so forth, is specified, and that is not allowable. Intentionally making a fire on grass or the like to cook leaves, and cooking or causing to cook oneself or by another, is not allowable. But saying unspecified, “Cook mung beans, cook meat,” and so forth, is allowable; saying, “Cook these mung beans,” is not allowable. Saying, “Know this root medicine, give this root or leaf, bring this tree or creeper, I need this flower or fruit, make this tree, creeper, or fruit permissible,” is allowable. To this extent, it is freed from bhūtagāma.

If, intending to cut grasses with a broom or a stick, one sweeps the ground and cuts them oneself, or causes another to cut them, it is not allowable. Even while walking in a caṅkamana, intending, “Let what is to be cut be cut, let what is to be broken be broken, I will show the place of walking,” intentionally stepping on grasses, creepers, etc., with the feet, one cuts them oneself, or causes another to cut them, it is not allowable. Even if a grass or creeper breaks while one is making a knot, it is not allowable to even make a knot. But on palm trees and other such trees, they strike wooden pegs and tie thorns to prevent thieves from climbing; it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to do so. If the wooden peg is only attached to the tree and does not harm the tree, it is allowable. It is allowable to say, “Cut down the tree, cut the creeper, uproot the bulb or root,” because it is unspecified. But it is not allowable to specify and say, “Cut down this tree,” and so on. Even taking the name and saying, “Cut, break, or uproot the mango tree, the square-stemmed creeper, the āluva bulb, the muñja grass, the bark of the asuka tree,” is unspecified. Saying, “This mango tree,” and so on, is specified, and that is not allowable. One desiring to cook leaves, intentionally making a fire on top of grasses, etc., cooks them himself, or causes another to cook them, it is not allowable. But it is allowable to say, “Cook beans, cook māsa,” and so on, without specifying; it is not allowable to say, “Cook these beans,” and so on. But it is allowable to say, “Know this root medicine, give this root or leaf, bring this tree or creeper, there is a need for this flower or fruit, make this tree or creeper or fruit allowable.” By this much, what is distinct from ‘bhūtagāma’ is done.

If one sweeps the ground intending to cut grass with a broomstick, and cuts it oneself or has it cut by another, it is not permissible. Even while walking, if one intentionally steps on grass, creepers, etc., with the thought, “Let what should be cut be cut, let what should be broken be broken, I will show the walking path,” and cuts it oneself or has it cut by another, it is not permissible. Even if grass or a creeper breaks while tying a knot, it is not permissible to tie the knot. For tāla trees, etc., thieves may strike a wooden monkey to prevent climbing or tie thorns, but a monk should not do so. If a wooden monkey is merely leaning against a tree without pressing it, it is permissible. It is permissible to say, “Cut the tree, cut the creeper, uproot the bulb or root,” because it is not specific. However, it is not permissible to specify, “Cut this tree,” etc. Even if a name is given, saying, “Cut the mango tree, the four-angled creeper, the āluva bulb, the muñja grass, the such-and-such tree branch,” etc., it is still not specific. Only saying, “This mango tree,” etc., is specific, and that is not permissible. If one wishes to cook leaves, intentionally lighting a fire on grass, etc., and cooking it oneself or having it cooked by another is not permissible. However, it is permissible to say without specifying, “Cook the mung beans, cook the lentils,” etc., but saying, “Cook these mung beans,” is not permissible. It is permissible to say, “Know this root medicine, give this root or leaf, bring this tree or creeper, this flower or fruit is needed, make this tree, creeper, or fruit allowable.” Thus, the rules regarding plants are concluded.

78. Paribhuñjantena pana bījagāmaparimocanatthaṃ puna kappiyaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Kappiyakaraṇañcettha iminā suttānusārena veditabbaṃ –

78. For use, it must be made permissible again to free it from bījagāma. Making it permissible here should be understood according to this discourse:

78. But when consuming, it should be made allowable again for the purpose of avoiding ‘bījagāma’. And the making allowable here should be understood according to this sutta:

78. When consuming, one must make seed-plants allowable again. The method of making them allowable should be understood according to this rule:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahi samaṇakappehi phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ aggiparijitaṃ satthaparijitaṃ nakhaparijitaṃ abījaṃ nibbaṭṭabījaññeva pañcama”nti (cūḷava. 250).

“I allow, monks, the use of fruit through five monastic methods: treated by fire, treated by a blade, treated by a nail, seedless, and with the seed removed as the fifth” (cūḷava. 250).

“I allow, bhikkhus, to consume fruit made allowable by five monastic means: fire-treated, knife-treated, nail-treated, seedless, and with the seed removed as the fifth” (cūḷava. 250).

“I allow, monks, the consumption of fruit made allowable by five methods: made allowable by fire, by a knife, by a nail, by being seedless, or by being without a sprout” (cūḷava. 250).

Tattha aggiparijitanti agginā parijitaṃ adhibhūtaṃ daḍḍhaṃ phuṭṭhanti attho. Satthaparijitanti satthena parijitaṃ adhibhūtaṃ chinnaṃ viddhaṃ vāti attho. Esa nayo nakhaparijite. Abījanibbaṭṭabījāni sayameva kappiyāni. Agginā kappiyaṃ karontena kaṭṭhaggigomayaggiādīsu yena kenaci antamaso lohakhaṇḍenapi ādittena kappiyaṃ kātabbaṃ, tañca kho ekadese phusantena “kappiya”nti vatvāva kātabbaṃ. Satthena karontena yassa kassaci lohamayasatthassa antamaso sūcinakhacchedanānampi tuṇḍena vā dhārāya vā chedaṃ vā vedhaṃ vā dassentena “kappiya”nti vatvāva kātabbaṃ. Nakhena kappiyaṃ karontena pūtinakhena na kātabbaṃ, manussānaṃ pana sīhabyagghadīpimakkaṭānaṃ sakuntānañca nakhā tikhiṇā honti, tehi kātabbaṃ. Assamahiṃsasūkaramigagorūpādīnaṃ khurā atikhiṇā, tehi na kātabbaṃ, katampi akataṃ hoti. Hatthinakhā pana khurā na honti, tehi ca vaṭṭati. Yehi pana kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tehi tatthajātakehipi uddharitvā gahitakepi chedaṃ vā vedhaṃ vā dassentena “kappiya”nti vatvāva kātabbaṃ.

Here, aggiparijita means treated by fire, overcome, burnt, touched—such is the meaning. Satthaparijita means treated by a blade, overcome, cut, pierced—such is the meaning. The same applies to nakhaparijita. Seedless and seed-removed are permissible by themselves. When making permissible with fire, it should be done with any fire—wood fire, cow-dung fire, or even a burning metal piece—touching one part, saying, “Permissible,” and only then doing it. When doing it with a blade, with any metal blade—even the tip or edge of a needle or nail-cutter—showing a cut or pierce, saying, “Permissible,” and only then doing it. When making permissible with a nail, it should not be done with a human’s rotten nail; but the sharp nails of lions, tigers, leopards, monkeys, or birds may be used. The hooves of non-violent pigs, deer, cows, and so forth are too sharp and may not be used; if used, it remains unmade. Elephant nails are not hooves, and they are allowable. With those that may be used, even if born there or taken after uprooting, showing a cut or pierce, saying, “Permissible,” and only then doing it.

Here, fire-treated means treated with fire, affected, burnt, scorched. Knife-treated means treated with a knife, affected, cut, pierced. The same applies to nail-treated. Seedless and with the seed removed are allowable in themselves. One making it allowable with fire should do so with any kind of fire, wood-fire, cow-dung fire, etc., even with a piece of metal, touching one part and saying, “Allowable.” One doing so with a knife, with any kind of metal knife, even with the tip or edge of a needle or nail-cutter, showing a cut or a piercing, should say, “Allowable.” One making it allowable with a nail should not do so with a rotten nail; but the nails of humans, lions, tigers, leopards, monkeys, and birds are sharp, they should be used. The hooves of horses, deer, pigs, cattle, and other such animals are very sharp, they should not be used; even if done, it is not done. But the nails of elephants are not hooves, and they are allowable. With those that are allowable to use, whether growing there or taken after being uprooted, showing a cut or a piercing, one should say, “Allowable.”

Here, made allowable by fire means overcome by fire, burnt, or touched by fire. Made allowable by a knife means overcome by a knife, cut, or pierced. The same applies to being made allowable by a nail. Seedless and sproutless fruits are inherently allowable. When making them allowable by fire, one may use any kind of fire, such as wood fire, dung fire, or even a heated piece of metal, but it must be done by touching a part of the fruit and declaring it “allowable.” When using a knife, any metal or wooden knife, even the tip of a needle or a nail, may be used to cut or pierce, and it must be declared “allowable.” When using a nail, it should not be done with a rotten nail, but the sharp nails of humans, lions, tigers, leopards, monkeys, or birds may be used. The hooves of horses, buffaloes, pigs, deer, or cows are too sharp and should not be used; if used, it is not valid. However, elephant nails are not hooves and may be used. Those who may do so should take the fruit, whether still on the tree or already picked, and cut or pierce it, declaring it “allowable.”

Tattha sacepi bījānaṃ pabbatamatto rāsi, rukkhasahassaṃ vā chinditvā ekābaddhaṃ katvā ucchūnaṃ vā mahābhāro bandhitvā ṭhapito hoti, ekasmiṃ bīje vā rukkhasākhāya vā ucchumhi vā kappiye kate sabbaṃ kataṃ hoti. Ucchū ca dārūni ca ekato baddhāni honti, “ucchuṃ kappiyaṃ karissāmī”ti dāruṃ vijjhati, vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace pana yāya rajjuyā vā valliyā vā baddhāni, taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭati. Ucchukhaṇḍānaṃ pacchiṃ pūretvā āharanti, ekasmiṃ khaṇḍe kappiye kate sabbaṃ katameva. Marīcapakkādīhi ca missetvā bhattaṃ āharanti, “kappiyaṃ karohī”ti vutte sacepi bhattasitthe vijjhati, vaṭṭatiyeva. Tilataṇḍulādīsupi eseva nayo. Yāguyā pakkhittāni pana ekābaddhāni hutvā na santiṭṭhanti, tattha ekamekaṃ vijjhitvā kappiyaṃ kātabbameva. Kapitthaphalādīnaṃ anto miñjaṃ kaṭāhaṃ muñcitvā sañcarati, bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ, ekābaddhaṃ hoti, kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

Here, even if there is a mountain of seeds, or a thousand trees cut and bound together, or a large load of sugarcane tied up, making one seed, branch, or sugarcane permissible makes all permissible. If sugarcane and wood are bound together, piercing the wood, intending, “I will make the sugarcane permissible,” is still allowable. But piercing the rope or creeper binding them is not allowable. They bring sugarcane pieces packed in a basket; making one piece permissible makes all permissible. When rice is brought mixed with pepper and the like, saying, “Make it permissible,” even piercing the cooked rice is allowable. The same applies to sesame, taṇḍula, and so forth. But for items cooked in gruel, not remaining bound together, each must be pierced individually to make it permissible. For kapittha fruit and the like, where the pulp moves inside the shell, it should be broken and made permissible; if bound together, it may be done on the shell too.

Here, even if there is a pile of seeds as big as a mountain, or a thousand trees cut down and made into one bundle, or a large load of sugarcane tied and placed, if one seed or tree branch or sugarcane is made allowable, all are made allowable. Sugarcane and wood are tied together; if one pierces the wood, thinking, “I will make the sugarcane allowable,” it is allowable. But if one pierces the rope or creeper with which they are tied, it is not allowable. They bring a basket filled with sugarcane pieces; if one piece is made allowable, all are made allowable. They bring rice mixed with pepper and other things; if one is told, “Make it allowable,” even if one pierces a grain of rice, it is allowable. The same applies to sesame, rice, and other such things. But those mixed in gruel do not remain together as one, so each one should be pierced and made allowable. The inner pulp of kapittha fruits and other such things moves around after separating from the shell; it should be caused to be broken and made allowable; it is one unit; it is allowable to do it even on the shell.

Even if there is a mountain-sized heap of seeds or a thousand trees cut and bound together, or a large bundle of sugarcane tied up, making one seed, tree branch, or sugarcane allowable makes the entire heap allowable. Sugarcane and wood tied together may be made allowable by piercing the wood while intending to make the sugarcane allowable. However, if they are tied with a rope or creeper, piercing the rope or creeper is not permissible. Sugarcane pieces are filled and brought; making one piece allowable makes the entire bundle allowable. Rice mixed with chili powder, etc., is brought; if the rice is pierced when told to make it allowable, it is permissible. The same applies to sesame seeds, rice, etc. If grains are mixed with porridge and do not remain bound together, each grain must be pierced to make it allowable. The pulp inside wood-apple fruits, etc., moves around the shell; it must be broken and made allowable, as it is bound together. The shell may also be made allowable.

16. Sahaseyyavinicchayakathā

16. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Sleeping Together

16. Sahaseyyavinicchayakathā

16. Discussion on the Rules Regarding Sharing a Sleeping Place

79. Duvidhaṃ sahaseyyakanti “yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannena uttaridirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ (pāci. 49). Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmena sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 56) evaṃ vuttaṃ sahaseyyasikkhāpadadvayaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pāci. aṭṭha. 50-51) – anupasampannena saddhiṃ tiṇṇaṃ rattīnaṃ upari catutthadivase atthaṅgate sūriye sabbacchannasabbaparicchanne yebhuyyacchannayebhuyyaparicchanne vā senāsane pubbāpariyena vā ekakkhaṇe vā nipajjantassa pācittiyaṃ. Tattha chadanaṃ anāhacca diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhena pākārādinā yena kenaci paricchannampi sabbaparicchannamicceva veditabbaṃ. Yaṃ senāsanaṃ upari pañcahi chadanehi aññena vā kenaci sabbameva paricchannaṃ, idaṃ sabbacchannaṃ nāma senāsanaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāsu pana pākaṭavohāraṃ gahetvā vācuggatavasena “sabbacchannaṃ nāma pañcahi chadanehi channa”nti vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, atha kho dussakuṭiyaṃ sayantassapi na sakkā anāpatti kātuṃ, tasmā yaṃ kiñci paṭicchādanasamatthaṃ idha chadanañca paricchannañca veditabbaṃ. Pañcavidhacchadaneyeva hi gayhamāne padaracchannepi sahaseyyā na bhaveyya, tasmā yaṃ senāsanaṃ bhūmito paṭṭhāya yāvachadanaṃ āhacca pākārena vā aññena vā kenaci antamaso vatthenapi parikkhittaṃ, idaṃ sabbaparicchannaṃ nāma senāsanaṃ. Chadanaṃ anāhacca sabbantimena pariyāyena diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhena pākārādinā parikkhittampi sabbaparicchannameva. Yassa pana upari bahutaraṃ ṭhānaṃ channaṃ, appaṃ acchannaṃ, samantato vā bahutaraṃ parikkhittaṃ, appaṃ aparikkhittaṃ, idaṃ yebhuyyenachannaṃ yebhuyyenaparicchannaṃ nāma.

79. Sleeping together is twofold—This refers to the two training rules on sleeping together: “If a monk lies down with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it is a pācittiya (pāci. 49). If a monk lies down with a woman, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 56). Here is the ruling (pāci. aṭṭha. 50-51): Lying down with an unordained person in a fully covered, fully enclosed, mostly covered, or mostly enclosed dwelling, on the fourth day after the sun has set beyond three nights, either sequentially or at the same moment, incurs a pācittiya. Here, even if not touching the roof, if enclosed by a wall or anything else with a height of one and a half hands, it is to be understood as fully enclosed. A dwelling entirely covered above with the five types of roofing or anything else is called fully covered. In the commentaries, taking a common expression literally, it is said, “Fully covered means covered with the five types of roofing.” Though said, even lying in a cloth hut cannot avoid an offense; thus, anything capable of covering is to be understood here as both covering and enclosing. For if only the five types of roofing were taken, sleeping together would not apply even under a cloth cover. Thus, a dwelling enclosed from the ground up to the roof by a wall or anything else—even cloth—is called fully enclosed. Even if not touching the roof, enclosed by a wall or anything else with a height of one and a half hands at the very least, it is still fully enclosed. But one mostly covered above with little uncovered, or mostly enclosed around with little unenclosed, is called mostly covered and mostly enclosed.

79. The two types of co-sleeping (sahaseyyaka) are mentioned in reference to the two precepts on co-sleeping, which are stated as follows: “If a bhikkhu should arrange co-sleeping with a non-ordained person for more than two or three nights, it is a pācittiya (pāci. 49). If a bhikkhu should arrange co-sleeping with a woman, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 56). Here is the determination (pāci. aṭṭha. 50-51) – with a non-ordained person, on the fourth day after three nights, at sunset, in a dwelling that is completely covered and completely enclosed, or mostly covered and mostly enclosed, lying down at the same time or at a single moment, there is a pācittiya. Here, even if the covering is not attached, that which is enclosed by a wall or other such thing with a height of one and a half cubits should be understood as completely enclosed. A dwelling that is completely covered above by five kinds of covering or any other, this is called a completely covered dwelling. In the commentaries, however, taking the common usage, for ease of expression, it is said, “Completely covered means covered with five kinds of covering.” Although it is said thus, it is not possible to avoid an offense even when sleeping in a cloth hut, therefore, whatever is capable of covering should be understood here as covering and enclosure. If only the fivefold covering were taken, there would be no co-sleeping even in a dwelling covered with split bamboo, therefore, a dwelling that is enclosed from the ground up to the covering by a wall or any other, even by a cloth, this is called a completely enclosed dwelling. Even if the covering is not attached, that which is enclosed by a wall or other such thing with a height of one and a half cubits by any ultimate means is completely enclosed. But a dwelling where a greater part above is covered, a small part uncovered, or a greater part around is enclosed, a small part unenclosed, this is called mostly covered, mostly enclosed.

79. There are two types of rules regarding sharing a sleeping place: “If a monk shares a sleeping place with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 49). “If a monk shares a sleeping place with a woman, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 56). This refers to the two rules on sharing a sleeping place. The following is the analysis (pāci. aṭṭha. 50-51): Sharing a sleeping place with an unordained person for more than three nights, on the fourth day after sunset, in a fully covered or fully enclosed dwelling, or in a mostly covered or mostly enclosed dwelling, or in a sleeping place that is covered or enclosed on both sides, or even momentarily lying down together, incurs a pācittiya offense. Here, “fully enclosed” means enclosed by a wall, etc., up to a height of two and a half cubits. A dwelling covered by five types of coverings or any other covering is considered “fully covered.” In the commentaries, it is said, “Fully covered means covered by five types of coverings,” but even lying in a cloth hut does not exempt one from an offense. Therefore, any covering capable of providing privacy should be considered a covering or enclosure here. If only the five types of coverings were considered, even a cloth covering would not count as sharing a sleeping place. Therefore, any sleeping place enclosed from the ground up to the covering by a wall or any other means, even by a cloth, is considered “fully enclosed.” Even if the covering is not fully covered, if it is enclosed up to two and a half cubits by a wall, etc., it is still considered “fully enclosed.” If most of the sleeping place is covered or enclosed, but a small part is not, it is considered “mostly covered or mostly enclosed.”

Iminā lakkhaṇena samannāgato sacepi sattabhūmiko pāsādo ekūpacāro hoti, satagabbhaṃ vā catusālaṃ, ekaṃ senāsanamicceva saṅkhaṃ gacchati. Evarūpe senāsane anupasampannena saddhiṃ catutthadivase atthaṅgate sūriye nipajjantassa pācittiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sace pana sambahulā sāmaṇerā, eko bhikkhu, sāmaṇeragaṇanāya pācittiyā. Te ce uṭṭhāyuṭṭhāya nipajjanti, tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpatti, bhikkhussa uṭṭhāyuṭṭhāya nipajjane pana bhikkhusseva payogena bhikkhussa āpatti. Sace sambahulā bhikkhū, eko sāmaṇero, ekopi sabbesaṃ āpattiṃ karoti. Tassa uṭṭhāyuṭṭhāya nipajjanenapi bhikkhūnaṃ āpattiyeva. Ubhayesaṃ sambahulabhāvepi eseva nayo.

With this characteristic, even a seven-story mansion with one entrance, or a hundred-roomed four-hall building, is reckoned as one dwelling. In such a dwelling, lying down with an unordained person on the fourth day after the sun has set incurs a pācittiya. If there are many novices and one monk, by the count of novices, there are pācittiyas. If they lie down and get up repeatedly, with each effort there is an offense for the monk; but if the monk lies down and gets up repeatedly, the offense is his with his own effort. If there are many monks and one novice, even one causes an offense for all. Even his lying down and getting up repeatedly causes an offense for the monks. The same applies when both are many.

If a mansion with seven stories is a single dwelling, or a four-sided building with a hundred rooms, it counts as one dwelling, even if it is endowed with this characteristic. In such a dwelling, on the fourth day at sunset, lying down with a non-ordained person, a pācittiya is stated. But 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 offense for the bhikkhu is according to each action of theirs; but if the bhikkhu gets up and lies down repeatedly, the offense for the bhikkhu is according to the bhikkhu’s action. If there are many bhikkhus and one novice, even one causes an offense for all. Even by his getting up and lying down repeatedly, there is an offense for the bhikkhus. The same applies if both are many.

If a seven-story building has a single entrance, or a hundred-room mansion or a four-hall building, it is considered a single sleeping place. In such a sleeping place, lying down with an unordained person on the fourth day after sunset incurs a pācittiya offense. If there are several novices and one monk, the offense is counted based on the number of novices. If they lie down and get up repeatedly, the monk incurs an offense each time. If the monk lies down and gets up repeatedly, the monk incurs an offense each time. If there are several monks and one novice, the novice incurs an offense for all. If the novice lies down and gets up repeatedly, the monks incur an offense each time. The same applies if both groups are numerous.

80. Apicettha ekāvāsādikampi catukkaṃ veditabbaṃ. Yo hi ekasmiṃ āvāse ekeneva anupasampannena saddhiṃ tirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeti, tassa catutthadivasato paṭṭhāya devasikā āpatti. Yopi ekasmiṃyeva āvāse nānāanupasampannehi saddhiṃ tirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeti, tassapi. Yopi nānāāvāsesu ekeneva anupasampannena saddhiṃ tirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeti, tassapi. Yopi nānāāvāsesu nānāanupasampannehi saddhiṃ yojanasatampi gantvā sahaseyyaṃ kappeti, tassapi catutthadivasato paṭṭhāya devasikā āpatti.

80. Moreover, here, a set of four cases including “one residence” and so forth should be understood. For one who, in a single residence, arranges to sleep together with just one unordained person for three nights, from the fourth day onward, there is a daily offense. Likewise, for one who, in that same single residence, arranges to sleep together with various unordained persons for three nights, it is the same. Likewise, for one who, in different residences, arranges to sleep together with just one unordained person for three nights, it is the same. Likewise, for one who, in different residences with various unordained persons, even traveling a hundred yojanas, arranges to sleep together, from the fourth day onward, there is a daily offense.

80. Moreover, the four cases, such as one dwelling, etc., should be understood here. He who arranges co-sleeping with one and the same non-ordained person for three nights in one dwelling, for him, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense. He who arranges co-sleeping with different non-ordained persons for three nights in one and the same dwelling, for him also. He who arranges co-sleeping with one and the same non-ordained person for three nights in different dwellings, for him also. He who arranges co-sleeping with different non-ordained persons in different dwellings, even going a hundred yojanas, for him also, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense.

80. Here, a fourfold classification should be understood even in the case of a single residence. For one who shares a three-night lodging in a single residence with one who is not fully ordained, from the fourth day onward, there is a daily offense. Similarly, for one who shares a three-night lodging in a single residence with multiple unordained individuals, there is also an offense. Likewise, for one who shares a three-night lodging in multiple residences with a single unordained individual, there is also an offense. And for one who shares a three-night lodging in multiple residences with multiple unordained individuals, even after traveling a hundred yojanas, from the fourth day onward, there is a daily offense.

Ayañca sahaseyyāpatti nāma “bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā avaseso anupasampanno nāmā”ti vacanato antamaso pārājikavatthubhūtena tiracchānagatenapi saddhiṃ hoti, tasmā sacepi godhābiḷālamaṅgusādīsu koci pavisitvā bhikkhuno vasanasenāsane ekūpacāraṭṭhāne sayati, sahaseyyāva hoti. Yadi pana thambhānaṃ upari katapāsādassa uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassa bhittiyā upariṭhitasusiratulāsīsassa susirena pavisitvā tulāya abbhantare sayitvā teneva susirena nikkhamitvā gacchati, heṭṭhāpāsāde sayitabhikkhussa anāpatti. Sace chadane chiddaṃ hoti, tena pavisitvā antochadane vasitvā teneva pakkamati, nānūpacāre uparimatale chadanabbhantare sayitassa āpatti, heṭṭhimatale sayitassa anāpatti. Sace antopāsādeneva ārohitvā sabbatalāni paribhuñjanti, ekūpacārāni honti, tesu yattha katthaci sayitassa āpatti, sabhāsaṅkhepena kate aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsane sayitassa tulāvāḷasaghāṭādīsu kapotādayo sayanti, āpattiyeva. Parikkhepassa bahigate nibbakosabbhantare sayanti, anāpatti. Parimaṇḍalaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā ekacchadanāya gabbhamālāya satagabbhaṃ cepi senāsanaṃ hoti, tatra ce ekena sādhāraṇadvārena pavisitvā visuṃ pākārena aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre sabbagabbhepi pavisanti, ekagabbhepi anupasampanne nipanne sabbagabbhesu nipannānaṃ āpatti. Sace sapamukhā gabbhā honti, pamukhañca upari acchannaṃ, pamukhe sayito gabbhe sayitānaṃ āpattiṃ na karoti. Sace pana gabbhacchadaneneva saddhiṃ sambandhachadanaṃ, tatra sayito sabbesaṃ āpattiṃ karoti. Kasmā? Sabbacchannattā ca sabbaparicchannattā ca. Gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo.

And this offense of sahaseyya, based on the statement “anyone other than a bhikkhu is called an unordained person,” occurs even with an animal such as one involved in a pārājika offense. Therefore, if even an iguana, a cat, a snake, or the like enters and sleeps in the same lodging area as the bhikkhu’s dwelling, in a place within the same vicinity, it is indeed sahaseyya. However, if it enters through a hole in a loft built above pillars, unconnected to the walls below, sleeps inside the rafters, and leaves through that same hole, there is no offense for the bhikkhu sleeping in the lower loft. If there is a hole in the roof and it enters through that, stays within the roof, and departs through the same, there is an offense for one sleeping on the upper level within the roof’s interior, but no offense for one sleeping on the lower level. If they climb up inside the loft itself and use all the levels, they are within the same vicinity, and there is an offense for one sleeping anywhere among them. In a lodging with a half-wall made in brief, if pigeons or the like sleep in the rafters or among wild animals, there is indeed an offense. If they sleep outside the enclosure, within the open interior, there is no offense. Whether round or square, even if a lodging with a single roof has a hundred rooms, if one enters through a common door and accesses all rooms without separate walled divisions, when an unordained person lies down in one room, there is an offense for those lying down in all rooms. If the rooms have open fronts and the front above is uncovered, one sleeping at the front does not cause an offense for those sleeping in the rooms. However, if there is a connected roof over the rooms, one sleeping there causes an offense for all. Why? Because it is all covered and all enclosed. The enclosure of the rooms is indeed its boundary.

And this offense of co-sleeping, because it is said, “Except for a bhikkhu, the rest are called non-ordained,” occurs even with a defeated (pārājika) animal, therefore, even if any of godhā, cats, mongooses, etc., enters and sleeps in the dwelling where the bhikkhu resides, in a single-dwelling place, it is co-sleeping. But if, on a mansion built on pillars, the upper floor is not connected to the walls, and an animal enters through a hole in the wall above the crossbeam, sleeps inside the crossbeam, and leaves through the same hole, there is no offense for the bhikkhu sleeping in the lower mansion. If there is a hole in the roof, and it enters through it, resides inside the roof, and leaves through it, there is an offense for one sleeping inside the roof on the upper floor in a non-single dwelling, but no offense for one sleeping on the lower floor. If they climb up through the inner mansion and use all the floors, they are single dwellings; there is an offense for one sleeping anywhere in them. In a dwelling made with a common roof, such as a hall, if birds such as crows sleep on the crossbeam, tie-beam, etc., there is an offense. If they sleep inside the outer enclosure of the moat, there is no offense. Even if a dwelling, round or square, with a hundred rooms under one roof, where people enter through one common door and go into all the rooms without separate enclosures, if a non-ordained person lies down in one room, there is an offense for those lying down in all the rooms. If there are rooms with separate entrances, and the entrance is uncovered above, one sleeping in the entrance does not cause an offense for those sleeping in the rooms. But if the roof is connected to the roof of the rooms, one sleeping there causes an offense for all. Why? Because it is completely covered and completely enclosed. The enclosure of the rooms is its enclosure.

This offense of sharing lodging is called “sahaseyyāpatti.” It applies even if the unordained individual is an animal, such as a lizard, cat, or human, because the term “unordained” includes all except a fully ordained monk. Therefore, if any of these enter and lie down in the same vicinity as a monk in his dwelling, it constitutes the offense of sahaseyyā. However, if an animal enters through a hole in the wall of an upper floor of a multi-storied building, lies down inside, and exits through the same hole, there is no offense for the monk lying on the lower floor. If there is a hole in the roof, and an animal enters through it, lies down inside the roof, and exits through the same hole, there is an offense for the one lying on the upper floor, but no offense for the one on the lower floor. If they ascend within the building and use all the floors, it is considered a single vicinity, and an offense is incurred wherever one lies. In summary, if a monk lies in a half-walled dwelling while animals such as pigeons lie on beams or rafters, there is an offense. If they lie outside the enclosure, in a dry area, there is no offense. Even if a circular or square building with a single roof has a hundred rooms, and one enters through a common door without partitions between the rooms, if an unordained person lies in one room, there is an offense for all who lie in the other rooms. If the rooms have separate entrances and the entrance is covered, lying in the entrance room does not incur an offense for those lying in the other rooms. However, if the roof of the rooms is connected, lying in one room incurs an offense for all, because the entire area is covered and enclosed. The enclosure of the rooms is considered the same as the enclosure of the building.

81. Yepi ekasāladvisālatisālacatusālasannivesā mahāpāsādā ekasmiṃ okāse pāde dhovitvā paviṭṭhena sakkā honti sabbattha anuparigantuṃ, tesupi sahaseyyāpattiyā na muccati. Sace tasmiṃ tasmiṃ ṭhāne upacāraṃ paricchinditvā katā honti, ekūpacāraṭṭhāneyeva āpatti. Dvīhi dvārehi yuttassa sudhāchadanamaṇḍapassa majjhe pākāraṃ karonti, ekena dvārena pavisitvā ekasmiṃ paricchede anupasampanno sayati, ekasmiṃ bhikkhu, anāpatti. Pākāre godhādīnaṃ pavisanamattaṃ chiddaṃ hoti, ekasmiñca paricchede godhā sayanti, anāpattiyeva. Na hi chiddena gehaṃ ekūpacāraṃ nāma hoti. Sace pākāramajjhe chinditvā dvāraṃ yojenti, ekūpacāratāya āpatti. Taṃ dvāraṃ kavāṭena pidahitvā sayanti, āpattiyeva. Na hi dvārapidahanena gehaṃ nānūpacāraṃ nāma hoti, dvāraṃ vā advāraṃ. Kavāṭañhi saṃvaraṇavivaraṇehi yathāsukhaṃ vaḷañjanatthāya kataṃ, na vaḷañjupacchedanatthāya. Sace taṃ dvāraṃ puna iṭṭhakāhi pidahanti, advāraṃ hoti, purime nānūpacārabhāveyeva tiṭṭhati. Dīghapamukhaṃ cetiyagharaṃ hoti, ekaṃ kavāṭaṃ anto, ekaṃ bahi, dvinnaṃ kavāṭānaṃ antare anupasampanno antocetiyaghare sayantassa āpattiṃ karoti ekūpacārattā.

81. Even in great lofts arranged with one hall, two halls, three halls, or four halls, where one can wash their feet at one spot and move everywhere, one is not free from the offense of sahaseyya. If the vicinity is demarcated at each place, the offense applies only within that same vicinity. In a plastered pavilion with two doors, if a wall is made in the middle and an unordained person sleeps in one section after entering through one door while a bhikkhu sleeps in another, there is no offense. If there is a hole in the wall just large enough for an iguana or the like to enter, and an iguana sleeps in one section, there is still no offense. For a hole does not make a dwelling one vicinity. If they cut the middle of the wall and install a door, it becomes one vicinity, and there is an offense. If they sleep after closing that door with a shutter, there is still an offense. For closing a door does not make a dwelling separate in vicinity, whether it is a door or not. A shutter is made for opening and closing as desired, not for breaking separation. If they close that door again with bricks, it becomes doorless, and it remains as before, separate in vicinity. In a long-fronted cetiya house with one shutter inside and one outside, an unordained person sleeping between the two shutters causes an offense for one sleeping inside the cetiya house due to it being one vicinity.

81. Even in large mansions with one, two, three, or four wings, where one who has washed his feet at one place can go everywhere, one is not free from the offense of co-sleeping. If separate dwellings are made in each place, the offense is only in a single dwelling. If a plaster-covered pavilion with two doors has a wall made in the middle, and a non-ordained person sleeps in one section entering through one door, and a bhikkhu in the other, there is no offense. If there is a hole in the wall big enough for godhā and other such animals to enter, and godhā sleep in one section, there is no offense. A house does not become a single dwelling because of a hole. If they break the middle of the wall and make a door, it is a single dwelling, and there is an offense. If they sleep closing that door with a door panel, there is still an offense. A house does not become a non-single dwelling because of closing a door, whether it is a door or not a door. A door panel is made for opening and closing as desired, not for breaking the dwelling. If they close that door again with bricks, it becomes non-door, and remains in the previous state of non-single dwelling. There is a long entrance hall to a cetiya house; one door panel is inside, one outside; a non-ordained person between the two door panels causes an offense for one sleeping inside the cetiya house because it is a single dwelling.

81. Even in large buildings with one, two, three, or four halls, where one can wash their feet in one place and enter to access all areas, one is not exempt from the offense of sahaseyyā. If the areas are divided into separate vicinities, the offense is incurred only in the single vicinity. In a whitewashed pavilion with two doors, if a wall is built in the middle, and an unordained person lies in one section while a monk lies in the other, there is no offense. If there is only a small hole in the wall for animals like lizards to enter, and they lie in one section, there is still no offense, as a hole does not make the house a single vicinity. If a door is made in the middle of the wall, it becomes a single vicinity, and an offense is incurred. If the door is closed with a bolt, there is still an offense, as closing the door does not make the house multiple vicinities. The bolt is meant for opening and closing as needed, not for dividing the area. If the door is closed with bricks, it becomes a doorless area, and the previous state of multiple vicinities remains. In a long-fronted shrine house with one door inside and one outside, if an unordained person lies inside the shrine house, there is an offense due to the single vicinity.

Ayañhettha saṅkhepo – senāsanaṃ khuddakaṃ vā hotu mahantaṃ vā, aññena saddhiṃ sambandhaṃ vā asambandhaṃ vā, dīghaṃ vā vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā, ekabhūmikaṃ vā anekabhūmikaṃ vā, yaṃ yaṃ ekūpacāraṃ, sabbattha sahaseyyāpatti hotīti. Ettha ca yena kenaci paṭicchadanena sabbacchanne sabbaparicchanne pācittiyaṃ, yebhuyyenachanne yebhuyyenaparicchanne pācittiyaṃ, sabbacchanne yebhuyyenaparicchanne pācittiyaṃ, sabbacchanne upaḍḍhaparicchanne pācittiyaṃ, yebhuyyenachanne upaḍḍhaparicchanne pācittiyaṃ, sabbaparicchanne yebhuyyenachanne pācittiyaṃ, sabbaparicchanne upaḍḍhacchanne pācittiyaṃ, yebhuyyenaparicchanne upaḍḍhacchanne pācittiyanti aṭṭha pācittiyāni. Upaḍḍhacchanne upaḍḍhaparicchanne dukkaṭaṃ, sabbacchanne cūḷakaparicchanne dukkaṭaṃ, yebhuyyenachanne cūḷakaparicchanne dukkaṭaṃ, sabbaparicchanne cūḷakacchanne dukkaṭaṃ, yebhuyyenaparicchanne cūḷakacchanne dukkaṭanti pañca dukkaṭāni veditabbāni. Sabbacchanne sabbaaparicchanne, sabbaparicchanne sabbaacchanne, yebhuyyenaacchanne yebhuyyenaaparicchanne, upaḍḍhacchanne cūḷakaparicchanne, upaḍḍhaparicchanne cūḷakacchanne cūḷakaparicchanne ca anāpatti. Mātugāmena saha nipajjantassapi ayameva vinicchayo. Ayañhettha viseso – anupasampannena saddhiṃ nipajjantassa catutthadivase āpatti, mātugāmena saddhiṃ paṭhamadivaseti. Yakkhipetīhi pana dissamānakarūpāhi tiracchānagatitthiyā ca methunadhammavatthubhūtāya eva dukkaṭaṃ, sesāhi anāpatti.

This is the summary here: whether a lodging is small or large, connected or unconnected with another, long, round, or square, single-storied or multi-storied, wherever it is one vicinity, the offense of sahaseyya applies everywhere. And here, with any kind of covering, if it is fully covered and fully enclosed, there is a pācittiya; if mostly uncovered and mostly unenclosed, a pācittiya; if fully covered and mostly enclosed, a pācittiya; if fully covered and half-enclosed, a pācittiya; if mostly uncovered and half-enclosed, a pācittiya; if fully enclosed and mostly uncovered, a pācittiya; if fully enclosed and half-covered, a pācittiya; if mostly enclosed and half-covered, a pācittiya—these are eight pācittiyas. If half-covered and half-enclosed, a dukkaṭa; if fully covered and slightly enclosed, a dukkaṭa; if mostly uncovered and slightly enclosed, a dukkaṭa; if fully enclosed and slightly covered, a dukkaṭa; if mostly enclosed and slightly covered, a dukkaṭa—these five dukkaṭas should be understood. If fully covered and fully unenclosed, fully enclosed and fully uncovered, mostly uncovered and mostly unenclosed, half-covered and slightly enclosed, half-enclosed and slightly covered, or slightly enclosed, there is no offense. The same adjudication applies to lying down with a woman. The distinction here is this: with an unordained person, the offense arises on the fourth day; with a woman, on the first day. However, with yakkhīs, petīs, visible forms, or an animal woman involved in sexual conduct, it is only a dukkaṭa; with others, there is no offense.

Here is the summary: whether the dwelling is small or large, connected or unconnected with another, long or round or square, single-storied or multi-storied, whatever is a single dwelling, everywhere there is the offense of co-sleeping. And here, in a completely covered and completely enclosed dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a mostly covered and mostly enclosed dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a completely covered and mostly enclosed dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a completely covered and half-enclosed dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a mostly covered and half-enclosed dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a completely enclosed and mostly covered dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a completely enclosed and half-covered dwelling, there is a pācittiya; in a mostly enclosed and half-covered dwelling, there is a pācittiya; these are eight pācittiyas. In a half-covered and half-enclosed dwelling, there is a dukkaṭa; in a completely covered and slightly enclosed dwelling, there is a dukkaṭa; in a mostly covered and slightly enclosed dwelling, there is a dukkaṭa; in a completely enclosed and slightly covered dwelling, there is a dukkaṭa; in a mostly enclosed and slightly covered dwelling, there is a dukkaṭa; these are five dukkaṭas to be understood. In a completely covered and completely unenclosed dwelling, in a completely enclosed and completely uncovered dwelling, in a mostly uncovered and mostly unenclosed dwelling, in a half-covered and slightly enclosed dwelling, in a half-enclosed and slightly covered dwelling, and in a slightly enclosed dwelling, there is no offense. The determination is the same for lying down with a woman. Here is the difference: with a non-ordained person, the offense is on the fourth day; with a woman, on the first day. But with female demons (yakkhī) and female ghosts (petī) with visible forms, and with female animals that are objects of sexual intercourse, there is only a dukkaṭa; with others, there is no offense.

Here is the summary: Whether the dwelling is small or large, connected or disconnected, long, round, or square, single-storied or multi-storied, wherever it is a single vicinity, the offense of sahaseyyā is incurred. In this regard, there are eight pācittiya offenses based on the degree of covering and enclosure: fully covered and fully enclosed, mostly covered and mostly enclosed, fully covered and mostly enclosed, fully covered and half-enclosed, mostly covered and half-enclosed, fully enclosed and mostly covered, fully enclosed and half-covered, and mostly enclosed and half-covered. There are five dukkaṭa offenses for half-covered and half-enclosed, fully covered and minimally enclosed, mostly covered and minimally enclosed, fully enclosed and minimally covered, and mostly enclosed and minimally covered. No offense is incurred for fully covered and fully unenclosed, fully enclosed and fully uncovered, mostly uncovered and mostly unenclosed, half-covered and minimally enclosed, half-enclosed and minimally covered, or minimally enclosed. The same applies to lying down with a woman. The difference here is that with an unordained person, the offense is incurred from the fourth day, whereas with a woman, it is from the first day. For visible female spirits or female animals involved in sexual misconduct, there is a dukkaṭa offense; for others, there is no offense.

17. Mañcapīṭhādisaṅghikasenāsanesu paṭipajjitabbavinicchayakathā

17. Discussion on the Adjudication of Conduct Regarding Saṅghika Beds, Seats, and the Like

17. Mañcapīṭhādisaṅghikasenāsanesu paṭipajjitabbavinicchayakathā

17. Discussion on the Proper Conduct Regarding Community Bedding and Seating

82. Vihāre saṅghike seyyaṃ, santharitvāna pakkamoti saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ santharitvāna aññattha vasitukāmatāya vihārato pakkamanaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo –

82. In a saṅghika vihāra, having spread a bed and departed refers to departing from a vihāra, having spread a bed in a saṅghika vihāra, with the intention of staying elsewhere. Here is the adjudication:

82. In a vihāra, having spread out a Saṅgha bed, he departs, meaning, having spread out a bed in a Saṅgha vihāra, departing from the vihāra with the intention of residing elsewhere. Here is the determination:

82. In a community dwelling, after preparing a bed, one should depart means that after preparing a bed in a community dwelling, one should depart from the dwelling with the intention of staying elsewhere. Here is the analysis:

“Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya na uddharāpeyya anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 115) –

“If a bhikkhu, having spread a bed in a saṅghika vihāra or having it spread, departs without removing it, without having it removed, or without informing anyone, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 115) –

“If a bhikkhu, having spread out or caused to spread out a bed in a Saṅgha vihāra, departing, should neither remove it nor cause it to be removed, nor take leave, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 115) –

“If a monk prepares a bed in a community dwelling or has it prepared, and upon departing, neither removes it nor has it removed, nor informs anyone, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 115).

Vacanato saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ sayaṃ santharitvā aññena vā santharāpetvā uddharaṇādīni akatvā parikkhittassa ārāmassa parikkhepaṃ, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ atikkamantassa pācittiyaṃ.

According to this statement, in a saṅghika vihāra, if a bhikkhu spreads a bed himself or has it spread by another and departs without removing it or having it removed, passing beyond the enclosure of a fenced monastery or the vicinity of an unfenced one, it is a pācittiya.

From the statement, in a Saṅgha vihāra, having oneself spread out or caused another to spread out a bed, without doing the removing, etc., crossing the enclosure of an enclosed monastery, or the dwelling of an unenclosed one, there is a pācittiya.

According to this rule, if a monk prepares a bed in a community dwelling himself or has it prepared by another, and departs without removing it or informing anyone, crossing the boundary of a enclosed monastery or the vicinity of an unenclosed one, it is a pācittiya offense.

Tattha seyyā nāma bhisi cimilikā uttarattharaṇaṃ bhūmattharaṇaṃ taṭṭikā cammakhaṇḍo nisīdanaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ tiṇasanthāro paṇṇasanthāroti dasavidhā. Tattha bhisīti mañcakabhisi vā pīṭhakabhisi vā. Cimilikā nāma sudhādiparikammakatāya bhūmiyā vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katā, taṃ heṭṭhā pattharitvā upari kaṭasārakaṃ pattharanti. Uttarattharaṇaṃ nāma mañcapīṭhānaṃ upari attharitabbakapaccattharaṇaṃ. Bhūmattharaṇaṃ nāma bhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā kaṭasārakādivikati. Taṭṭikā nāma tālapaṇṇehi vā vākehi vā katataṭṭikā. Cammakhaṇḍo nāma sīhabyagghadīpitaracchacammādīsupi yaṃ kiñci cammaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāsu hi senāsanaparibhoge paṭikkhittacammaṃ na dissati, tasmā sīhabyagghacammādīnaṃ pariharaṇeyeva paṭikkhepo veditabbo. Nisīdananti sadasaṃ veditabbaṃ. Paccattharaṇanti pāvāro kojavoti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Tiṇasanthāroti yesaṃ kesañci tiṇānaṃ santhāro. Esa nayo paṇṇasanthārepi. Evaṃ pana imaṃ dasavidhaṃ seyyaṃ saṅghike vihāre santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā pakkamantena āpucchitvā pakkamitabbaṃ, āpucchantena ca bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo, tasmiṃ asati sāmaṇero, tasmiṃ asati ārāmiko, tasmiṃ asati yena vihāro kārito, so vihārasāmiko, tassa vā kule yo koci āpucchitabbo, tasmimpi asati catūsu pāsāṇesu mañcaṃ ṭhapetvā mañce avasesamañcapīṭhāni āropetvā upari bhisiādikaṃ dasavidhampi seyyaṃ rāsiṃ katvā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānāni pidahitvā gamiyavattaṃ pūretvā gantabbaṃ.

Here, seyya refers to ten kinds: a mat, a rug, an upper cover, a floor cover, a screen, a piece of leather, a sitting cloth, a blanket, a grass spread, and a leaf spread. Among these, bhisi refers to a mat for a bed or a seat. Cimilikā refers to one made for preserving the color of a plastered floor, spread below and covered above with a woven mat. Uttarattharaṇa refers to a blanket to be spread over beds or seats. Bhūmattharaṇa refers to a woven mat or similar item to be spread on the floor. Taṭṭikā refers to a screen made of palm leaves or bark. Cammakhaṇḍo refers to any leather, such as that of a lion, tiger, leopard, or other animal. In the commentaries, no leather prohibited for use in lodgings is mentioned, so the prohibition should be understood as applying only to the handling of lion or tiger leather and the like. Nisīdana should be understood as having fringe. Paccattharaṇa refers only to a cloak or rug as mentioned. Tiṇasanthāro refers to a spread of any kind of grass. The same applies to paṇṇasanthāro. Thus, when departing after spreading or having spread these ten kinds of bedding in a saṅghika vihāra, one must inform someone. When informing, if a bhikkhu is present, a bhikkhu should be informed; if not, a novice; if not, a monastery attendant; if not, the owner who had the vihāra built or someone in his household should be informed. If none of these are present, one should place a bed on four stones, pile the remaining beds and seats on it, stack the ten kinds of bedding like mats on top, secure wooden and clay items, close doors and windows, fulfill the duties of departure, and then go.

Here, bed is of ten kinds: mattress, cimilikā, upper covering, floor covering, mat, piece of leather, seat, coverlet, grass spread, and leaf spread. Here, mattress means a mattress for a bed or a mattress for a seat. Cimilikā is made for protecting the color of the ground plastered with plaster, etc.; it is spread below, and a mat is spread on top. Upper covering is a coverlet to be spread on top of beds and seats. Floor covering is a variety of mats, etc., to be spread on the floor. Mat is a mat made of palm leaves or bark. Piece of leather is any leather, even of lions, tigers, leopards, taraccha, etc. In the commentaries, leather prohibited in the use of dwellings is not seen, therefore, the prohibition should be understood as the avoidance of lion, tiger, and other such leathers. Seat should be understood as with a fringe. Coverlet is only said to be a cloak or a rug. Grass spread is a spread of any kind of grass. The same applies to leaf spread. Thus, having spread out or caused to spread out this tenfold bed in a Saṅgha vihāra, one should depart after taking leave. And when taking leave, if there is a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should be asked; if he is not there, a novice; if he is not there, a monastery attendant; if he is not there, the one who had the vihāra built, that vihāra owner, or anyone in his family should be asked; if he is also not there, placing the bed on four stones, placing the remaining beds and seats on the bed, making a pile of the tenfold bed, such as the mattress, etc., putting away the wooden and clay utensils, closing the doors and windows, fulfilling the going duty, one should go.

Here, bedding refers to ten types: a mattress, a cloth spread, an upper cover, a ground cover, a mat, a piece of leather, a sitting cloth, a sheet, a grass spread, and a leaf spread. Among these, mattress refers to a mattress for a bed or a seat. Cloth spread refers to a spread made to protect the color of a plastered floor, spread underneath with a reed mat on top. Upper cover refers to a sheet spread over a bed or seat. Ground cover refers to a reed mat or similar spread on the ground. Mat refers to a mat made of palm leaves or bark. Piece of leather refers to any leather, such as that of a lion, tiger, or leopard. The commentaries do not mention prohibited leather in the use of dwellings, so avoidance of lion and tiger leather should be understood as prohibited. Sitting cloth should be understood as a cushion. Sheet refers to a coverlet or quilt. Grass spread refers to a spread made of any grass. The same applies to leaf spread. Thus, after preparing these ten types of bedding in a community dwelling, either by oneself or by another, one should inform someone before departing. If a monk is present, the monk should be informed; if not, a novice; if not, a monastery worker; if not, the one who built the dwelling, the owner of the dwelling, or anyone in his family should be informed. If none are present, the bedding should be piled up on the bed, leaving only the bed frame, and all wooden and clay items should be put away, the doors and windows closed, and the duties of departure fulfilled before leaving.

Sace pana senāsanaṃ ovassati, chadanatthañca tiṇaṃ vā iṭṭhakā vā ānītā honti, sace ussahati, chādetabbaṃ. No ce sakkoti, yo okāso anovassako, tattha mañcapīṭhādīni nikkhipitvā gantabbaṃ. Sace sabbampi ovassati, ussahantena antogāme upāsakānaṃ ghare ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace tepi “saṅghikaṃ nāma, bhante, bhāriyaṃ, aggidāhādīnaṃ bhāyāmā”ti na sampaṭicchanti, abbhokāsepi pāsāṇānaṃ upari mañcaṃ ṭhapetvā sesaṃ pubbe vuttanayeneva nikkhipitvā tiṇehi ca paṇṇehi ca paṭicchādetvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Yañhi tattha aṅgamattampi avasissati, taṃ aññesaṃ tattha āgatabhikkhūnaṃ upakāraṃ bhavissatīti. Uddharitvā gacchantena pana mañcapīṭhakavāṭaṃ sabbaṃ apanetvā saṃharitvā cīvaravaṃse laggetvāva gantabbaṃ. Pacchā āgantvā vasanakabhikkhunāpi puna mañcapīṭhaṃ ṭhapayitvā gacchantena tatheva kātabbaṃ. Antokuṭṭato seyyaṃ bahikuṭṭe paññapetvā vasantena gamanakāle puna gahitaṭṭhāneyeva paṭisāmetabbaṃ. Uparipāsādato oropetvā heṭṭhāpāsāde vasantassapi eseva nayo. Rattiṭṭhānadivāṭṭhānesu mañcapīṭhaṃ paññapetvā bahigamanakāle puna gahitaṭṭhāneyeva ṭhapetabbaṃ.

If the lodging leaks, and grass or bricks have been brought for roofing, if one is able, it should be roofed. If not, the beds and seats should be placed in a non-leaking spot and then one may go. If the entire place leaks, if one is able, they should be placed in a layperson’s house in the village. If they say, “Venerable, saṅghika property is heavy, and we fear fire or the like,” and do not accept it, it is permissible to place a bed on stones in the open, arrange the rest as previously stated, cover it with grass and leaves, and go. For whatever remains there, even a little, will be of use to other bhikkhus arriving there. When removing and going, one should take away all the beds, seats, and shutters, tie them to a robe pole, and go. A bhikkhu returning to stay later, when leaving again after setting up beds and seats, should do the same. If one spreads a bed outside from inside a cell and stays there, at the time of departure, it should be returned to the place it was taken from. The same applies to one who brings it down from an upper loft to stay in a lower loft. When setting up beds or seats at night or day resting places and leaving outside, they should be returned to the place they were taken from.

But if the dwelling leaks, and grass or bricks have been brought for covering, if one is able, one should cover it. If one is not able, one should place the bed, seat, etc., in a place that does not leak. If all of it leaks, one who is able should place it inside the village in the houses of lay supporters. If they also do not accept, saying, “It is a Saṅgha property, venerable sir, it is heavy, we fear fire and other dangers,” even in the open, placing the bed on stones, placing the rest as previously stated, covering it with grass and leaves, it is allowable to go. Because whatever part of it remains there will be of use to other bhikkhus who come there. But one going after removing it should remove all the bed and seat frames, gather them, and hang them on a clothesline before going. A bhikkhu who comes later and resides should also place the bed and seat again, and when going, should do the same. One residing after spreading out a bed from an inner room in an outer room should put it back in the place where it was taken from when going. The same applies to one residing on the lower mansion after bringing it down from the upper mansion. In night quarters and day quarters, having spread out a bed and seat, when going outside, one should place it back in the place where it was taken from.

If the dwelling is likely to be rained on, and grass or bricks have been brought for roofing, one should roof it if possible. If not, the bedding and seats should be placed in a dry spot and left. If the entire dwelling is likely to be rained on, one should place the bedding in the houses of lay devotees within the village. If they refuse, saying, “Venerable, the community property is heavy, and we fear fire or theft,” one may place the bedding on stones outside, cover it with grass and leaves, and leave. Whatever remains will be of use to other monks who come later. When taking the bedding away, one should remove all bed frames and seats, bundle them up, attach them to a robe pole, and leave. When returning later, the resident monk should also prepare the bedding and seats in the same way. If bedding is prepared in an inner room and one stays in an outer room, upon departure, it should be returned to its original place. The same applies if one descends from an upper floor to a lower floor. If bedding is prepared for night or day use, upon going out, it should be returned to its original place.

83. Senāsanesu pana ayaṃ āpucchitabbānāpucchitabbavinicchayo – yā tāva bhūmiyaṃ dīghasālā vā paṇṇasālā vā hoti, yaṃ vā rukkhatthambhesu katagehaṃ upacikānaṃ uṭṭhānaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, tato pakkamantena tāva āpucchitvāva pakkamitabbaṃ. Tasmiñhi katipayāni divasāni ajaggiyamāne vammikāva santiṭṭhanti. Yaṃ pana pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ vā pāsāṇatthambhesu vā katasenāsanaṃ siluccayaleṇaṃ vā sudhālittasenāsanaṃ vā, yattha yattha upacikāsaṅkā natthi, tato pakkamantassa āpucchitvāpi anāpucchitvāpi gantuṃ vaṭṭati, āpucchanaṃ pana vattaṃ. Sace tādisepi senāsane ekena passena upacikā ārohanti, āpucchitvāva gantabbaṃ. Yo pana āgantuko bhikkhu saṅghikasenāsanaṃ gahetvāva santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anuvattanto attano senāsanaṃ aggahetvā vasati, yāva so na gaṇhāti, tāva taṃ senāsanaṃ purimabhikkhusseva palibodho. Yadā pana so senāsanaṃ gahetvā attano issariyena vasati, tato paṭṭhāya āgantukasseva palibodho. Sace ubhopi vibhajitvā gaṇhanti, ubhinnampi palibodho.

83. In lodgings, this is the adjudication regarding who should be informed or not: For a long hall or leaf hut on the ground, or a house made on wooden pillars where termites emerge, when departing from such a place, one must inform someone before going. For if it is not maintained for a few days, termites will establish themselves. However, from a lodging made on a stone slab or stone pillars, or a polished stone or plastered lodging where there is no fear of termites, one may go with or without informing, though informing is a duty. If termites climb up one side even in such a lodging, one must inform before going. If a visiting bhikkhu takes a saṅghika lodging and follows an existing bhikkhu without taking his own lodging, as long as the latter does not take it, the lodging remains an obligation for the former bhikkhu. But when he takes the lodging and resides there by his own authority, from then on, it becomes an obligation for the visiting bhikkhu. If both divide and take it, it is an obligation for both.

83. Here is the determination of who should and should not be asked leave in dwellings: as for a long hall or a leaf hut on the ground, or a house built on tree pillars where there are places for ants to rise, one should depart after taking leave. Because if it is not looked after for a few days, anthills will form. But as for a dwelling built on a stone foundation or on stone pillars, or a cave in a rock, or a dwelling plastered with plaster, where there are no ant disturbances, one going from there is allowed to go after taking leave or without taking leave, but taking leave is the duty. Even if ants climb up one side of such a dwelling, one should depart after taking leave. A visiting bhikkhu who, following a resident bhikkhu after taking a Saṅgha dwelling, resides without taking his own dwelling, as long as he does not take it, that dwelling is the responsibility of the former bhikkhu. But when he takes the dwelling and resides with his own authority, from then on, it is the responsibility of the visitor. If both divide and take, it is the responsibility of both.

83. Regarding dwellings, here is the analysis of what should and should not be informed: First, if it is a long hall or leaf hall on the ground, or a dwelling built on tree trunks or pillars, which is a place for termites to rise, one should inform before departing. If left unattended for a few days, it will become like an anthill. However, if it is a dwelling built on stone slabs or stone pillars, a stone cave, or a plastered dwelling where there is no suspicion of termites, one may depart with or without informing, though informing is proper. If even in such a dwelling, termites are seen on one side, one should inform before leaving. If a visiting monk takes a community dwelling and, finding a resident monk, follows his lead without taking his own dwelling, the dwelling remains the responsibility of the former monk until the latter takes it. When the latter takes the dwelling and resides there as his own, it becomes the responsibility of the visiting monk. If both divide and take it, it is the responsibility of both.

Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana vuttaṃ – sace dve tayo ekato hutvā paññapenti, gamanakāle sabbehi āpucchitabbaṃ. Tesu ce paṭhamaṃ gacchanto “pacchimo jaggissatī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā gacchati, vaṭṭati , pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthi. Bahū ekaṃ pesetvā santharāpenti, gamanakāle sabbehi vā āpucchitabbaṃ, ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabbaṃ. Aññato mañcapīṭhādīni ānetvā aññatra vasitvā gamanakāle tattheva netabbāni. Sace aññato ānetvā vasamānassa añño vuḍḍhataro āgacchati, na paṭibāhitabbo , “mayā, bhante, aññāvāsato ānītaṃ, pākatikaṃ kareyyāthā”ti vattabbaṃ. Tena “evaṃ karissāmī”ti sampaṭicchite itarassa gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ aññattha haritvāpi saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjantassa hi naṭṭhaṃ vā jiṇṇaṃ vā corehi vā haṭaṃ gīvā neva hoti, puggalikaparibhogena paribhuñjantassa pana gīvā hoti. Aññassa mañcapīṭhaṃ pana saṅghikaparibhogena vā puggalikaparibhogena vā paribhuñjantassa naṭṭhaṃ gīvāyeva. Antovihāre seyyaṃ santharitvā “ajjeva āgantvā paṭijaggissāmī”ti evaṃ sāpekkho nadīpāraṃ gāmantaraṃ vā gantvā yatthassa gamanacittaṃ uppannaṃ, tattheva ṭhito kañci pesetvā āpucchati, nadīpūrarājacorādīsu vā kenaci palibodho hoti upadduto, na sakkoti paccāgantuṃ, evaṃbhūtassa anāpatti.

In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: If two or three together set it up, at the time of departure, all must inform. If the first to leave thinks, “The last will maintain it,” and goes, it is permissible, but there is no release for the last based on that thought. If many send one to have it spread, at the time of departure, either all must inform or send one to inform. If beds or seats are brought from elsewhere and used elsewhere, at the time of departure, they must be returned there. If one staying after bringing them from elsewhere is approached by an elder, he should not refuse, saying, “Venerable, I brought this from another residence; please restore it to its original state.” If the elder agrees, “I will do so,” the other may go. For when using saṅghika property elsewhere, if it is lost, worn out, or stolen, there is no liability; but with personal use, there is liability. Using another’s bed or seat, whether for saṅghika or personal use, if lost, there is liability. If one spreads a bed in a vihāra, intending, “I’ll return today to maintain it,” and goes to the other side of a river or another village with that expectation but something arises there and he sends someone to inform, or if he is hindered by a flooded river, a king, thieves, or the like and cannot return, in such a case, there is no offense.

But in the Mahāpaccariya it is said: if two or three spread it out together, all should take leave when going. If the first one to go thinks, “The last one will look after it,” and goes with that intention, it is allowable; there is no release for the last one by intention. Many send one to spread it out; when going, all should take leave, or one should be sent to take leave. Bringing beds, seats, etc., from elsewhere, residing elsewhere, when going, they should be taken there. If, while residing after bringing it from elsewhere, another elder comes, he should not be prevented; he should be told, “Venerable sir, I brought it from another dwelling, please make it as it was.” If he agrees, saying, “I will do so,” the other is allowed to go. Thus, even carrying it elsewhere, one consuming it with Saṅgha use, if it is lost or worn out or taken by thieves, it is not a debt; but one consuming it with personal use, it is a debt. But one consuming another’s bed and seat with Saṅgha use or personal use, if it is lost, it is a debt. Having spread out a bed inside the vihāra, thinking, “I will come back today and look after it,” thus expectant, going across a river or to another village, where his mind to go arose, staying there, he sends someone to take leave; there is an obstruction by flood, king, thieves, etc., he is hindered, he is not able to return; for such a one, there is no offense.

In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: If two or three monks prepare bedding together, all should inform before leaving. If the first to leave thinks, “The last one will take care of it,” and leaves with that intention, it is acceptable, but the last one is not free from responsibility. If many prepare bedding through one, all should inform, or one should inform on behalf of all. If bedding and seats are brought from elsewhere and used elsewhere, they should be left there when departing. If, while using bedding brought from elsewhere, an elder monk arrives, he should not be prevented, but one should say, “Venerable, I brought this from another residence; please make it common.” If he agrees, the other may leave. Even if taken elsewhere, if used as community property, loss, decay, or theft is not one’s responsibility, but if used as personal property, it is. If another’s bedding is used as community or personal property, loss is one’s responsibility. If bedding is prepared in an inner dwelling with the intention, “I will return today and take care of it,” and one goes to the other side of a river or to another village, and there arises an intention to go further, one may send someone to inform. If hindered by river crossing, kings, thieves, or other obstacles, and unable to return, there is no offense.

Vihārassa upacāre pana upaṭṭhānasālāya vā maṇḍape vā rukkhamūle vā seyyaṃ santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddharati na uddharāpeti anāpucchaṃ vā gacchati, dukkaṭaṃ. Vuttappakārañhi dasavidhaṃ seyyaṃ antogabbhādimhi guttaṭṭhāne paññapetvā gacchantassa yasmā seyyāpi senāsanampi upacikāhi palujjati, vammikarāsiyeva hoti, tasmā pācittiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Bahi pana upaṭṭhānasālādīsu paññapetvā gacchantassa seyyāmattameva nasseyya ṭhānassa aguttatāya, na senāsanaṃ, tasmā ettha dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Mañcapīṭhaṃ pana yasmā na sakkā sahasā upacikāhi khāyituṃ, tasmā taṃ vihārepi santharitvā gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Vihārassūpacāre upaṭṭhānasālāyaṃ maṇḍape rukkhamūlepi santharitvā pakkamantassa dukkaṭameva.

In the vicinity of a vihāra, such as in an attendance hall, pavilion, or under a tree, if one spreads or has spread a bed and departs without removing it, having it removed, or informing anyone, it is a dukkaṭa. For when the ten kinds of bedding mentioned are set up in a protected place like an inner room and one departs, both the bedding and lodging may be destroyed by termites and become a heap of ants, hence a pācittiya is stated. But outside, in an attendance hall or the like, if one sets it up and goes, only the bedding is lost due to the unprotected place, not the lodging, so here a dukkaṭa is stated. For a bed or seat, since termites cannot easily destroy it suddenly, even if spread in a vihāra and one departs, it is a dukkaṭa. If spread in an attendance hall, pavilion, or under a tree in the vihāra’s vicinity and one departs, it is still only a dukkaṭa.

But in the dwelling of the vihāra, in the assembly hall or in the pavilion or under a tree, having spread out or caused to spread out a bed, departing, he neither removes it nor causes it to be removed, nor takes leave, there is a dukkaṭa. Because when the tenfold bed of the stated kind is spread out in a protected place such as an inner room, etc., both the bed and the dwelling are damaged by ants, it becomes like an anthill, therefore a pācittiya is stated. But outside, in the assembly hall, etc., spreading it out and going, only the bed would be lost due to the unprotected nature of the place, not the dwelling, therefore a dukkaṭa is stated here. But because a bed and seat cannot be quickly eaten by ants, therefore, even spreading it out in the vihāra and going, there is a dukkaṭa. Spreading it out in the dwelling of the vihāra, in the assembly hall, in the pavilion, or under a tree, and departing, there is only a dukkaṭa.

If one prepares bedding in the vicinity of a dwelling, such as in a service hall, pavilion, or under a tree, and departs without removing it or informing, it is a dukkaṭa offense. The ten types of bedding mentioned earlier, if prepared in a guarded place like an inner room, and left unattended, will be destroyed by termites, becoming like an anthill, hence the pācittiya offense. If prepared in an unguarded place like a service hall, only the bedding is lost, not the dwelling, hence the dukkaṭa offense. Since bedding and seats cannot be quickly destroyed by termites, preparing them in a dwelling and leaving incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Preparing bedding in the vicinity of a dwelling, such as in a service hall, pavilion, or under a tree, and departing also incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

84. “Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghikaṃ mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā bhisiṃ vā kocchaṃ vā ajjhokāse santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya na uddharāpeyya anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 109) vacanato saṅghikāni pana mañcapīṭhādīni cattāri ajjhokāse santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā uddharaṇādīni akatvā “ajjeva āgamissāmī”ti gacchantassapi thāmamajjhimassa purisassa leḍḍupātātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Ettha kocchaṃ nāma vākamayaṃ vā usīramayaṃ vā muñjamayaṃ vā pabbajamayaṃ vā heṭṭhā ca upari ca vitthataṃ majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddhaṃ. Taṃ kira majjhe sīhabyagghacammaparikkhittampi karonti, akappiyacammaṃ nāmettha natthi. Senāsanañhi sovaṇṇamayampi vaṭṭati, tasmā taṃ mahagghaṃ hoti.

84. “If a bhikkhu spreads or has spread a saṅghika bed, seat, mat, or chair in the open, and departs without removing it, having it removed, or informing anyone, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 109). Based on this statement, if one spreads or has spread the four saṅghika items—bed, seat, mat, or chair—in the open and departs without removing them, having them removed, or informing anyone, even intending, “I’ll return today,” if one goes beyond the throw of a stone by a person of average strength, it is a pācittiya. Here, koccha refers to one made of bark, usīra grass, muñja grass, or reeds, stretched below and above, narrowed in the middle, shaped like a drum, and tied. It is said that some are even edged with lion or tiger leather in the middle, but there is no unsuitable leather here. For a lodging may even be made of gold, so it is valuable.

84. “If a bhikkhu, having spread out or caused to spread out a Saṅgha bed or seat or mattress or koccha in the open, departing, should neither remove it nor cause it to be removed, nor take leave, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 109); from the statement, spreading out or causing to spread out the four Saṅgha properties, bed, seat, etc., in the open, without doing the removing, etc., thinking, “I will come back today,” even for one going, crossing the stone’s throw of a strong or medium man, there is a pācittiya. Here, koccha is made of bark or usīra or muñja or pabbaja, wide below and above, contracted in the middle, made in the shape of a paṇava and tied. It is said that it is also made with lion or tiger skin covering in the middle; there is no unallowable leather here. Because even a golden dwelling is allowable, therefore it is expensive.

84. “If a monk prepares a community bed, seat, mattress, or bundle in the open air, or has it prepared, and upon departing, neither removes it nor has it removed, nor informs anyone, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 109). According to this rule, if one prepares the four community items—bed, seat, mattress, or bundle—in the open air, or has them prepared, and departs without removing them, thinking, “I will return today,” even for a strong man within a stone’s throw, it is a pācittiya offense. Here, bundle refers to a spread made of bark, grass, reeds, or bamboo, spread out below and above, gathered in the middle, and tied in the shape of a drum. It is said that even if wrapped in lion or tiger skin in the middle, it is not considered improper leather. For dwellings, even gold is allowed, as it is highly valuable.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭha māse avassikasaṅkete maṇḍape vā rukkhamūle vā yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadanti, tattha senāsanaṃ nikkhipitu”nti (pāci. 110) vacanato pana vassikavassānamāsāti evaṃ apaññāte cattāro hemantike, cattāro gimhiketi aṭṭha māse sākhāmaṇḍape vā padaramaṇḍape vā rukkhamūle vā nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati. Yasmiṃ pana kākā vā kulalā vā aññe vā sakuntā dhuvanivāsena kulāvake katvā vasanti, tassa rukkhassa mūle na nikkhipitabbaṃ. “Aṭṭha māse”ti vacanato yesu janapadesu vassakāle na vassati, tesu cattāro māse nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatiyeva. “Avassikasaṅkete”ti vacanato yattha hemante devo vassati, tattha hemantepi ajjhokāse nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati. Gimhe pana sabbattha vigatavalāhakaṃ visuddhaṃ nataṃ hoti, evarūpe kāle kenacideva karaṇīyena ajjhokāse mañcapīṭhaṃ nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati.

“I allow, bhikkhus, during the eight months outside the rainy season to place a lodging in a pavilion or under a tree where crows or hawks do not defecate” (pāci. 110). Based on this statement, outside the rainy season months, in the four winter months and four summer months—eight months total—it is permissible to place it in a branch pavilion, a plank pavilion, or under a tree. But where crows, hawks, or other birds live permanently and build nests, it should not be placed under that tree. From the phrase “eight months,” in regions where it does not rain in the rainy season, it is not permissible to place it for four months. From the phrase “outside the rainy season,” where rain falls in winter, it is not permissible to place it in the open in winter either. In summer, when the sky is clear of clouds everywhere, in such a season, it is permissible to place a bed or seat in the open for some reason.

“I allow, bhikkhus, for eight months, in a non-rainy agreement, in a pavilion or under a tree, where crows or kites do not defecate, to place a dwelling” (pāci. 110); from the statement, when the rainy season is not declared, thus, four months of winter, four months of summer, for eight months, it is allowable to place it in a leaf pavilion or a split-bamboo pavilion or under a tree. But where crows or kites or other birds reside permanently, having made nests, under the root of that tree, it should not be placed. Because it is said, “For eight months,” in those regions where it does not rain during the rainy season, it is not allowable to place it for four months. Because it is said, “In a non-rainy agreement,” where it rains in winter, it is not allowable to place it in the open even in winter. But in summer, everywhere the sky is clear without clouds, at such a time, for some reason, it is allowable to place a bed and seat in the open.

“I allow, monks, during the eight months outside the rainy season, to place dwellings in pavilions or under trees where crows or owls do not nest” (pāci. 110). According to this rule, during the eight months—four in winter and four in summer—it is permissible to place dwellings in branch pavilions, leaf pavilions, or under trees. However, if crows, owls, or other birds have built nests and reside in a tree, one should not place a dwelling under that tree. The term “eight months” means that in regions where it does not rain during the rainy season, it is not permissible to place dwellings during those four months. The term “outside the rainy season” means that if it rains in winter, one should not place dwellings in the open air even in winter. In summer, when the sky is clear and free of clouds, it is permissible to place beds and seats in the open air for necessary tasks.

85. Abbhokāsikenapi vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tassa hi sace puggalikamañcako atthi, tattheva sayitabbaṃ. Saṅghikaṃ gaṇhantena vettena vā vākena vā vītamañcako gahetabbo, tasmiṃ asati purāṇamañcako gahetabbo, tasmiṃ asati navavāyimo vā onaddhako vā gahetabbo. Gahetvā pana “ahaṃ ukkaṭṭharukkhamūliko ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko”ti cīvarakuṭimpi akatvā asamaye ajjhokāse vā rukkhamūle vā paññapetvā nipajjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana catugguṇenapi cīvarena katā kuṭi atementaṃ rakkhituṃ na sakkoti, sattāhavaddalikādīni bhavanti, bhikkhuno kāyānugatikattā vaṭṭati. Araññe paṇṇakuṭīsu vasantānaṃ sīlasampadāya pasannacittā manussā navaṃ mañcapīṭhaṃ denti “saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjathā”ti, vasitvā gacchantehi sāmantavihāre sabhāgabhikkhūnaṃ pesetvā gantabbaṃ, sabhāgānaṃ abhāvena anovassake nikkhipitvā gantabbaṃ, anovassake asati rukkhe laggetvā gantabbaṃ. Cetiyaṅgaṇe sammajjaniṃ gahetvā bhojanasālaṅgaṇaṃ vā uposathāgāraṅgaṇaṃ vā pariveṇadivāṭṭhānaaggisālādīsu vā aññataraṃ sammajjitvā dhovitvā puna sammajjanimāḷakeyeva ṭhapetabbā. Uposathāgārādīsu aññatarasmiṃ gahetvā avasesāni sammajjantassapi eseva nayo.

85. One living in the open should also know the duty. If he has a personal bed, he should sleep on it. When taking a saṅghika one, he should take a wicker or bark bed; if unavailable, an old bed; if unavailable, a newly woven or bound one. Having taken it, without making a robe hut, thinking, “I am a strict tree-dweller or open-dweller,” it is not permissible to set it up and sleep in the open or under a tree out of season. If a hut made with even four layers of robe cloth cannot protect it from the elements and it becomes seven-day property or the like, it is permissible due to following the bhikkhu’s body. For those living in leaf huts in the forest, if people pleased with their virtue give a new bed or seat saying, “Use it for the saṅgha,” when departing after use, it should be sent to compatible bhikkhus in a nearby vihāra; if none are available, it should be placed in a non-leaking spot; if unavailable, hung on a tree and then one may go. Taking a broom in a cetiya courtyard, one should sweep the dining hall courtyard, uposatha hall courtyard, daytime resting place, fire hall, or another area, wash it, and place the broom back in its stand. The same applies to one who takes it from an uposatha hall or similar place and sweeps the rest.

85. The duty should also be known by one who lives in the open. If he has a personal bed, he should sleep on it. One taking a Saṅgha property should take a bed woven with cane or bark; if that is not available, an old bed; if that is not available, a newly woven or tied one. But thinking, “I am one who lives under an excellent tree, I am one who lives in an excellent open space,” without even making a cloth hut, it is not allowable to lie down after spreading it out in the open or under a tree at the wrong time. But if a hut made of even four layers of cloth cannot protect one from getting wet, there are seven days of continuous rain, etc., it is allowable because of following the body of the bhikkhu. In the forest, for those residing in leaf huts, humans with minds pleased by their virtuous conduct give new beds and seats, saying, “Consume it with Saṅgha use”; those residing and going should send for fellow bhikkhus in nearby vihāras before going; in the absence of fellow bhikkhus, they should place it in a non-leaking place before going; if there is no non-leaking place, they should hang it on a tree before going. Taking a broom in the cetiya courtyard, sweeping the dining hall courtyard or the uposatha hall courtyard or the courtyard of the dwelling, day quarters, fire hall, etc., after sweeping and washing, it should be placed back in the broom closet. The same applies to one sweeping the remaining places after taking it in one of the uposatha hall, etc.

85. The duties of an open-air dweller should also be understood. If one has a personal bed, one should sleep there. If taking a community bed, one should take a bed free of vines or bark. If none is available, an old bed should be taken; if none, a newly made or covered bed. After taking it, one should not, thinking, “I am a noble tree-root dweller, a noble open-air dweller,” prepare a robe hut and lie down in the open air or under a tree at an improper time. However, if even a four-layered robe hut cannot protect from rain, and leaks occur, it is permissible due to the monk’s physical comfort. In the forest, when staying in leaf huts, laypeople with faith in moral conduct may offer new beds and seats, saying, “Use them as community property.” When departing, one should send them to fellow monks in nearby monasteries; if none are present, they should be left in a dry place; if no dry place is available, they should be tied to a tree. A broom taken from the shrine courtyard should be used to sweep the dining hall courtyard, the Uposatha hall courtyard, or the surrounding areas, then washed and returned to the broom stand. If taken from the Uposatha hall, the same applies to sweeping the other areas.

Yo pana bhikkhācāramaggaṃ sammajjanto gantukāmo hoti, tena sammajjitvā sace antarāmagge sālā atthi, tattha ṭhapetabbā. Sace natthi, valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā “yāvāhaṃ gāmato nikkhamāmi, tāva na vassissatī”ti jānantena yattha katthaci nikkhipitvā puna paccāgacchantena pākatikaṭṭhāne ṭhapetabbā. “Sace vassissatīti jānanto ajjhokāse ṭhapeti, dukkaṭa”nti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sace pana tatra tatreva sammajjanatthāya sammajjanī nikkhittā hoti, taṃ taṃ ṭhānaṃ sammajjitvā tatra tatreva nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati, āsanasālaṃ sammajjantena vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tatridaṃ vattaṃ – majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā vālikā haritabbā, kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabbaṃ.

Now, a monk who wishes to sweep the path for alms-round and proceed should sweep it. If there is a hall along the way, the broom should be placed there. If there is no hall, considering the incomplete state of the clouds and knowing, “It will not rain until I return from the village,” he may place it anywhere and, upon returning, restore it to its usual place. It is said in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, “If he knows it will rain and places it in the open, it is a dukkaṭa.” However, if a broom is left in various places specifically for sweeping, it is permissible to sweep each place and leave it there. One who sweeps the seating hall should know the proper procedure. Here is the procedure: starting from the center, the sand should be carried toward the foot area, and rubbish should be taken by hand and discarded outside.

If someone wishes to go sweeping the path used for the alms round, they should sweep it and, if there is a hall on the way, leave the broom there. If there is none, they should assess whether the clouds are forming and, knowing, “It will not rain until I return from the village,” leave it somewhere and, upon returning, place it back in its usual spot. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that “If one knows it will rain and leaves it in the open, it is a dukkaṭa offense.” However, if brooms have been placed in various locations specifically for sweeping, it is permissible to sweep those places and leave the brooms right there. One sweeping the resting hall should know the proper procedure. The procedure is as follows: the sand should be swept from the center towards the place where people stand, and the rubbish should be taken in hand and thrown outside.

If a bhikkhu wishes to go after sweeping the walking path, he should sweep it and, if there is a hall along the way, place the broom there. If there is no hall, he should assess whether the clouds are not gathering and, knowing that “it will not rain before I leave the village,” he may place the broom anywhere and return later to put it in its proper place. If he knows it will rain and leaves the broom outside, it is a dukkaṭa offense, as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. If a broom has been left in various places for sweeping purposes, after sweeping those areas, it is permissible to leave it there. When sweeping the sitting hall, the proper procedure should be known. The procedure is as follows: starting from the middle, the sand should be removed towards the footrests, and any debris should be picked up by hand and discarded outside.

86. Sace vuttappakāraṃ catubbidhampi saṅghikaṃ senāsanaṃ ajjhokāse vā rukkhamūle vā maṇḍape vā anupasampannena santharāpeti, yena santharāpitaṃ, tassa palibodho. Sace pana upasampannena santharāpeti, yena santhataṃ, tassa palibodho. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pāci. aṭṭha. 111) – thero bhojanasālāyaṃ bhattakiccaṃ katvā daharaṃ āṇāpeti “gaccha divāṭṭhāne mañcapīṭhaṃ paññapehī”ti. So tathā katvā nisinno, thero yathāruci vicaritvā tattha gantvā thavikaṃ vā uttarāsaṅgaṃ vā ṭhapeti, tato paṭṭhāya therassa palibodho. Nisīditvā sayaṃ gacchanto neva uddharati na uddharāpeti, leḍḍupātātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana thero tattha thavikaṃ vā uttarāsaṅgaṃ vā aṭṭhapetvā caṅkamantova daharaṃ “gaccha tva”nti bhaṇati, tena “idaṃ, bhante, mañcapīṭha”nti ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace thero vattaṃ jānāti, “tvaṃ gaccha, ahaṃ pākatikaṃ karissāmī”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace bālo hoti anuggahitavatto, “gaccha, mā idha tiṭṭha, neva nisīdituṃ na nipajjituṃ demī”ti daharaṃ tajjetiyeva. Daharena “bhante, sukhaṃ sayathā”ti kappaṃ labhitvā vanditvā gantabbaṃ. Tasmiṃ gate therasseva palibodho, purimanayeneva cassa āpatti veditabbā.

86. If any of the four types of communal lodgings—whether in the open, at the root of a tree, or in a pavilion—is spread out by an unordained person, the responsibility falls on the one who had it spread. But if it is spread by an ordained person, the responsibility falls on the one who spread it. Here is the ruling (pāci. aṭṭha. 111): an elder, having performed duties in the dining hall, instructs a junior, “Go and arrange a bed or seat in the daytime resting place.” The junior does so and sits there. The elder, wandering as he pleases, goes there and places a bag or an upper robe on it. From that moment, the responsibility is the elder’s. If, after sitting, he leaves without removing it or having it removed, it is a pācittiya offense upon passing beyond the range of a stone’s throw. However, if the elder, while pacing, says to the junior, “Go,” the junior should inform him, “Venerable sir, this is the bed or seat.” If the elder knows the procedure, he should say, “You go; I will restore it to its usual state.” If he is ignorant and untrained in the procedure, the junior should firmly admonish him, “Go, do not stay here; I will neither let you sit nor lie down.” The junior, having obtained permission with, “Venerable sir, rest well,” should pay respects and leave. Once he has gone, the responsibility remains with the elder, and his offense should be understood as before.

86. If any of the four types of monastic lodging mentioned above is spread out in the open, under a tree, or in a pavilion by a non-ordained person, the responsibility (palibodha) rests with the one who had it spread out. If, however, it is spread out by an ordained person, the responsibility rests with the one who spread it out. Here is the determination (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 111): A senior monk (thera), having finished his meal in the dining hall, instructs a novice, “Go, prepare the couch and seat in the daytime resting place.” The novice does so and sits down. The senior monk, having wandered as he pleased, goes there and places his bag or upper robe. From that point on, the responsibility rests with the senior monk. If he sits down and leaves on his own without removing it or having it removed, it is a pācittiya offense upon crossing the stone’s throw. If, however, the senior monk, without placing his bag or upper robe there, is walking and says to the novice, “You go,” the novice should say, “Venerable sir, this is the couch and seat.” If the senior monk knows the procedure, he should say, “You go, I will make it as it was.” If he is inexperienced and has not been instructed, he should reprimand the novice, saying, “Go, do not stay here; I do not allow you to sit or lie down.” The novice, having received permission with “Venerable sir, may you rest well,” should pay respects and leave. Once he has left, the responsibility rests with the senior monk, and his offense should be understood as in the previous case.

86. If an unordained person prepares any of the four types of communal lodging—whether in the open air, at the root of a tree, or in a pavilion—the person who prepared it is responsible for it. If an ordained person prepares it, the person who uses it is responsible. Here is the ruling (pāci. aṭṭha. 111): An elder, after completing his meal duties in the dining hall, instructs a junior, “Go and prepare a bed or bench in the day quarters.” The junior does so and sits down. The elder, after wandering as he pleases, goes there and places a bag or upper robe. From that moment, the elder is responsible. If the elder sits and then leaves without removing or having it removed, it is a pācittiya offense for crossing the boundary. If the elder, while walking, instructs the junior, “You go,” the junior should inform him, “Venerable, this is the bed and bench.” If the elder knows the procedure, he should say, “You go, I will put it in order.” If the junior is ignorant and untaught, the elder should dismiss him, saying, “Go, do not stay here; I do not permit you to sit or lie down.” The junior, having received permission, should pay respects and leave. Once he has left, the elder is responsible, and the offense should be understood as before.

Atha pana āṇattikkhaṇeyeva daharo “mayhaṃ bhaṇḍe bhaṇḍadhovanādi kiñci karaṇīyaṃ atthī”ti vadati, thero pana taṃ “paññapetvā gacchāhī”ti vatvā bhojanasālato nikkhamitvā aññattha gacchati, pāduddhārena kāretabbo . Sace tattheva gantvā nisīdati, purimanayeneva cassa leḍḍupātātikkame āpatti. Sace pana thero sāmaṇeraṃ āṇāpeti, sāmaṇere tattha mañcapīṭhaṃ paññapetvā nisinnepi bhojanasālato aññattha gacchanto pāduddhārena kāretabbo. Gantvā nisinno puna gamanakāle leḍḍupātātikkame āpattiyā kāretabbo. Sace pana āṇāpento “mañcapīṭhaṃ paññapetvā tattheva nisīdā”ti āṇāpeti, yatricchati, tatra gantvā āgantuṃ labhati. Sayaṃ pana pākatikaṃ akatvā gacchantassa leḍḍupātātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Antarasannipāte mañcapīṭhādīni paññapetvā nisinnehi gamanakāle ārāmikānaṃ “idaṃ paṭisāmethā”ti vattabbaṃ, avatvā gacchantānaṃ leḍḍupātātikkame āpatti.

But if, at the very moment of instruction, the junior says, “I have something to do, like washing my gear,” and the elder, saying, “Arrange it and go,” leaves the dining hall and goes elsewhere, it should be removed with the feet. If the elder goes there and sits, his offense upon passing a stone’s throw is as before. If, however, the elder instructs a novice, and the novice arranges the bed or seat and, though seated there, goes elsewhere from the dining hall, it should be removed with the feet. If he goes, sits, and leaves again, he incurs an offense upon passing a stone’s throw. But if the elder instructs, “Arrange the bed or seat and sit there,” the novice may go wherever he wishes and return. However, if the elder leaves without restoring it himself, it is a pācittiya offense upon passing a stone’s throw. When monks, having arranged beds or seats during an intermediate gathering, leave, they should say to the monastery attendants, “Put these away.” If they leave without saying so, it is an offense upon passing a stone’s throw.

If, however, at the moment of instruction, the novice says, “I have some duties to do, such as washing my belongings,” and the senior monk, telling him, “Go after you have prepared it,” leaves the dining hall and goes elsewhere, he should be made to do it [the setting back to the normal state] by foot-lifting. If he goes there and sits down, his offense upon crossing the stone’s throw is as in the previous case. If, however, the senior monk instructs a novice (sāmaṇera), even if the novice prepares the couch and seat there and sits down, if the senior monk goes elsewhere from the dining hall, he [the novice] should be made to do it by foot-lifting. If he [the novice] goes and sits and then, upon the time of going, he should be caused the offense on crossing the stone’s throw. If, however, while instructing, he says, “Prepare the couch and seat and sit right there,” he is allowed to go wherever he wishes and return. However, if he himself leaves without making it as it was, it is a pācittiya offense upon crossing the stone’s throw. If those who have prepared couches, seats, and so on at an intermediate gathering sit down, they should say to the monastery attendants, “Take care of this,” when they leave. If they leave without saying so, it is an offense upon crossing the stone’s throw.

If, at the moment of instruction, the junior says, “I have some duties like washing my belongings,” and the elder says, “Prepare it and go,” then leaves the dining hall and goes elsewhere, he should be made to lift his feet. If he goes and sits there, the offense of crossing the boundary is as before. If the elder instructs a novice, and the novice prepares the bed and bench and sits there, the elder, upon leaving the dining hall, should be made to lift his feet. If he sits and then leaves at the time of departure, he should be made to commit the offense of crossing the boundary. If the elder instructs, “Prepare the bed and bench and sit there,” he may go wherever he wishes and return. If he leaves without putting things in order, it is a pācittiya offense for crossing the boundary. During an interim gathering, if beds and benches are prepared and left, the attendants should be told, “Put this in order.” If they leave without being told, it is an offense of crossing the boundary.

87. Mahādhammassavanaṃ nāma hoti, tattha uposathāgāratopi bhojanasālatopi āharitvā mañcapīṭhāni paññapenti, āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodho. Sace āgantukā “idaṃ amhākaṃ upajjhāyassa, idaṃ ācariyassā”ti gaṇhanti, tato paṭṭhāya tesaṃ palibodho. Gamanakāle pākatikaṃ akatvā leḍḍupātaṃ atikkamantānaṃ āpatti. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “yāva aññe na nisīdanti, tāva yehi paññattaṃ, tesaṃ bhāro, aññesu āgantvā nisinnesu nisinnakānaṃ bhāro. Sace te anuddharitvā vā anuddharāpetvā vā gacchanti, dukkaṭaṃ. Kasmā? Anāṇattiyā paññapitattā”ti. Dhammāsane paññatte yāva ussārako vā dhammakathiko vā nāgacchati, tāva paññāpakānaṃ palibodho. Tasmiṃ āgantvā nisinne tassa palibodho. Sakalaṃ ahorattaṃ dhammassavanaṃ hoti, añño ussārako vā dhammakathiko vā uṭṭhāti, añño nisīdati, yo yo āgantvā nisīdati, tassa tasseva bhāro. Uṭṭhahantena pana “idamāsanaṃ tumhākaṃ bhāro”ti vatvā gantabbaṃ. Sacepi itarasmiṃ anāgate paṭhamaṃ nisinno uṭṭhāya gacchati, tasmiñca antoupacāraṭṭheyeva itaro āgantvā nisīdati, uṭṭhāya gato āpattiyā na kāretabbo. Sace pana itarasmiṃ anāgateyeva paṭhamaṃ nisinno uṭṭhāyāsanā leḍḍupātaṃ atikkamati, āpattiyā kāretabbo. “Sabbattha leḍḍupātātikkame paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāde pācittiya”nti ayaṃ nayo mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttoti.

87. There is what is called a great Dhamma listening. There, beds and seats are brought from the uposatha hall or dining hall and arranged. The responsibility lies solely with the resident monks. If visiting monks take them, saying, “This is for our preceptor, this for our teacher,” the responsibility shifts to them from that point. If they leave without restoring them and pass a stone’s throw, it is an offense. However, it is said in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, “As long as others do not sit, the burden is on those who arranged it; once others come and sit, the burden is on those seated. If they leave without removing or having it removed, it is a dukkaṭa. Why? Because it was arranged without instruction.” For a seat arranged for a Dhamma talk, until the announcer or Dhamma speaker arrives, the responsibility is with those who arranged it. Once he arrives and sits, the responsibility is his. If the Dhamma listening lasts a full day and night, with one announcer or speaker rising and another sitting, the burden falls on whoever comes and sits. The one rising should say, “This seat is your responsibility,” before leaving. Even if the next person has not yet arrived and the first seated person rises and leaves, if the other arrives and sits while still within the precinct, the one who left incurs no offense. But if the first seated person rises and passes a stone’s throw before the other arrives, he incurs an offense. It is said in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, “In all cases, passing a stone’s throw incurs a dukkaṭa with the first step and a pācittiya with the second.”

87. There is what is called a great Dhamma discourse. For this, couches and seats are brought from the uposatha hall and the dining hall and set up. The responsibility rests with the residents. If the visitors take them, saying, “This is for our preceptor, this is for our teacher,” from that point on, the responsibility rests with them. If they leave without making it as it was, it is an offense upon crossing the stone’s throw. However, it is said in the Mahāpaccari, “As long as others do not sit down, the responsibility rests with those who prepared them. When others come and sit down, the responsibility rests with those who are sitting. If they leave without removing them or having them removed, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Why? Because they were prepared without instruction.” When the Dhamma seat is prepared, as long as the announcer or the Dhamma speaker does not arrive, the responsibility rests with those who prepared it. When he arrives and sits down, the responsibility rests with him. The Dhamma discourse lasts the whole day and night. Another announcer or Dhamma speaker gets up, and another sits down. Whoever comes and sits down, the responsibility rests with him. However, the one who is getting up should say, “This seat is your responsibility,” and then leave. Even if the first one who sat down gets up and leaves before the other one arrives, and while he is still within the boundary of the immediate vicinity, the other one arrives and sits down, the one who got up and left should not be charged with an offense. If, however, the first one who sat down gets up and crosses a stone’s throw from the seat before the other one arrives, he should be charged with an offense. The principle, “Everywhere, upon crossing a stone’s throw, it is a dukkaṭa offense with the first foot, and a pācittiya offense with the second foot,” is mentioned in the Mahāpaccari.

87. A great Dhamma hearing is called such. There, beds and benches are brought from the Uposatha hall or dining hall and prepared. Only the residents are responsible. If visitors say, “This is for our preceptor, this is for our teacher,” they become responsible from that point. If they leave without putting things in order and cross the boundary, it is an offense. The Mahāpaccariya states, “As long as others do not sit, those who prepared it are responsible. When others arrive and sit, those sitting are responsible. If they leave without removing or having it removed, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Why? Because it was prepared without instruction.” When a Dhamma seat is prepared, those who prepared it are responsible until the reciter or Dhamma speaker arrives. Once he arrives and sits, he is responsible. The entire day and night is for hearing the Dhamma. If one reciter or Dhamma speaker rises and another sits, each one who arrives and sits is responsible. When rising, one should say, “This seat is your responsibility,” and then leave. If the first one who sat rises and leaves before the other arrives, and the other sits in the same vicinity, the one who left should not be made to commit an offense. If the first one who sat rises and crosses the boundary before the other arrives, he should be made to commit an offense. “In all cases of crossing the boundary, the first step is a dukkaṭa offense, and the second step is a pācittiya offense,” as stated in the Mahāpaccariya.

88. Sace pana vuttappakārasenāsanato aññaṃ saṅghikaṃ cimilikaṃ vā uttarattharaṇaṃ vā bhūmattharaṇaṃ vā taṭṭikaṃ vā cammakhaṇḍaṃ vā pādapuñchaniṃ vā phalakapīṭhaṃ vā ajjhokāse santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddharati na uddharāpeti anāpucchaṃ vā gacchati, dukkaṭaṃ. Ādhārakaṃ pattapidhānakaṃ pādakaṭhalikaṃ tālavaṇṭaṃ bījanipattakaṃ yaṃ kiñci dārubhaṇḍaṃ antamaso pānīyauḷuṅkaṃ pānīyasaṅkhaṃ ajjhokāse nikkhipitvā gacchantassapi dukkaṭaṃ. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā rajanabhājanaṃ rajanauḷuṅko rajanadoṇikāti sabbaṃ aggisālāya paṭisāmetabbaṃ. Sace aggisālā natthi, anovassake pabbhāre nikkhipitabbaṃ. Tasmimpi asati yattha olokentā bhikkhū passanti, tādise ṭhāne ṭhapetvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Aññapuggalike pana mañcapīṭhādisenāsanepi dukkaṭameva. Ettha pana “yasmiṃ vissāsaggāho na ruhati, tassa santake dukkaṭaṃ. Yasmiṃ pana vissāsaggāho ruhati, tassa santakaṃ attano puggalikameva hotī”ti mahāpaccariyādīsu vuttaṃ. Attano puggalike pana anāpattiyeva. Yo bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā ārāmiko vā lajjī hoti, attano palibodhaṃ viya maññati, tathārūpaṃ anāpucchitvā gacchantassapi anāpatti. Yo pana ātape otāpento “āgantvā uddharissāmī”ti gacchati, tassapi anāpatti.

88. If, however, from communal lodgings other than those mentioned—such as a mat, an upper cover, a floor cover, a screen, a leather piece, a foot-wiper, or a wooden seat—he spreads or has it spread in the open and leaves without removing it, having it removed, or informing anyone, it is a dukkaṭa. Likewise, placing any wooden item in the open—such as a stand, bowl lid, footstool, fan handle, leaf fan, or even a water dipper or water conch—and leaving incurs a dukkaṭa. If dye is cooked in the open, all items like the dye vessel, dye dipper, or dye trough must be returned to the fire hall. If there is no fire hall, they should be placed in a rainproof shelter. If that too is unavailable, they may be placed where monks looking around can see them, and it is permissible to leave. For items belonging to another individual, such as beds or seats, it is also a dukkaṭa. Here it is said in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ and other texts, “For items belonging to one in whom trust cannot be placed, it is a dukkaṭa. But for items belonging to one in whom trust can be placed, they are considered one’s own personal property.” For one’s own personal property, there is no offense. If a monk, novice, or monastery attendant is conscientious and regards it as their own responsibility, leaving without informing such a person incurs no offense. Likewise, one who leaves an item in the sun to dry, thinking, “I will return and remove it,” incurs no offense.

88. If, however, one spreads out or has someone spread out in the open any other belonging to the Sangha besides the aforementioned lodgings, such as a mat, a top-covering, a ground-covering, a mat made of strips of cloth, a piece of leather, a foot-wiper, or a wooden seat, and leaves without removing it or having it removed, or departs without asking permission, it is a dukkaṭa offense. A stand, a lid for the alms-bowl, a footstool, a palm-leaf fan, a winnowing fan, any wooden utensil, even a water dipper or a water shell, if left in the open and one departs, it is a dukkaṭa offense. After cooking dye in the open, the dye container, the dye dipper, and the dye trough—everything—should be put away in the fire hall. If there is no fire hall, they should be placed in a sheltered rock cave. If even that is not available, they should be placed in a location where the monks can see them when they look, and then it is permissible to leave. However, even in the case of privately owned lodgings such as couches and seats, it is still a dukkaṭa offense. Here, however, it is said in the Mahāpaccari and other texts, “In the case of one with whom trust does not arise, it is a dukkaṭa offense with regard to his belongings. In the case of one with whom trust arises, his belongings are considered one’s own private property.” In the case of one’s own private property, there is no offense. If a monk, novice, or monastery attendant is conscientious and considers it his own responsibility, there is no offense even if he leaves without asking permission. If someone is warming himself in the sun and leaves, thinking, “I will come back and remove it,” there is also no offense for him.

88. If, after preparing any of the aforementioned types of communal lodging, one leaves without removing or having removed another communal item—such as a mat, upper cover, ground cover, rug, leather piece, foot wiper, or plank seat—left or prepared in the open air, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one leaves after placing any wooden item, even a water strainer or water conch, in the open air, it is a dukkaṭa offense. After preparing dye in the open air, all dye vessels, dye pots, and dye tubs should be put away in the fire hall. If there is no fire hall, they should be placed under a non-leaking roof. If even that is not available, they should be placed where monks can see them when looking around. In the case of personal beds and benches, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. Here, it is said in the Mahāpaccariya and others, “Where trust is not established, it is a dukkaṭa offense for that person. Where trust is established, it is considered personal property.” For personal property, there is no offense. If a monk, novice, or monastery worker is conscientious and considers it his responsibility, there is no offense if he leaves without informing. If one leaves intending to return and remove it later, there is also no offense.

18. Kālikavinicchayakathā

18. Discussion on Rulings Related to Time

18. The Discussion on the Determination of Allowables

18. Discussion on Time Limits

89. Kālikānipi cattārīti ettha (pāci. aṭṭha. 255-256) yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikanti imāni cattāri kālikāni veditabbāni. Tattha purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīyaṃ yāva majjhanhikasaṅkhato kālo, tāva paribhuñjitabbato yāvakālikaṃ. Saddhiṃ anulomapānehi aṭṭhavidhaṃ pānaṃ yāva rattiyā pacchimayāmasaṅkhāto yāmo, tāva paribhuñjitabbato yāmo kālo assāti yāmakālikaṃ. Sappiādi pañcavidhaṃ bhesajjaṃ paṭiggahetvā sattāhaṃ nidhetabbato sattāho kālo assāti sattāhakālikaṃ. Ṭhapetvā udakaṃ avasesaṃ sabbampi paṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvaṃ pariharitvā sati paccaye paribhuñjitabbato yāvajīvikanti vuccati.

89. Here, in “Kālikānipi cattāri” (pāci. aṭṭha. 255-256), the four types of time-bound items are to be understood: yāvakālika, yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika. Among them, yāvakālika refers to any edible or consumable food that, having been received before the meal, may be consumed until the time reckoned as midday. Yāmakālika refers to the eight kinds of drinks, along with suitable beverages, that may be consumed until the period reckoned as the last watch of the night, thus having the time of a yāma. Sattāhakālika refers to the five kinds of medicines, such as ghee, that may be stored for seven days, thus having the time of seven days. Yāvajīvika refers to everything else received, except water, that may be kept for life and consumed when there is a condition, thus called “for life.”

89. Regarding the four kinds of allowables (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 255-256), these four should be understood: yāvakālikaṃ (allowable until noon), yāmakālikaṃ (allowable for the duration of a watch), sattāhakālikaṃ (allowable for seven days), and yāvajīvikaṃ (allowable for life). Here, yāvakālikaṃ is any edible or chewable food that is received before noon and should be consumed before the time known as midday, because it is to be consumed within that time. Yāmakālikaṃ is the eight kinds of drinks, along with suitable drinks, that are to be consumed within the time known as the last watch of the night, because a watch (yāma) is its time. Sattāhakālikaṃ is the five kinds of medicine, such as ghee, that are received and can be stored for seven days, because seven days is its time. Yāvajīvikaṃ is everything received, except for water, that can be kept for life and consumed when there is a need.

89. There are four time limits: here (pāci. aṭṭha. 255-256), the time limits are to be understood as yāvakālika (valid for a certain time), yāmakālika (valid for a watch), sattāhakālika (valid for seven days), and yāvajīvika (valid for a lifetime). Among these, any edible food received before noon and to be consumed before midday is called yāvakālika. Any of the eight kinds of drinks, along with suitable food, to be consumed until the last watch of the night is called yāmakālika. Any of the five kinds of medicine, such as ghee, received and to be stored for seven days is called sattāhakālika. Except for water, all other received items to be kept for a lifetime and consumed when needed are called yāvajīvika.

90. Tattha yāvakālikesu bhojanīyaṃ nāma odano kummāso sattu maccho maṃsanti. Pañca bhojanāni yāmakālikaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ khādanīyaṃ nāma. Ettha (pāci. aṭṭha. 248-9) pana yaṃ tāva sakkhalimodakādi pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇamayaṃ khādanīyaṃ, tattha vattabbameva natthi. Yampi vanamūlādippabhedaṃ āmisagatikaṃ hoti. Seyyathidaṃ – mūlakhādanīyaṃ kandakhādanīyaṃ muḷālakhādanīyaṃ matthakakhādanīyaṃ khandhakhādanīyaṃ tacakhādanīyaṃ pattakhādanīyaṃ pupphakhādanīyaṃ phalakhādanīyaṃ aṭṭhikhādanīyaṃ piṭṭhakhādanīyaṃ niyyāsakhādanīyanti, idampi khādanīyasaṅkhyameva gacchati.

90. Among the yāvakālika items, bhojanīya refers to rice, porridge, flour, fish, and meat—the five foods. Excluding yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika, the remainder is called khādanīya. Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 248-9), for items like sugar lumps or sweets made from morning or afternoon food, there is nothing to be said—they are clearly permissible. There are also types of forest roots and the like that are considered material food, such as: root edibles, tuber edibles, rhizome edibles, sprout edibles, stem edibles, bark edibles, leaf edibles, flower edibles, fruit edibles, seed edibles, and resin edibles—all these fall under the category of khādanīya.

90. Here, among the yāvakālikas, bhojanīyaṃ (food) refers to cooked rice, gruel, flour, fish, and meat. Excluding the five foods, yāmakālikaṃ, sattāhakālikaṃ, and yāvajīvikaṃ, the rest is called khādanīyaṃ (edibles). Here (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 248-9), as for edibles made of grains and pulses, such as hard-boiled sweets, there is nothing to discuss. Whatever is categorized as food and is derived from forest roots and the like, such as root-edibles, tuber-edibles, stalk-edibles, top-edibles, stem-edibles, bark-edibles, leaf-edibles, flower-edibles, fruit-edibles, seed-edibles, flour-edibles, and resin-edibles, this also falls under the category of edibles.

90. Among these, bhojanīya refers to rice, porridge, flour, fish, and meat—the five kinds of food. Except for these, all other items are called khādanīya. Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 248-9), what is called khādanīya includes items like sugar, water, and other edible substances, whether from the morning or evening. Also included are various forest roots and other edible items. For example: root edibles, tuber edibles, bulb edibles, shoot edibles, stem edibles, bark edibles, leaf edibles, flower edibles, fruit edibles, seed edibles, and sap edibles—all these fall under the category of khādanīya.

Tattha pana āmisagatikasallakkhaṇatthaṃ idaṃ mukhamattanidassanaṃ – mūlakhādanīye tāva mūlakamūlaṃ khārakamūlaṃ caccumūlaṃ tambakamūlaṃ taṇḍuleyyakamūlaṃ vatthuleyyakamūlaṃ vajakalimūlaṃ jajjharimūlanti evamādīni sūpeyyapaṇṇamūlāni āmisagatikāni. Ettha ca vajakalimūle jaraṭṭhaṃ chinditvā chaḍḍenti, taṃ yāvajīvikaṃ hoti. Aññampi evarūpaṃ eteneva nayena veditabbaṃ. Mūlakakhārakajajjharimūlānaṃ pana jaraṭṭhānipi āmisagatikānevāti vuttaṃ. Yāni pana pāḷiyaṃ –

For the purpose of identifying material edibles, this is a brief illustration: in mūlakhādanīya (root edibles), roots such as mūlaka, khāraka, caccu, tambaka, taṇḍuleyya, vatthuleyya, vajakali, and jajjhari, as well as roots used in soups, are material edibles. Here, when vajakali roots are old, they are cut and discarded, making them yāvajīvika. Other similar cases should be understood in the same way. Even the old parts of mūlaka, khāraka, and jajjhari roots are said to be material edibles. However, those roots listed in the Pāli—

Here, for the purpose of identifying what is categorized as food, this is a brief illustration: Among root-edibles, radish root, carrot root, caccu root, tambaka root, taṇḍuleyyaka root, vatthuleyyaka root, vajakali root, and jajjhari root, and so on, are roots of pot-herbs that are categorized as food. Here, the mature part of the vajakali root is cut off and discarded; that is yāvajīvikaṃ. Anything else of this kind should be understood in the same way. However, it is said that even the mature parts of radish, carrot, and jajjhari roots are categorized as food. As for those that are mentioned in the Pāḷi:

Here, to illustrate the characteristics of edible roots: root edibles include radish roots, carrot roots, ginger roots, turmeric roots, and other similar roots used in cooking. Among these, the root of vajakali, when the old part is cut off and discarded, is considered yāvajīvika. Other similar roots should be understood in the same way. The old parts of radish, carrot, and jajjhara roots are also considered edible. As stated in the Pāli:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, mūlāni bhesajjāni haliddiṃ siṅgiveraṃ vacaṃ vacattaṃ ativisaṃ kaṭukarohiṇiṃ usīraṃ bhaddamuttakaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūlāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharantī”ti (mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, root medicines: turmeric, ginger, vacā, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, and any other roots that are medicines, which neither serve as khādanīya for eating nor as bhojanīya for nourishment” (mahāva. 263)—

“Monks, I allow medicinal roots: turmeric, ginger, sweet flag, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇi, fragrant root, bhaddamuttaka, and whatever other medicinal roots there are that do not serve the purpose of edibles among edibles, nor the purpose of food among foods” (Mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, roots as medicine: turmeric, ginger, vaca, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇi, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, and any other roots that are neither edible nor food” (Mahāva. 263).

Vuttāni, tāni yāvajīvikāni. Tesaṃ cūḷapañcamūlaṃ mahāpañcamūlantiādinā nayena gaṇiyamānānaṃ gaṇanāya anto natthi, khādanīyatthañca bhojanīyatthañca apharaṇabhāvoyeva panetesaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ. Tasmā yaṃ kiñci mūlaṃ tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharati, taṃ yāvakālikaṃ, itaraṃ yāvajīvikanti veditabbaṃ . Subahuṃ vatvāpi hi imasmiṃyeva lakkhaṇe ṭhātabbaṃ. Nāmasaññāsu pana vuccamānāsu taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ ajānantānaṃ sammohoyeva hoti, tasmā nāmasaññāya ādaraṃ akatvā lakkhaṇameva dassitaṃ. Yathā ca mūle, evaṃ kandādīsupi lakkhaṇaṃ dassayissāma, tasseva vasena vinicchayo veditabbo. Yañca taṃ pāḷiyaṃ haliddādi aṭṭhavidhaṃ vuttaṃ, tassa khandhatacapupphaphalādi sabbaṃ yāvajīvikanti vuttaṃ.

are yāvajīvika. These, whether reckoned as the lesser five roots or the greater five roots, have no limit in their enumeration. Their characteristic is that they do not serve as food for eating or nourishment. Thus, any root that in various regions people naturally use as food for eating or nourishment is yāvakālika; otherwise, it is yāvajīvika. Even with much said, one must stand by this characteristic alone. When names are cited, confusion arises for those unfamiliar with them, so no emphasis is placed on names—only the characteristic is shown. Just as with roots, we will show the characteristic for tubers and the rest, and the ruling should be understood accordingly. Whatever is listed in the Pāli as turmeric and the eightfold group, including their stems, bark, flowers, and fruits, is said to be yāvajīvika.

Those are yāvajīvikāni. When they are counted according to the method of the small five roots, the great five roots, and so on, there is no end to their count. However, their characteristic is simply that they do not serve the purpose of edibles or food. Therefore, whatever root, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serves the purpose of edibles or food, that is yāvakālikaṃ; the rest is yāvajīvikaṃ. Even if one were to speak at length, one should remain within this very definition. When names are mentioned, those who do not know the particular names become confused. Therefore, without focusing on the names, only the definition has been shown. Just as with roots, we will show the definition for tubers and so on, and the determination should be understood based on that. Whatever eight kinds, such as turmeric, are mentioned in the Pāḷi, all of their stems, bark, flowers, fruits, and so on, are said to be yāvajīvikaṃ.

These are considered yāvajīvika. Among these, the small five roots and the great five roots are counted, but there is no limit to their number. Their characteristic is that they do not serve as food or edible items. Therefore, any root that, in various regions, is commonly used as food or an edible item is considered yāvakālika; others are yāvajīvika. Even after much discussion, one should adhere to this characteristic. When names are mentioned, those who do not know the names may become confused. Therefore, without paying attention to names, the characteristics are shown. As with roots, so too with tubers and others, the characteristics should be understood, and the ruling should be determined accordingly. What is mentioned in the Pāli as the eight kinds, including turmeric, etc., all their stems, bark, flowers, and fruits are considered yāvajīvika.

Kandakhādanīye duvidho kando dīgho ca bhisakiṃsukakandādi, vaṭṭo ca uppalakaserukakandādi, yaṃ gaṇṭhītipi vadanti. Tattha sabbesaṃ kandānaṃ jiṇṇajaraṭṭhaṭṭhānañca challi ca sukhumamūlāni ca yāvajīvikāni, taruṇo pana sukhakhādanīyo sālakalyāṇipotakakando kiṃsukapotakakando ambāṭakakando ketakakando māluvakando bhisasaṅkhāto padumapuṇḍarīkakando piṇḍālumasāluādayo ca khīravallikando āluvakando siggukando tālakando nīluppalarattuppalakumudasogandhikānaṃ kandā kadalikando veḷukando kaserukakandoti evamādayo tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthañca bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇakakandā yāvakālikā. Khīravallikando adhoto yāvajīviko, dhoto yāvakāliko. Khīrakākolijīvikausabhakalasuṇādikandā pana yāvajīvikā. Te pāḷiyaṃ “yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūlāni bhesajjānī”ti evaṃ (mahāva. 263) mūlabhesajjasaṅgaheneva saṅgahitā.

In kandakhādanīya (tuber edibles), tubers are of two kinds: long ones, like bhisakiṃsuka tubers, and round ones, like lotus or kaseruka tubers, also called knots. Among all tubers, the old and decayed parts, bark, and fine roots are yāvajīvika. But young, easily edible tubers—such as sālakalyāṇī shoots, kiṃsuka shoots, ambāṭaka tubers, ketaka tubers, māluvaka tubers, bhisasaṅkhāta (lotus and white lotus tubers), piṇḍālumasālu and others, milk-vine tubers, āluva tubers, siggu tubers, tāla tubers, and tubers of blue lotus, red lotus, white lotus, and fragrant lotus, as well as banana tubers, bamboo tubers, and kaseruka tubers—are yāvakālika when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment. Milk-vine tubers when unwashed are yāvajīvika; when washed, they are yāvakālika. Tubers like khīrakā, kolijīvika, usabha, and garlic are yāvajīvika. These are included in the Pāli under “any other roots that are medicines” (mahāva. 263) within the category of root medicines.

Among tuber-edibles, there are two kinds of tubers: long ones, such as the bhisakiṃsuka tuber, and round ones, such as the lotus and kaseruka tubers, which are also called gaṇṭhi. Here, for all tubers, the old, mature parts, the bark, and the fine roots are yāvajīvikāni. However, the tender, easily edible sālakalyāṇī shoot tuber, kiṃsuka shoot tuber, ambāṭaka tuber, ketaka tuber, māluva tuber, the lotus and white water lily tubers known as bhisa, the piṇḍālu, masālu, and other tubers, the milk-vine tuber, the āluva tuber, the siggu tuber, the palmyra tuber, and the tubers of the blue lotus, red lotus, water lily, and sogandhika, the kadalī tuber, the bamboo tuber, and the kaseruka tuber, and so on—those tubers that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are yāvakālikā. The milk-vine tuber, when unwashed, is yāvajīvikaṃ; when washed, it is yāvakālikaṃ. However, the tubers of khīrakākolī, jīvika, usabha, kalasuṇa, and so on, are yāvajīvikā. They are included in the Pāḷi under the category of medicinal roots, as “whatever other medicinal roots there are” (Mahāva. 263).

Tuber edibles are of two kinds: long tubers, such as those of bhisakiṃsuka, and round tubers, such as those of uppala and kaseruka, which are also called knots. Among these, the old parts and fibrous roots of all tubers are yāvajīvika, while the young, tender tubers are yāvakālika. Examples include the sālakalyāṇi tuber, kiṃsuka tuber, ambāṭaka tuber, ketaka tuber, māluvaka tuber, bhisaka tuber, padma and puṇḍarīka tubers, piṇḍāluka, masālu, etc., khīravallika tuber, āluva tuber, sigguka tuber, tālaka tuber, nīluppala, ratta uppala, kumuda, sogandhika tubers, kadalika tuber, veḷuka tuber, kaseruka tuber, and others. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. The khīravallika tuber, when unwashed, is yāvajīvika; when washed, it is yāvakālika. The tubers of khīrakākoli, jīvaka, usabha, kala, and suṇā are yāvajīvika. These are included in the Pāli under “any other roots as medicine” (Mahāva. 263).

Muḷālakhādanīye padumamuḷālaṃ puṇḍarīkamuḷālaṃ mūlasadisaṃyeva. Erakamuḷālaṃ kandulamuḷālanti evamādi tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇakamuḷālaṃ yāvakālikaṃ, haliddisiṅgiveramakacicaturassavalliketakatālahintālakuntālanāḷikerapūgarukkhādimuḷālaṃ pana yāvajīvikaṃ. Taṃ sabbampi pāḷiyaṃ “yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūlāni bhesajjānī”ti evaṃ mūlabhesajjasaṅgaheneva saṅgahitaṃ.

In muḷālakhādanīya (rhizome edibles), lotus rhizomes and white lotus rhizomes are similar to roots. Rhizomes like eraka and kandula, when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, rhizomes of turmeric, ginger, makaci, caturassa-valli, ketaka, tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, coconut, and pūga trees are yāvajīvika. All these are included in the Pāli under “any other roots that are medicines” (mahāva. 263) within the category of root medicines.

Among stalk-edibles, the lotus stalk and the white water lily stalk are similar to roots. The eraka stalk and the kandula stalk, and so on—those stalks that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are yāvakālikaṃ. However, the stalks of turmeric, ginger, makaci, caturassavalli, ketaka, palmyra, hintāla, kuntāla, coconut, and betel nut trees, and so on, are yāvajīvikaṃ. All of that is included in the Pāḷi under the category of medicinal roots, as “whatever other medicinal roots there are.”

Bulb edibles include padma bulbs, puṇḍarīka bulbs, which are similar to roots. Erakamuḷāla, kandulamuḷāla, and others, in various regions, are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. Haliddi, siṅgivera, makaci, catura, vallika, ketaka, tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, nāḷikera, pūga, and other tree bulbs are yāvajīvika. All these are included in the Pāli under “any other roots as medicine.”

Matthakakhādanīye tālahintālakuntālaketakanāḷikerapūgarukkhakhajjūrivettaerakakadalīnaṃ kaḷīrasaṅkhātā matthakā, veṇukaḷīro naḷakaḷīro ucchukaḷīro mūlakakaḷīro sāsapakaḷīro satāvarikaḷīro sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ kaḷīrāti evamādi tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇako rukkhavalliādīnaṃ matthako yāvakāliko, haliddisiṅgiveravacamakacilasuṇānaṃ kaḷīrā, tālahintālakuntālanāḷikerakaḷīrānañca chinditvā pātito jaraṭṭhabundo yāvajīviko.

In matthakakhādanīya (sprout edibles), sprouts—such as those of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, ketaka, coconut, pūga, khajjūri, vetra, eraka, and banana, as well as bamboo shoots, reed shoots, sugarcane shoots, mūlaka shoots, mustard shoots, satāvarī shoots, and the sprouts of the seven grains—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, sprouts of turmeric, ginger, vacā, makaci, and garlic, as well as the old stumps of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, and coconut sprouts when cut and fallen, are yāvajīvika.

Among top-edibles, the tops of palmyra, hintāla, kuntāla, ketaka, coconut, and betel nut trees, and date palm, cane, eraka, and plantain trees, known as shoots; the bamboo shoot, the reed shoot, the sugarcane shoot, the radish shoot, the mustard shoot, and the satāvari shoot; the shoots of the seven grains—those tops of trees, vines, and so on that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are yāvakāliko. The shoots of turmeric, ginger, vaca, makaci, and garlic, and the mature bud that falls after being cut from the shoots of palmyra, hintāla, kuntāla, and coconut trees, are yāvajīviko.

Shoot edibles include the shoots of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, ketaka, nāḷikera, pūga, khajjūri, vetta, eraka, and kadalī, known as kaḷīra. The shoots of veṇu, naḷa, ucchu, mūlaka, sāsapa, satāvari, and the seven kinds of grains are also included. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. The shoots of haliddi, siṅgivera, vaca, makaci, and suṇā, as well as the shoots of tāla, hintāla, kuntāla, and nāḷikera, when cut and the old part discarded, are yāvajīvika.

Khandhakhādanīye antopathavīgato sālakalyāṇīkhandho ucchukhandho nīluppalarattuppalakumudasogandhikānaṃ daṇḍakakhandhāti evamādi tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇako khandho yāvakāliko, uppalajātīnaṃ paṇṇadaṇḍako padumajātīnaṃ sabbopi daṇḍako karavindadaṇḍādayo ca avasesasabbakhandhā yāvajīvikā.

In khandhakhādanīya (stem edibles), stems—such as sālakalyāṇī stems unearthed, sugarcane stems, and the stalks of blue lotus, red lotus, white lotus, and fragrant lotus—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, the leaf-stalks of lotus types, all stalks of water-lily types, karavinda stalks, and all other remaining stems are yāvajīvika.

Among stem-edibles, the stem of the sālakalyāṇī that grows within the earth, the sugarcane stem, and the stems of the blue lotus, red lotus, water lily, and sogandhika—those stems that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are yāvakāliko. The leaf-stalks of lotuses, the entire stalks of water lilies, the stalks of karavinda, and so on, and all other stems, are yāvajīvikā.

Stem edibles include the stems of sālakalyāṇi, ucchu, nīluppala, ratta uppala, kumuda, and sogandhika, which grow underground. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. The stems of uppala, padma, and karavinda, as well as all other stems, are yāvajīvika.

Tacakhādanīye ucchutacova eko yāvakāliko, sopi saraso, seso sabbo yāvajīviko. Tesaṃ pana matthakakhandhatacānaṃ tiṇṇampi pāḷiyaṃ kasāvabhesajjena saṅgaho veditabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ –

In tacakhādanīya (bark edibles), only sugarcane bark is yāvakālika—and that too when juicy; all else is yāvajīvika. For these—sprouts, stems, and bark—their inclusion should be understood in the Pāli under astringent medicines. It is said:

Among bark-edibles, only the sugarcane bark is yāvakāliko, and that too, only the juicy part; all the rest is yāvajīviko. However, the inclusion of these three—tops, stems, and bark—in the Pāḷi should be understood under medicinal astringents. It is said:

Bark edibles include only the bark of ucchu, which is yāvakālika when fresh; the rest are yāvajīvika. Among these, the shoots, stems, and bark are included in the Pāli under bitter medicines. It is said:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kasāvāni bhesajjāni nimbakasāvaṃ kuṭajakasāvaṃ paṭolakasāvaṃ phaggavakasāvaṃ nattamālakasāvaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi kasāvāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharantī”ti (mahāva. 263).

“I allow, monks, astringent medicines: neem astringent, kuṭaja astringent, paṭola astringent, phaggava astringent, nattamāla astringent, and any other astringent medicines that neither serve as khādanīya for eating nor as bhojanīya for nourishment” (mahāva. 263).

“Monks, I allow medicinal astringents: nimba astringent, kuṭaja astringent, paṭola astringent, phaggava astringent, nattamāla astringent, and whatever other medicinal astringents there are that do not serve the purpose of edibles among edibles, nor the purpose of food among foods” (Mahāva. 263).

“I allow, monks, bitter medicines: neem bark, kuṭaja bark, paṭola bark, phaggava bark, nattamālaka bark, and any other bitter medicines that are neither edible nor food” (Mahāva. 263).

Ettha hi etesampi saṅgaho sijjhati. Vuttakasāvāni ca sabbakappiyānīti veditabbāni.

Here, their inclusion is established. All listed astringents are to be understood as fully permissible.

Here, the inclusion of these is also accomplished. The mentioned astringents should be understood as all being allowable.

Here, these are also included. All these bitter medicines are considered permissible.

Pattakhādanīye mūlakaṃ khārako caccu tambako taṇḍuleyyako papunnāgo vatthuleyyako vajakali jajjhari sellu siggu kāsamaddako ummācīnamuggo māso rājamāso ṭhapetvā mahānipphāvaṃ avasesanipphāvo aggimantho sunisannako setavaraṇo nāḷikā bhūmiyaṃ jātaloṇīti etesaṃ pattāni, aññāni ca evarūpāni tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthañca bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇakāni pattāni ekaṃsena yāvakālikāni , yā panaññā mahānakhapiṭṭhimattapaṇṇā loṇirukkhe ca gacche ca ārohati, tassā pattaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ. Brahmipattañca yāvakālikanti dīpavāsino vadanti. Ambapallavaṃ yāvakālikaṃ, asokapallavaṃ pana yāvajīvikaṃ. Yāni caññāni pāḷiyaṃ –

In pattakhādanīya (leaf edibles), leaves of mūlaka, khāraka, caccu, tambaka, taṇḍuleyya, papunnāga, vatthuleyya, vajakali, jajjhari, sellu, siggu, kāsamaddaka, ummā, cīnamugga, māsa, rājamāsa (except those with great potency), the remaining potent ones, aggimantha, sunisannaka, setavaraṇa, nāḷikā, and salt-plants born on the ground—as well as others like these—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are unequivocally yāvakālika. However, leaves of other large trees or shrubs with claw-sized backs, or salt-plants growing on trees or bushes, are yāvajīvika. Dīpa islanders say brahmi leaves are yāvakālika. Mango shoots are yāvakālika, but asoka shoots are yāvajīvika. Those leaves listed in the Pāli—

Among leaf-edibles, the leaves of radish, carrot, caccu, tambako, taṇḍuleyyako, papunṇāgo, vatthuleyyako, vajakali, jajjhari, sellu, siggu, kāsamaddako, ummā, cīna, black gram, kidney bean, excluding the mahānipphāva and including the remaining anipphāvo, aggimantha, sunisannako, setavaraṇo, nāḷikā, and the bhūmiyaṃ jātaloṇī—the leaves of these, and others of this kind that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are definitively yāvakālikāni. However, the leaf of the mahānakha, which is as large as the back of the hand, and grows on the loṇi tree and bush, is yāvajīvikaṃ. The island dwellers say that the brahmi leaf is also yāvakālikaṃ. The mango sprout is yāvakālikaṃ, but the asoka sprout is yāvajīvikaṃ. As for the others mentioned in the Pāḷi:

Leaf edibles include the leaves of mūlaka, khāraka, caccu, tambaka, taṇḍuleyyaka, papunnāga, vatthuleyyaka, vajakali, jajjhara, sellu, siggu, kāsamaddaka, ummā, cīna, mugga, māsa, rājamāsa, except for mahānipphāva, the rest of the nipphāva leaves, aggimantha, sunisannaka, setavaraṇa, nāḷikā, bhūmiyaṃ jātaloṇī, and others. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. The leaves of mahānakha, piṭṭhimatta, loṇi trees, and others that grow on trees are yāvajīvika. The leaves of brahmi are considered yāvakālika by the island dwellers. Mango leaves are yāvakālika, while asoka leaves are yāvajīvika. Other leaves mentioned in the Pāli:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṇṇāni bhesajjāni nimbapaṇṇaṃ kuṭajapaṇṇaṃ paṭolapaṇṇaṃ sulasipaṇṇaṃ kappāsapaṇṇaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi paṇṇāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharantī”ti (mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, leaf medicines: neem leaves, kuṭaja leaves, paṭola leaves, sulasi leaves, cotton leaves, and any other leaves that are medicines, which neither serve as khādanīya for eating nor as bhojanīya for nourishment” (mahāva. 263)—

“Monks, I allow medicinal leaves: nimba leaf, kuṭaja leaf, paṭola leaf, sulasi leaf, cotton leaf, and whatever other medicinal leaves there are that do not serve the purpose of edibles among edibles, nor the purpose of food among foods” (Mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, leaves as medicine: neem leaves, kuṭaja leaves, paṭola leaves, sulasi leaves, kappāsa leaves, and any other leaves that are neither edible nor food” (Mahāva. 263).

Vuttāni, tāni yāvajīvikāni. Na kevalañca paṇṇāni, tesaṃ pupphaphalānipi. Yāvajīvikapaṇṇānaṃ pana phaggavapaṇṇaṃ ajjukapaṇṇaṃ phaṇijjakapaṇṇaṃ tambūlapaṇṇaṃ paduminipaṇṇanti evaṃ gaṇanavasena anto natthi.

are yāvajīvika. Not only the leaves but also their flowers and fruits. For yāvajīvika leaves, such as phaggava leaves, ajjuka leaves, phaṇijjaka leaves, betel leaves, and lotus leaves, there is no limit by enumeration.

Those are yāvajīvikāni. And not only the leaves, but also their flowers and fruits. Among the yāvajīvika leaves, the phaggava leaf, the ajjuka leaf, the phaṇijjaka leaf, the betel leaf, and the lotus leaf—there is no end to their count in this way.

These are considered yāvajīvika. Not only leaves, but also their flowers and fruits. Among the yāvajīvika leaves, phaggava leaves, ajjuka leaves, phaṇijjaka leaves, tambūla leaves, and padumini leaves are included, and there is no limit to their number.

Pupphakhādanīye mūlakapupphaṃ khārakapupphaṃ caccupupphaṃ tambakapupphaṃ vajakalipupphaṃ jajjharipupphaṃ cūḷanipphāvapupphaṃ mahānipphāvapupphaṃ kaserukapupphaṃ nāḷikeratālaketakānaṃ taruṇapupphāni setavaraṇapupphaṃ siggupupphaṃ uppalapadumajātikānaṃ pupphānaṃ kaṇṇikāmattaṃ agandhipupphaṃ karīrapupphaṃ jīvantī pupphanti evamādi tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇapupphaṃ yāvakālikaṃ, asokabakulakuyyakapunnāgacampakajātikaravīrakaṇikārakundanavamālikamallikādīnaṃ pana pupphaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ, tassa gaṇanāya anto natthi. Pāḷiyaṃ panassa kasāvabhesajjena saṅgaho veditabbo.

In pupphakhādanīya (flower edibles), flowers—such as mūlaka flowers, khāraka flowers, caccu flowers, tambaka flowers, vajakali flowers, jajjhari flowers, lesser potent flowers, greater potent flowers, kaseruka flowers, young flowers of coconut, tāla, and ketaka, setavaraṇa flowers, siggu flowers, the mere buds of lotus and water-lily types, unscented flowers, karīra flowers, and jīvantī flowers—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, flowers of asoka, bakula, kuyyaka, punnāga, campaka types, karavīra, kaṇikāra, kunda, navamālikā, mallikā, and others have no limit by enumeration and are yāvajīvika. Their inclusion should be understood in the Pāli under astringent medicines.

Among flower-edibles, the flowers of radish, carrot, caccu, tambaka, vajakali, jajjhari, the flowers of the small nipphāva and the large nipphāva, the tender flowers of kaseruka, coconut, palmyra, and ketaka, the setavaraṇa flower, the siggu flower, only the pericarp of the flowers of lotuses and water lilies, the scentless flower, the karīra flower, and the jīvantī flower—those flowers that, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, are yāvakālikaṃ. However, the flowers of asoka, bakula, kuyyaka, punnāga, campaka, jāti, karavīra, kaṇikāra, kunda, navamālikā, and mallikā, and so on, are yāvajīvikaṃ; there is no end to their count. However, their inclusion in the Pāḷi should be understood under medicinal astringents.

Flower edibles include the flowers of mūlaka, khāraka, caccu, tambaka, vajakali, jajjhara, cūḷanipphāva, mahānipphāva, kaseruka, nāḷikera, tāla, ketaka, setavaraṇa, siggu, uppala, paduma, and others. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. The flowers of asoka, bakula, kuyyaka, punnāga, campaka, karavīra, kaṇikāra, kunda, navamālika, mallikā, and others are yāvajīvika, and there is no limit to their number. In the Pāli, they are included under bitter medicines.

Phalakhādanīye panasalabujatālanāḷikeraambajambuambāṭakatintiṇikamātuluṅgakapitthalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalatimbarūsakatipusavātiṅgaṇacocamocamadhukādīnaṃ phalāni, yāni loke tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharanti, sabbāni tāni yāvakālikāni, nāmagaṇanavasena tesaṃ na sakkā pariyantaṃ dassetuṃ. Yāni pana pāḷiyaṃ –

In phalakhādanīya (fruit edibles), fruits—such as panasa, labuja, tāla, coconut, mango, rose-apple, ambāṭaka, tintiṇika, mātuluṅga, kapittha, lābu, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, timbarūsaka, tipusa, vātingaṇa, coca, moca, madhuka, and others—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are all yāvakālika; their limit cannot be shown by name enumeration. However, those fruits listed in the Pāli—

Among fruit-edibles, the fruits of jackfruit, labuja, palmyra, coconut, mango, rose apple, ambāṭaka, tintiṇika, lime, wood apple, gourd, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, timbarūsaka, tipusa, vātiṅgaṇa, coca, moca, and madhuka, and so on—those that, in the world, in various regions, according to the natural diet of the people, serve the purpose of edibles or food, all of them are yāvakālikāni; it is not possible to show their limit by counting their names. As for those mentioned in the Pāḷi:

Fruit edibles include the fruits of panasa, labuja, tāla, nāḷikera, amba, jambu, ambāṭaka, tiṇika, mātuluṅga, kapittha, lābu, kumbhaṇḍa, pussa, phala, timbarūsaka, tipusa, vātiṅgaṇa, cocā, mocā, madhuka, and others. In various regions, these are commonly used as food or edible items and are considered yāvakālika. It is not possible to list all of them by name. Those mentioned in the Pāli:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, phalāni bhesajjāni bilaṅgaṃ pippaliṃ marīcaṃ harītakaṃ vibhītakaṃ āmalakaṃ goṭṭhaphalaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi phalāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharantī”ti (mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, fruit medicines: bilaṅga, pippali, marīca, harītaka, vibhītaka, āmalaka, goṭṭhaphala, and any other fruits that are medicines, which neither serve as khādanīya for eating nor as bhojanīya for nourishment” (mahāva. 263)—

“Monks, I allow medicinal fruits: bilaṅga, long pepper, black pepper, harītaka, vibhītaka, āmalaka, goṭṭhaphala, and whatever other medicinal fruits there are that do not serve the purpose of edibles among edibles, nor the purpose of food among foods” (Mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, fruits as medicine: bilaṅga, pippali, marīca, harītaka, vibhītaka, āmalaka, goṭṭhaphala, and any other fruits that are neither edible nor food” (Mahāva. 263).

Vuttāni , tāni yāvajīvikāni. Tesampi aparipakkāni acchivabimbavaraṇaketakakāsmarīādīnaṃ phalāni jātiphalaṃ kaṭukaphalaṃ eḷā takkolanti evaṃ nāmavasena na sakkā pariyantaṃ dassetuṃ.

are yāvajīvika. Even their unripe forms—such as acchiva, bimba, varaṇa, ketaka, kāsmarī, jāti fruits, pungent fruits, cardamom, and takkola—cannot be limited by name enumeration.

Those that have been mentioned are lifelong. Even among those, the unripe fruits of acchi, bimba, varaṇa, ketaka, kāsmarī, and others, as well as the fruits of the nutmeg tree, pungent fruits, cardamom, and takkola – it is impossible to enumerate them by name in this way.

These are said to be permissible for a lifetime. Among them, unripe fruits such as acchivabimba, varaṇaketaka, kāsmarī, etc., as well as jātiphala, kaṭukaphala, eḷā, takkola, and others, cannot be definitively listed by name.

Aṭṭhikhādanīye labujaṭṭhi panasaṭṭhi ambāṭakaṭṭhi sālaṭṭhi khajjūrīketakatimbarūsakānaṃ taruṇaphalaṭṭhi tintiṇikaṭṭhi bimbaphalaṭṭhi uppalapadumajātīnaṃ pokkharaṭṭhīti evamādīni tesu tesu janapadesu manussānaṃ pakatiāhāravasena khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇakāni aṭṭhīni yāvakālikāni, madhukaṭṭhi punnāgaṭṭhi harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīni siddhatthakaṭṭhi rājikaṭṭhīti evamādīni aṭṭhīni yāvajīvikāni. Tesaṃ pāḷiyaṃ phalabhesajjeneva saṅgaho veditabbo.

In aṭṭhikhādanīya (seed edibles), seeds—such as labuja seeds, panasa seeds, ambāṭaka seeds, sāla seeds, young fruit seeds of khajjūri, ketaka, and timbarūsaka, tintiṇika seeds, bimba fruit seeds, and lotus and water-lily type pond seeds—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, seeds like madhuka seeds, punnāga seeds, harītaka seeds, siddhatthaka seeds, and rājika seeds are yāvajīvika. Their inclusion should be understood in the Pāli under fruit medicines.

Regarding things to be chewed for their bones: the bones of young fruits of the palmyra, jackfruit, breadfruit, ambāṭaka, sal, date palm, ketaka, and fig trees; the bones of the tamarind and bimba fruits; and the lotus and water-lily stalks, and so forth, which in various regions are customary foods for people, both as chewables and edibles, spreading out, are time-limited. The bones of the madhuka, punnāga, and harītaka trees, as well as the bones of mustard and rājika, and so forth, are lifelong. Their inclusion in the Pāḷi should be understood as being under the category of fruit medicines.

In the case of bone-eating, the bones of labuja, panasa, ambāṭaka, sāla, khajjūrī, ketaka, timbarūsaka, tintiṇika, bimba, and the stalks of lotus and water lily varieties, among others, are considered permissible for eating and drinking purposes in various regions according to the customary diet of people, and are allowed temporarily. The bones of madhuka, punnāga, harītaka, siddhatthaka, and rājika are permissible for a lifetime. In the Pāli texts, these are included under medicinal fruits.

Piṭṭhakhādanīye sattannaṃ tāva dhaññānaṃ dhaññānulomānaṃ aparaṇṇānañca piṭṭhaṃ panasapiṭṭhaṃ labujapiṭṭhaṃ ambāṭakapiṭṭhaṃ sālapiṭṭhaṃ dhotakatālapiṭṭhaṃ khīravallipiṭṭhañcāti evamādīni tesu tesu janapadesu pakatiāhāravasena manussānaṃ khādanīyatthaṃ bhojanīyatthañca pharaṇakāni piṭṭhāni yāvakālikāni, adhotakaṃ tālapiṭṭhaṃ khīravallipiṭṭhaṃ assagandhādipiṭṭhāni ca yāvajīvikāni. Tesaṃ pāḷiyaṃ kasāvehi mūlaphalehi ca saṅgaho veditabbo.

In piṭṭhakhādanīya (flour edibles), flours—of the seven grains, their derivatives, and afternoon foods, as well as panasa flour, labuja flour, ambāṭaka flour, sāla flour, washed tāla flour, and milk-vine flour—when naturally used in various regions as food for eating or nourishment, are yāvakālika. However, unwashed tāla flour, milk-vine flour, and flours like assagandha are yāvajīvika. Their inclusion should be understood in the Pāli under astringents, roots, and fruits.

Regarding things to be chewed in powdered form: the flour of the seven kinds of grains, of grains generally, and of other grains; the flour of jackfruit, palmyra fruit, ambāṭaka fruit, sal fruit, washed palmyra fruit, and milk-creeper, and so forth, which in various regions are customary foods for people, both as chewables and edibles, spreading out, are time-limited. Unwashed palmyra flour, milk-creeper flour, and the flour of assagandha and others are lifelong. Their inclusion in the Pāḷi should be understood as being under the category of astringents, roots, and fruits.

In the case of flour-eating, the flour of the seven grains, as well as the flour of panasapiṭṭha, labujapiṭṭha, ambāṭakapiṭṭha, sālapiṭṭha, dhotakatālapiṭṭha, and khīravallipiṭṭha, among others, are considered permissible for eating and drinking purposes in various regions according to the customary diet of people, and are allowed temporarily. Unwashed tālapiṭṭha, khīravallipiṭṭha, and assagandhādi flours are permissible for a lifetime. In the Pāli texts, these are included under medicinal roots and fruits.

In niyyāsakhādanīya (resin edibles)—only sugarcane resin is sattāhakālika; the rest—

Regarding things to be chewed for their resin: only the juice of the sugarcane is allowed for seven days; the rest –

In the case of sap-eating, only the sap of sugarcane is permissible for seven days. The rest –

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, jatūni bhesajjāni hiṅguṃ hiṅgujatuṃ hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ takaṃ takapattiṃ takapaṇṇiṃ sajjulasaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi jatūni bhesajjānī”ti (mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, resin medicines: hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, sajjulasa, and any other resins that are medicines” (mahāva. 263)—

“Monks, I allow medicinal resins: hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, sajjulasa, and whatever other medicinal resins there may be” (Mahāva. 263) –

“I allow, monks, medicinal resins such as hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, sajjulasaṃ, and any other medicinal resins that exist” (Mahāva. 263) –

Evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ vuttā niyyāsā yāvajīvikā. Tattha yevāpanakavasena saṅgahitānaṃ ambaniyyāso kaṇikāraniyyāsoti evaṃ nāmavasena na sakkā pariyantaṃ dassetuṃ. Evaṃ imesu mūlakhādanīyādīsu yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikaṃ, sabbampi imasmiṃ atthe avasesaṃ khādanīyaṃ nāmāti saṅgahitaṃ.

are yāvajīvika as stated in the Pāli. Among those included as condiments, mango resin and kaṇikāra resin cannot be limited by name enumeration. Thus, in these categories from root edibles onward, whatever is yāvakālika is included under the term khādanīya in this context as the remainder.

Thus, the resins mentioned in the Pāḷi are lifelong. It is impossible to enumerate by name those that are included there under the category of yevāpanaka, such as mango resin and kaṇikāra resin. Thus, in these categories of root chewables and so on, whatever is time-limited, all of it is included in this context under the name of leftover chewables.

Thus, the saps mentioned in the Pāli texts are permissible for a lifetime. Among them, the saps of amba and kaṇikāra, collected for medicinal purposes, cannot be definitively listed by name. Thus, in the case of root-eating and similar categories, whatever is permissible temporarily is all included under the term “edibles.”

91. Yāmakālikesu pana aṭṭha pānāni nāma ambapānaṃ jambupānaṃ cocapānaṃ mocapānaṃ madhukapānaṃ muddikapānaṃ sālūkapānaṃ phārusakapānanti imāni aṭṭha pānāni. Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 300) ambapānanti āmehi vā pakkehi vā ambehi katapānaṃ. Tattha āmehi karontena ambataruṇāni bhinditvā udake pakkhipitvā ātape ādiccapākena pacitvā parissāvetvā tadahupaṭiggahitakehi madhusakkārakappūrādīhi yojetvā kātabbaṃ, evaṃ kataṃ purebhattameva kappati. Anupasampannehi kataṃ labhitvā pana purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisaparibhogenapi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattaṃ nirāmisaparibhogena yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati. Esa nayo sabbapānesu. Jambupānanti jambuphalehi katapānaṃ. Cocapānanti aṭṭhikakadaliphalehi katapānaṃ. Mocapānanti anaṭṭhikehi kadaliphalehi katapānaṃ. Madhukapānanti madhukānaṃ jātirasena katapānaṃ. Taṃ pana udakasambhinnaṃ vaṭṭati, suddhaṃ na vaṭṭati. Muddikapānanti muddikā udake madditvā ambapānaṃ viya katapānaṃ. Sālūkapānanti rattuppalanīluppalādīnaṃ sālūke madditvā katapānaṃ. Phārusakapānanti phārusakaphalehi ambapānaṃ viya katapānaṃ. Imāni aṭṭha pānāni sītānipi ādiccapākānipi vaṭṭanti, aggipākāni na vaṭṭanti.

91. Among yāmakālika items, the eight drinks are: mango drink, rose-apple drink, coca drink, moca drink, madhuka drink, grape drink, lotus drink, and phārusaka drink. Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 300), mango drink refers to a drink made from raw or ripe mangoes. When making it from raw mangoes, young mangoes are broken, placed in water, cooked in sunlight, strained, and mixed with honey, sugar, camphor, or the like received that day; when made this way, it is permissible only before the meal. If made by an unordained person and received before the meal, it is permissible even with material consumption before the meal; after the meal, it is permissible with non-material consumption until dawn. This applies to all drinks. Rose-apple drink is made from rose-apple fruits. Coca drink is made from seeded banana fruits. Moca drink is made from seedless banana fruits. Madhuka drink is made from the natural juice of madhuka, permissible when mixed with water but not pure. Grape drink is made from grapes mashed in water, like mango drink. Lotus drink is made from red lotus, blue lotus, or similar lotuses mashed. Phārusaka drink is made from phārusaka fruits, like mango drink. These eight drinks, whether cold or sunlight-cooked, are permissible; fire-cooked ones are not.

91. Among the things allowed for one night, there are eight drinks: mango drink, rose-apple drink, coca drink, plantain drink, madhuka drink, grape drink, water-lily drink, and phārusaka drink. Of these (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 300), mango drink is a drink made from either ripe or unripe mangoes. In making it from unripe mangoes, one should break open young mangoes, put them in water, cook them in the sun with the heat of the sun, strain them, and mix them with honey, sugar, camphor, and other ingredients received on that very day. When made in this way, it is allowable only before the meal. But if it is made by an unordained person, and received before the meal, it is allowable even with the enjoyment of food before the meal; after the meal, it is allowable with the enjoyment of non-food until dawn. This rule applies to all drinks. Rose-apple drink is a drink made from rose-apples. Coca drink is a drink made from plantain fruits with seeds. Plantain drink is a drink made from plantain fruits without seeds. Madhuka drink is a drink made from the natural juice of madhuka flowers. But it is allowable mixed with water; it is not allowable pure. Grape drink is a drink made by crushing grapes in water, like mango drink. Water-lily drink is a drink made by crushing the stalks of red and blue water lilies, and others. Phārusaka drink is a drink made from phārusaka fruits, like mango drink. These eight drinks are allowable whether they are cold or sun-cooked; they are not allowable if cooked with fire.

91. Among the temporary drinks, eight drinks are mentioned: ambapāna, jambupāna, cocapāna, mocapāna, madhukapāna, muddikapāna, sālūkapāna, and phārusakapāna. Among these (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 300), ambapāna refers to a drink made from ripe or unripe mangoes. When made from unripe mangoes, the young mangoes are crushed, placed in water, and cooked by the heat of the sun. After straining, honey, sugar, camphor, etc., are added, and it is prepared. When prepared in this way, it is permissible before the meal. If obtained from the unordained and received before the meal, it is permissible with the use of meat, but after the meal, it is permissible only without meat until dawn. The same applies to all drinks. Jambupāna is a drink made from jambu fruits. Cocapāna is a drink made from seeded plantain fruits. Mocapāna is a drink made from seedless plantain fruits. Madhukapāna is a drink made from the juice of madhuka flowers. It is permissible when mixed with water, but not in its pure form. Muddikapāna is a drink made by crushing muddikā in water, similar to ambapāna. Sālūkapāna is a drink made by crushing the stalks of red and blue lotuses. Phārusakapāna is a drink made from phārusaka fruits, similar to ambapāna. These eight drinks are permissible whether cold or heated by the sun, but not when heated by fire.

Avasesāni vettatintiṇikamātuluṅgakapitthakosambakaramandādikhuddakaphalapānāni aṭṭhapānagaakāneva. Tāni kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ na vuttāni, atha kho kappiyaṃ anulomenti, tasmā kappanti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ phalarasaṃ ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasa”nti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 300) vuttattā ṭhapetvā sānulomadhaññaphalarasaṃ aññaṃ phalapānaṃ nāma akappiyaṃ natthi, sabbaṃ yāmakālikameva. Tattha sānulomadhaññaphalaraso nāma sattannañceva dhaññānaṃ tālanāḷikerapanasalabujaalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalatipusaeḷālukāti navannañca mahāphalānaṃ sabbesañca pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇānaṃ anulomadhaññānaṃ raso yāvakāliko, tasmā pacchābhattaṃ na vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ pattarasaṃ ṭhapetvā ḍākarasa”nti (mahāva. 300) vuttattā pakkaḍākarasaṃ ṭhapetvā yāvakālikapattānampi sītodakena madditvā kataraso vā ādiccapāko vā vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ puppharasaṃ ṭhapetvā madhukapuppharasa”nti vuttattā madhukapuppharasaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbopi puppharaso vaṭṭati.

The remaining minor fruit drinks—such as vetra, tintiṇika, mātuluṅga, kapittha, kosamba, and karamanda—are included among the eight drinks. Though not mentioned in the Pāli, they conform to what is permissible, so they are allowed. It is said, “I allow, monks, all fruit juices except grain-derived fruit juice” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 300); thus, except for grain-derived or grain-conforming fruit juice, no fruit drink is impermissible—all are yāmakālika. Here, grain-conforming fruit juice refers to the juice of the seven grains and the nine great fruits—tāla, coconut, panasa, labuja, lābu, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, tipusa, and eḷāluka—as well as all morning and afternoon grain derivatives, which are yāvakālika and thus impermissible after the meal. It is said, “I allow, monks, all leaf juices except ḍāka juice” (mahāva. 300); thus, except for cooked ḍāka juice, the juice of yāvakālika leaves mashed with cold water or sunlight-cooked is permissible. It is said, “I allow, monks, all flower juices except madhuka flower juice”; thus, except for madhuka flower juice, all flower juices are permissible.

The remaining drinks made from small fruits like vetta, tamarind, citron, kapittha, kosamba, karamanda, and others are just like the eight drinks. Although they are not mentioned in the Pāḷi, they conform to what is allowable, therefore they are allowable. Because it is said, “Monks, I allow all fruit juices except the juice of grain fruits” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 300), except for the juice of grain fruits and what conforms to them, there is no other fruit drink that is unallowable; all are allowable for one night. Here, the juice of grain fruits and what conforms to them means the juice of the seven kinds of grains, of the nine kinds of large fruits – palmyra, coconut, jackfruit, palmyra, gourd, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, cucumber, and watermelon – and of all grains and other grains that conform to grains, which is time-limited; therefore, it is not allowable after the meal. Because it is said, “Monks, I allow all leaf juices except ḍāka juice” (Mahāva. 300), except for cooked ḍāka juice, the juice made by crushing time-limited leaves with cold water, or sun-cooked, is allowable. Because it is said, “Monks, I allow all flower juices except madhuka flower juice,” all flower juices except madhuka flower juice are allowable.

Other drinks such as those made from vetta, tiṇika, mātuluṅga, kapittha, kosambaka, and other small fruits are also included under the eight drinks. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli texts, they are permissible as they conform to the rules. “I allow, monks, all fruit juices except grain juices” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 300). Therefore, apart from grain juices, all other fruit juices are permissible temporarily. Sānulomadhaññaphalarasa refers to the juice of the seven grains, as well as tāla, nāḷikera, panasala, labuja, alābuka, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, tipusa, and eḷāluka, and all other grains, both wild and cultivated, and is permissible temporarily. After the meal, it is not permissible. “I allow, monks, all leaf juices except ḍāka juice” (Mahāva. 300). Therefore, the juice of ripe ḍāka leaves is permissible, as well as the juice of temporary leaves crushed with cold water or heated by the sun. “I allow, monks, all flower juices except madhuka flower juice” (Mahāva. 300). Therefore, apart from madhuka flower juice, all other flower juices are permissible.

92. Sattāhakālikaṃ nāma sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitanti imāni pañca bhesajjāni. Tattha sappi nāma gosappi vā ajikāsappi vā mahiṃsasappi vā yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappati, tesaṃ sappi. Navanītaṃ nāma tesaṃyeva navanītaṃ. Telaṃ nāma tilatelaṃ sāsapatelaṃ madhukatelaṃ eraṇḍatelaṃ vasātelaṃ. Madhu nāma makkhikāmadhu. Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbattaṃ (paci. 260). Yāvajīvikaṃ pana heṭṭhā yāvakālike mūlakhādanīyādīsu vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

92. Sattāhakālika refers to the five medicines: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses. Here, ghee is ghee from cows, goats, buffaloes, or any animal whose meat is permissible. Fresh butter is from the same. Oil includes sesame oil, mustard oil, madhuka oil, castor oil, and fat oil. Honey is bee honey. Molasses is derived from sugarcane (pāci. 260). Yāvajīvika should be understood as explained earlier under yāvakālika root edibles and so forth.

92. Things allowed for seven days are ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses – these five medicines. Here, ghee means cow ghee, goat ghee, buffalo ghee, or the ghee of those whose flesh is allowable. Fresh butter means the fresh butter of those same animals. Oil means sesame oil, mustard oil, madhuka oil, castor oil, and fat oil. Honey means bee honey. Molasses means what is produced from sugarcane (Pāci. 260). But what is lifelong should be understood in the same way as mentioned above under the time-limited root chewables and so on.

92. The five medicinal substances permissible for seven days are ghee, butter, oil, honey, and molasses. Among these, ghee refers to cow ghee, goat ghee, or buffalo ghee, from animals whose meat is permissible. Butter refers to the butter from the same animals. Oil refers to sesame oil, mustard oil, madhuka oil, castor oil, and vasā oil. Honey refers to bee honey. Molasses refers to that produced from sugarcane (pāci. 260). For lifetime permissions, the same rules apply as mentioned earlier for root-eating and similar categories.

93. Tattha (pāci. aṭṭha. 256) aruṇodaye paṭiggahitaṃ yāvakālikaṃ satakkhattumpi nidahitvā yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, yāmakālikaṃ ekaṃ ahorattaṃ, sattāhakālikaṃ sattarattaṃ, itaraṃ sati paccaye yāvajīvampi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahetvā ekarattaṃ vītināmitaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe tāva dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhoharato pana ekamekasmiṃ ajjhohāre sannidhipaccayā pācittiyaṃ. Sacepi patto duddhoto hoti, yaṃ aṅguliyā ghaṃsantassa lekhā paññāyati, gaṇṭhikapattassa vā gaṇṭhikantare sneho paviṭṭho hoti, so uṇhe otāpentassa paggharati, uṇhayāguyā vā gahitāya sandissati, tādise pattepi punadivase bhuñjantassa pācittiyaṃ, tasmā pattaṃ dhovitvā puna tattha acchodakaṃ vā āsiñcitvā aṅguliyā vā ghaṃsitvā nisnehabhāvo jānitabbo. Sace hi udake vā snehabhāvo, patte vā aṅgulilekhā paññāyati, duddhoto hoti, telavaṇṇapatte pana aṅgulilekhā paññāyati, sā abbohārikā. Yampi bhikkhū nirapekkhā sāmaṇerānaṃ pariccajanti, tañce sāmaṇerā nidahitvā denti, sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭati. Tato hi ekasitthampi ajjhoharato pācittiyameva. Akappiyamaṃsesu manussamaṃse thullaccayena saddhiṃ pācittiyaṃ, avasesesu dukkaṭena saddhiṃ.

93. Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 256), yāvakālika received at dawn may be stored even a hundred times and consumed as long as the time does not pass; yāmakālika may be consumed for one day and night; sattāhakālika for seven nights; and the rest, when there is a condition, for life. However, if any yāvakālika or yāmakālika item is kept overnight after receipt and one takes it intending to consume it, there is a dukkaṭa at the moment of taking, and a pācittiya for each act of consumption due to storage. Even if a bowl is washed but a trace remains when rubbed with a finger, or oil lingers in the crevices of a knotted bowl and flows out when heated, or is noticeable when taken with warm gruel, consuming it the next day incurs a pācittiya. Thus, the bowl should be washed, water poured in again, or rubbed with a finger to ensure no oil remains. If oil is in the water or a finger trace appears on the bowl, it is unwashed. In an oily bowl, a finger trace is non-substantial. Whatever monks relinquish to novices without attachment, if the novices store and give it, is all permissible. Only what one receives and does not relinquish is impermissible the next day; consuming even a drop then incurs a pācittiya. For impermissible meats, human flesh carries a thullaccaya with a pācittiya; the rest carry a dukkaṭa with it.

93. Here (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 256), time-limited things received at dawn may be stored even seven times and used as long as the time has not passed; things allowed for one night, for one day and night; things allowed for seven days, for seven nights; other things, when there is a reason, may be used even for a lifetime. But for someone who, having received and stored for one night anything that is time-limited or allowed for one night, takes it with the intention of consuming it, there is a dukkaṭa offense for receiving it. But when consuming it, for each mouthful, there is a pācittiya offense due to storing. Even if the bowl is thoroughly washed, if a line is visible when rubbed with the finger, or if oil has penetrated between the joints of a jointed bowl, it will seep out when heated, or it will be visible when hot gruel is taken. Even in such a bowl, if one eats on the following day, there is a pācittiya offense. Therefore, having washed the bowl, one should again pour clear water into it, rub it with the finger, and ascertain that it is free of oil. For if there is oiliness in the water, or if a finger-mark is visible on the bowl, it is thoroughly washed. But if a finger-mark is visible on an oil-stained bowl, it is negligible. Whatever monks give to novices without expectation, if the novices store it and give it, it is all allowable. For it is only what one has received oneself and not given away that is not allowable on the second day. For consuming even a single grain of it, there is a pācittiya offense. Regarding unallowable meats, for human flesh, there is a pācittiya offense along with a thullaccaya; for the remaining, along with a dukkaṭa.

93. Among these (pāci. aṭṭha. 256), what is received at dawn is permissible temporarily and can be stored up to a hundred times without exceeding the time limit. What is permissible for a day and night can be consumed for one day and night, and what is permissible for seven days can be consumed for seven days. Other items can be consumed for a lifetime if there is a reason. If something is received and kept overnight, even if it is permissible temporarily or for a day and night, taking it with the intention of consuming it incurs a dukkaṭa offense at the time of receiving, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption due to the presence of the item. Even if the bowl is unclean, leaving a mark when touched with a finger, or if oil has entered the crevices of a folded bowl and drips when heated, or if it is visible when taken with a hot ladle, consuming it the next day incurs a pācittiya offense. Therefore, the bowl should be washed, and clean water should be poured into it or touched with a finger to ensure it is free from oil. If oil is visible in the water or on the bowl, it is unclean. In the case of an oil-colored bowl, a mark left by a finger is not considered. What monks give up without concern to novices, if the novices store it and give it back, is permissible. If a monk receives it himself and does not give it up, it is not permissible the next day. Consuming even a single morsel incurs a pācittiya offense. In the case of impermissible meats, consuming human meat incurs a thullaccaya offense along with a pācittiya offense, while consuming other impermissible meats incurs a dukkaṭa offense along with a pācittiya offense.

Yāmakālikaṃ sati paccaye ajjhoharato pācittiyaṃ, āhāratthāya ajjhoharato dukkaṭena saddhiṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sace pavārito hutvā anatirittakataṃ ajjhoharati, pakatiāmise dve pācittiyāni, manussamaṃse thullaccayena saddhiṃ dve, sesaakappiyamaṃse dukkaṭena saddhiṃ. Yāmakālikaṃ sati paccaye sāmisena mukhena ajjhoharato dve, nirāmisena ekameva. Āhāratthāya ajjhoharato vikappadvayepi dukkaṭaṃ vaḍḍhati. Sace vikāle ajjhoharati, pakatibhojane sannidhipaccayā ca vikālabhojanapaccayā ca dve pācittiyāni, akappiyamaṃse thullaccayaṃ dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhati. Yāmakālike vikālapaccayā anāpatti. Anatirittapaccayā pana vikāle sabbavikappesu anāpatti.

Yāmakālika, when consumed with a condition, incurs a pācittiya; when consumed for nourishment, a dukkaṭa with a pācittiya. If one has been invited and consumes excess, in natural material cases there are two pācittiyas; in human flesh, two with a thullaccaya; in other impermissible meats, two with a dukkaṭa. For yāmakālika consumed materially through the mouth with a condition, there are two pācittiyas; non-materially, one. When consumed for nourishment, a dukkaṭa is added in both cases. If consumed at the wrong time, in natural food there are two pācittiyas due to storage and wrong-time eating; in impermissible meats, a thullaccaya and dukkaṭa are added. For yāmakālika, there is no offense due to wrong time; for excess, there is no offense at the wrong time in any case.

For consuming what is allowed for one night when there is a reason, there is a pācittiya offense; for consuming it for the sake of food, there is a pācittiya offense along with a dukkaṭa. If, having been invited, one consumes what has not been made extra, for ordinary food there are two pācittiya offenses; for human flesh, two along with a thullaccaya; for the remaining unallowable meats, along with a dukkaṭa. For consuming what is allowed for one night with a mouth containing food, when there is a reason, there are two pācittiyas; with a mouth free of food, only one. For consuming it for the sake of food, a dukkaṭa is added in both cases. If one consumes it at the wrong time, there are two pācittiya offenses – for ordinary food, due to storing and due to consuming at the wrong time; for unallowable meat, a thullaccaya and a dukkaṭa are added. For what is allowed for one night, there is no offense due to consuming at the wrong time. But for consuming what has not been made extra at the wrong time, there is no offense in all cases.

Consuming what is permissible for a day and night with a reason incurs a pācittiya offense, while consuming it for the purpose of food incurs a dukkaṭa offense along with a pācittiya offense. If one consumes what is not leftover after being invited, in the case of ordinary meat, two pācittiya offenses are incurred; in the case of human meat, a thullaccaya offense along with two pācittiya offenses; and in the case of other impermissible meats, a dukkaṭa offense along with two pācittiya offenses. Consuming what is permissible for a day and night with meat incurs two offenses, while consuming it without meat incurs one. Consuming it for the purpose of food incurs a dukkaṭa offense along with two offenses. If consumed at an improper time, in the case of ordinary food, two pācittiya offenses are incurred due to the presence of the item and eating at an improper time; in the case of impermissible meat, a thullaccaya offense and a dukkaṭa offense are incurred. In the case of what is permissible for a day and night, there is no offense for eating at an improper time. However, there is no offense for eating what is not leftover at an improper time in all cases.

Sattāhakālikaṃ pana yāvajīvikañca āhāratthāya paṭiggaṇhato paṭiggaṇhanapaccayā tāva dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhoharato pana sace nirāmisaṃ hoti, ajjhohāre dukkaṭaṃ. Atha āmisasaṃsaṭṭhaṃ paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitaṃ hoti, yathāvatthukaṃ pācittiyameva.

For sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika received for nourishment, there is a dukkaṭa at the moment of receipt; when consumed, if non-material, a dukkaṭa per act; if material-mixed and stored after receipt, a pācittiya as appropriate.

But for receiving what is allowed for seven days and what is lifelong for the sake of food, there is a dukkaṭa offense for receiving it. But when consuming it, if it is free of food, there is a dukkaṭa for each mouthful. But if it has been received mixed with food and stored, there is a pācittiya offense according to the substance.

In the case of what is permissible for seven days and for a lifetime, receiving it for the purpose of food incurs a dukkaṭa offense at the time of receiving, and consuming it incurs a dukkaṭa offense if it is without meat. If it is mixed with meat and stored, the appropriate pācittiya offense is incurred.

94. Sattāhakālikesu pana sappiādīsu ayaṃ vinicchayo (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.622) – sappi tāva purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ tadahupurebhattaṃ sāmisampi nirāmisampi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Sattāhātikkame sace ekabhājane ṭhapitaṃ, ekaṃ nissaggiyaṃ. Sace bahūsu, vatthugaṇanāya nissaggiyāni. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittaṃ ajjhoharituṃ na vaṭṭati, abbhañjanādīsu upanetabbaṃ. Sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti anajjhoharaṇīyataṃ āpannattā. Sace anupasampanno purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitanavanītena sappiṃ katvā deti, purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, sace sayaṃ karoti, sattāhampi nirāmisameva vaṭṭati. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitanavanītena yena kenaci katasappi sattāhampi nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, uggahitakena kate pubbe vuttasuddhasappinayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitakhīrena vā dadhinā vā katasappi anupasampannena kataṃ sāmisampi tadahupurebhattaṃ vaṭṭati, sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati.

94. Among sattāhakālika items like ghee, here is the ruling (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.622): ghee received before the meal may be consumed that day before the meal, whether material or non-material; after the meal, it must be non-material for seven days. If the seven days are exceeded and it is in one container, there is one nissaggiya; if in many, nissaggiyas by the number of items. Received after the meal, it must be non-material; whether before or after the meal, if heated and stored, it cannot be consumed but must be used for anointing, with no offense after seven days due to its non-consumable state. If an unordained person makes ghee from fresh butter received before the meal and gives it, it is permissible materially before the meal; if self-made, it is non-material for seven days. Ghee made by anyone from fresh butter received after the meal is non-material for seven days; if made from heated butter, the ruling is as for pure ghee stated earlier. Ghee made from milk or curds received before the meal, if made by an unordained person, is permissible materially that day before the meal; if self-made, it is non-material.

94. Regarding things allowed for seven days, such as ghee and others, this is the determination (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.622): Ghee, indeed, received before the meal, is allowable to be consumed both with and without food before the meal on that day; from after the meal onwards, for seven days, it should be consumed without food. If it is stored in one container, it is one nissaggiya after the seven days has passed. If it is stored in multiple containers, then they are nissaggiyas by the number of substances. Received after the meal, it is allowable only without food. What has been learned before the meal or after the meal and set aside is not allowable to be consumed; it should be used for anointing and other purposes. After the seven days have passed, there is no offense, because it has become unsuitable for consumption. If an unordained person makes ghee from fresh butter received before the meal and gives it, it is allowable even with food before the meal. But if one makes it oneself, it is allowable only without food for seven days. Ghee made by anyone from fresh butter received after the meal is allowable only without food for seven days. The determination regarding ghee made from what has been learned should be understood in the same way as the previously mentioned pure ghee. Ghee made from milk or curd received before the meal, made by an unordained person, is allowable even with food before the meal on that day; what is made by oneself is allowable only without food.

94. Regarding the seven-day permissible items such as ghee, the following rule applies (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.622): Ghee received before the meal can be consumed with or without meat on the same day before the meal. After the meal, it can be consumed without meat for seven days. If it exceeds seven days while stored in a single container, one nissaggiya offense is incurred. If stored in multiple containers, the number of nissaggiya offenses corresponds to the number of containers. Ghee received after the meal can only be consumed without meat. Ghee received before or after the meal and then stored cannot be consumed; it should be used for anointing, etc. Even if it exceeds seven days, there is no offense as it is not meant for consumption. If an unordained person prepares ghee with butter received before the meal and offers it, it can be consumed with meat before the meal. If prepared by oneself, it can only be consumed without meat for seven days. Ghee prepared with butter received after the meal can only be consumed without meat for seven days, regardless of who prepares it. The same rule applies to ghee prepared with milk or curd received before the meal. If prepared by an unordained person, it can be consumed with meat on the same day before the meal. If prepared by oneself, it can only be consumed without meat.

95. Navanītaṃ tāpentassa hi sāmaṃpāko na hoti, sāmaṃpakkena pana tena saddhiṃ āmisaṃ na vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya ca na vaṭṭatiyeva. Sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti savatthukassa paṭiggahitattā. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakehi kataṃ pana abbhañjanādīsu upanetabbaṃ. Purebhattampi ca uggahitakehi kataṃ, ubhayesampi sattāhātikkame anāpatti. Esa nayo akappiyamaṃsasappimhi. Ayaṃ pana viseso – yattha pāḷiyaṃ āgatasappinā nissaggiyaṃ, tattha iminā dukkaṭaṃ. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvā manussasappi ca navanītañca paṭikkhittaṃ, taṃ duppaṭikkhittaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu anuññātattā. Parato cassa vinicchayopi āgacchissati. Pāḷiyaṃ āgatanavanītampi purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ tadahupurebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya nirāmisameva. Sattāhātikkame nānābhājanesu ṭhapite bhājanagaṇanāya, ekabhājanepi amissetvā piṇḍapiṇḍavasena ṭhapite piṇḍagaṇanāya nissaggiyāni. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ sappinayena veditabbaṃ. Ettha pana dadhiguḷikāyopi takkabindūnipi honti, tasmā dhotaṃ vaṭṭatīti upaḍḍhattherā āhaṃsu. Mahāsivatthero pana “bhagavatā anuññātakālato paṭṭhāya takkato uddhaṭamattameva khādiṃsū”ti āha. Tasmā navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena dhovitvā dadhitakkamakkhikākipillikādīni apanetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Pacitvā sappiṃ katvā paribhuñjitukāmena adhotampi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ tattha dadhigataṃ vā takkagataṃ vā, taṃ khayaṃ gamissati. Ettāvatā hi savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hotīti ayamettha adhippāyo. Āmisena saddhiṃ pakkattā pana tasmimpi kukkuccāyanti kukkuccakā. Idāni uggahetvā ṭhapitanavanīte ca purebhattaṃ khīradadhīni paṭiggahetvā katanavanīte ca pacchābhattaṃ tāni paṭiggahetvā katanavanīte ca uggahitakehi katanavanīte ca akappiyamaṃsanavanīte ca sabbo āpattānāpattiparibhogāparibhoganayo sappimhi vuttakkameneva gahetabbo. Telabhikkhāya paviṭṭhānaṃ pana bhikkhūnaṃ tattheva sappimpi navanītampi pakkatelampi apakkatelampi ākiranti. Tattha takkadadhibindūnipi bhattasitthānipi taṇḍulakaṇāpi makkhikādayopi honti, ādiccapākaṃ katvā parissāvetvā gahitaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ hoti. Paṭiggahetvā ca ṭhapitabhesajjehi saddhiṃ pacitvā natthupānampi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace vaddalisamaye lajjī sāmaṇero yathā tattha patitataṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ aggimhi vilīyāpetvā parissāvetvā puna pacitvā deti, purimanayeneva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭati.

95. Fresh butter, when heated, has no self-cooking; but when self-cooked, material use with it is impermissible, and it is impermissible after the meal onward. Exceeding seven days incurs no offense due to its proper receipt. Made from items received after the meal must be used for anointing or the like. Even before the meal, if made from heated items, there is no offense after seven days in both cases. This applies to ghee from impermissible meat. The difference is: where the Pāli lists ghee with a nissaggiya, here it is a dukkaṭa. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, human ghee and fresh butter are rejected with a seeming reason, but this is poorly rejected as all commentaries permit it; its ruling will come later. Fresh butter listed in the Pāli, received before the meal, is permissible materially that day before the meal; after the meal, it is non-material. Exceeding seven days, if in multiple containers, there are nissaggiyas by container count; if in one container unmixed in lumps, by lump count. Received after the meal follows the ghee ruling. Here, curds may have drops of buttermilk; thus, the half-elders say washed is permissible. But Elder Mahāsiva says, “From the time the Blessed One permitted it, they ate only what was extracted from buttermilk.” Thus, when consuming fresh butter, it should be washed, removing curds, buttermilk, flies, ants, and the like. If intending to cook it into ghee, unwashed is permissible; whatever curds or buttermilk remain will dissipate. The intent here is that it is not considered properly received. Some scruple due to cooking with material, feeling hesitation. Now, for stored fresh butter, that made before the meal from received milk or curds, that made after the meal from them, that made from heated items, and that from impermissible meat—all offenses, non-offenses, consumption, and non-consumption follow the order stated for ghee. When monks collecting oil alms receive ghee, fresh butter, cooked or uncooked oil there, with drops of buttermilk, curds, rice grains, flies, and the like, if sunlight-cooked and strained, it is sattāhakālika. Cooking it with stored received medicines and using it as a rinse is permissible. If a conscientious novice, during husking, melts it in fire so rice grains and the like do not cook, strains, and cooks again, it is permissible for seven days as before.

95. When fresh butter is heated, it is not cooked by oneself; but food is not allowable with it when it has been cooked by oneself. And from after the meal onwards, it is certainly not allowable. Even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense, because it was received with its substance. But what has been made from what was received after the meal should be used for anointing and other purposes. And what has been made from what was learned, even before the meal, in both cases, there is no offense after the seven days have passed. This rule applies to ghee from unallowable meat. But this is the difference: where nissaggiya is mentioned in the Pāḷi with ghee, with this there is a dukkaṭa. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, having said that it is a semblance of a reason, human ghee and fresh butter are prohibited; that is wrongly prohibited, because it is permitted in all the Aṭṭhakathās. And its determination will come later. Even fresh butter mentioned in the Pāḷi, received before the meal, is allowable even with food before the meal on that day; from after the meal onwards, it is allowable only without food. After the seven days have passed, if stored in different containers, they are nissaggiyas by the number of containers; even if stored in one container, if stored unmixed, in separate lumps, they are nissaggiyas by the number of lumps. What is received after the meal should be understood in the same way as ghee. But here, there are also curd particles and whey droplets; therefore, the Upaḍḍhattheras said that what is washed is allowable. But the Elder Mahāsiva said, “From the time permitted by the Blessed One, they ate only what had been lifted from whey.” Therefore, when consuming fresh butter, one should wash it and remove curd, whey, flies, insects, and other things before consuming it. For one who wishes to cook it and consume it as ghee, it is allowable to consume it even unwashed. Whatever curd or whey is in it will be destroyed. For by this much, it is not called received with its substance – this is the intention here. But because it is cooked with food, those who are scrupulous are scrupulous even about that. Now, regarding fresh butter that has been learned and stored, and fresh butter made from milk and curd received before the meal, and fresh butter made from those received after the meal, and fresh butter made from what has been learned, and fresh butter from unallowable meat, all the rules regarding offense and non-offense, and consumption and non-consumption, should be taken in the same way as mentioned for ghee. But for monks who have entered for alms of oil, they pour ghee, fresh butter, cooked oil, and uncooked oil there. There, there are also whey and curd droplets, rice grains, rice particles, flies, and other things. What has been made by sun-cooking, strained, and taken is allowed for seven days. And it is allowable to cook it with medicines that have been received and stored, and to use it as a nasal application. If, at the time of adding, a modest novice, so that the rice particles and other things that have fallen in do not cook, melts it on the fire, strains it, and cooks it again, it is allowable for seven days, as before.

95. Butter does not become cooked by itself when heated, and therefore cannot be consumed with meat after the meal. Even if it exceeds seven days, there is no offense as it is received with a basis. Butter received after the meal should be used for anointing, etc. Butter received before the meal and then stored can also be used, and there is no offense even if it exceeds seven days. The same applies to impermissible meat ghee. However, there is a distinction: where the Pāli texts prescribe a nissaggiya offense for ghee, here a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. The Andhakaṭṭhakathā states that human ghee and butter are prohibited, but this is difficult to uphold as all commentaries allow it. Further clarification will be provided later. In the Pāli texts, butter received before the meal can be consumed with meat on the same day before the meal, but after the meal, it can only be consumed without meat. If it exceeds seven days while stored in multiple containers, the number of nissaggiya offenses corresponds to the number of containers. If stored in a single container without mixing, the number of nissaggiya offenses corresponds to the number of lumps. Butter received after the meal should be treated like ghee. Here, even curd lumps and buttermilk drops are considered, so it is permissible if washed, as stated by the senior monks. The Mahāsiva Thera, however, said, “From the time the Buddha allowed it, monks consumed only the extracted buttermilk.” Therefore, when consuming butter, it should be washed to remove curd, buttermilk, ants, etc. If one wishes to consume clarified butter, it can be consumed even if unwashed. Whatever curd or buttermilk remains will be consumed. Thus, it is not considered received with a basis. Some are concerned even when it is cooked with meat. Now, regarding butter stored after being received before the meal, butter prepared with milk or curd received before the meal, butter prepared with milk or curd received after the meal, butter prepared with stored butter, and butter prepared with impermissible meat, all rules regarding offenses, non-offenses, consumption, and non-consumption should be understood as stated for ghee. In the case of monks who have entered the oil-drinking practice, ghee, butter, cooked oil, uncooked oil, etc., are poured there. Among these, buttermilk drops, rice grains, and ants may be present. If heated by the sun and strained, it becomes permissible for seven days. After receiving, it can be stored with other medicines and used for cooking. If, during the rainy season, a shy novice, to avoid embarrassment, does not cook the fallen rice grains, etc., but melts them in the fire, strains them, and cooks them again, it is permissible for seven days as before.

96. Telesu tilatelaṃ tāva purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya nirāmisameva vaṭṭati. Sattāhātikkame tassa bhājanagaṇanāya nissaggiyabhāvo veditabbo. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhaṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittaṃ ajjhoharituṃ na vaṭṭati, sīsamakkhanādīsu upanetabbaṃ, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Purebhattaṃ tile paṭiggahetvā katatelaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ hoti, sīsamakkhanādīsu upanetabbaṃ, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Pacchābhattaṃ tile paṭiggahetvā katatelaṃ anajjhoharaṇīyameva savatthukapaṭiggahitattā. Sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti, sīsamakkhanādīsu upanetabbaṃ. Purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā uggahitakatilehi katatelepi eseva nayo. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitatile bhajjitvā vā tilapiṭṭhaṃ vā sedetvā uṇhodakena vā temetvā katatelaṃ sace anupasampannena kataṃ, purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, attanā kataṃ nibbaṭṭitattā purebhattaṃ nirāmisaṃ vaṭṭati, sāmaṃpakkattā sāmisaṃ na vaṭṭati. Savatthukapaṭiggahitattā pana pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya ubhayampi anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, sīsamakkhanādīsu upanetabbaṃ, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Yadi pana appaṃ uṇhodakaṃ hoti abbhukkiraṇamattaṃ, abbohārikaṃ hoti sāmaṃpākagaṇanaṃ na gacchati. Sāsapatelādīsupi avatthukapaṭiggahitesu avatthukatilatele vuttasadisova vinicchayo.

96. Among oils, sesame oil received before the meal is permissible materially before the meal; after the meal, it is non-material. Exceeding seven days, its nissaggiya status is by container count. Received after the meal, it is non-material for seven days; if heated and stored, it cannot be consumed but must be used for head-anointing or the like, with no offense after seven days. Sesame seeds received before the meal and made into oil are permissible materially before the meal; after the meal, they are non-consumable and must be used for anointing or the like, with no offense after seven days. Sesame seeds received after the meal and made into oil are non-consumable due to proper receipt, with no offense after seven days, and must be used for anointing or the like. The same applies to oil made from heated sesame seeds before or after the meal. Sesame seeds received before the meal, roasted, ground into flour, or moistened with warm water and made into oil—if made by an unordained person—are permissible materially before the meal; if self-made, non-material before the meal due to extraction, and material is impermissible due to self-cooking. Both are non-consumable after the meal due to proper receipt and must be used for anointing or the like, with no offense after seven days. If only a little warm water is used, just for sprinkling, it is non-substantial and not counted as self-cooking. For mustard oil and others, the ruling for improperly received items is like that for improperly received sesame oil.

96. Among oils, sesame oil, indeed, received before the meal, is allowable even with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is allowable only without food. After the seven days have passed, its nissaggiya status should be understood by the number of containers. Received after the meal, it is allowable only without food for seven days; what has been learned and set aside is not allowable to be consumed; it should be used for anointing the head and other purposes; even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense. Sesame oil made from sesame seeds received before the meal is allowable even with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is unsuitable for consumption; it should be used for anointing the head and other purposes; even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense. Sesame oil made from sesame seeds received after the meal is unsuitable for consumption, because it was received with its substance. Even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense; it should be used for anointing the head and other purposes. The same rule applies to oil made from sesame seeds that have been learned, whether before or after the meal. Sesame oil made by roasting sesame seeds received before the meal, or by steaming sesame flour, or by moistening it with hot water, if made by an unordained person, is allowable even with food before the meal; what is made by oneself, because it has been produced, is allowable without food before the meal; because it is cooked by oneself, it is not allowable with food. But because it was received with its substance, from after the meal onwards, both are unsuitable for consumption; they should be used for anointing the head and other purposes; even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense. But if there is a little hot water, just enough to sprinkle, it is negligible; it does not count as cooking by oneself. Regarding mustard oil and others, in the case of those received without their substance, the determination is just like that for sesame oil received without its substance.

96. Regarding oils, sesame oil received before the meal can be consumed with meat before the meal, but after the meal, it can only be consumed without meat. If it exceeds seven days, the number of nissaggiya offenses corresponds to the number of containers. Sesame oil received after the meal can only be consumed without meat for seven days. Sesame oil received before or after the meal and then stored cannot be consumed; it should be used for anointing the head, etc. There is no offense even if it exceeds seven days. Sesame oil prepared with sesame seeds received before the meal can be consumed with meat before the meal, but after the meal, it cannot be consumed and should be used for anointing the head, etc. There is no offense even if it exceeds seven days. Sesame oil prepared with sesame seeds received after the meal cannot be consumed as it is received with a basis. There is no offense even if it exceeds seven days, and it should be used for anointing the head, etc. The same applies to sesame oil prepared with stored sesame seeds received before or after the meal. Sesame oil prepared by roasting sesame seeds received before the meal or by steaming sesame flour with hot water can be consumed with meat if prepared by an unordained person, but if prepared by oneself, it can only be consumed without meat before the meal due to being self-cooked. Since it is received with a basis, it cannot be consumed after the meal and should be used for anointing the head, etc. There is no offense even if it exceeds seven days. If only a small amount of hot water is used for steaming, it is considered insignificant and not counted as self-cooking. The same rules apply to mustard oil, etc., when received without a basis.

Sace pana purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitānaṃ sāsapādīnaṃ cuṇṇehi ādiccapākena sakkā telaṃ kātuṃ, taṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ. Yasmā pana sāsapamadhukacuṇṇāni sedetvā eraṇḍakaṭṭhīni ca bhajjitvā eva telaṃ karonti, tasmā etesaṃ telaṃ anupasampannehi kataṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, vatthūnaṃ yāvajīvikattā pana savatthukapaṭiggahaṇe doso natthi. Attanā kataṃ sattāhaṃ nirāmisaparibhogeneva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Uggahitakehi kataṃ anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, bāhiraparibhoge vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Telakaraṇatthāya sāsapamadhukaeraṇḍakaṭṭhīni paṭiggahetvā katatelaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, dutiyadivase kataṃ chāhaṃ vaṭṭati, tatiyadivase kataṃ pañcāhaṃ vaṭṭati, catuttha, pañcama, chaṭṭha, sattamadivase kataṃ tadaheva vaṭṭati. Sace yāva aruṇassa uggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyaṃ, aṭṭhamadivase kataṃ anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, anissaggiyattā pana bāhiraparibhoge vaṭṭati. Sacepi na karoti, telatthāya gahitasāsapādīnaṃ sattāhātikkame dukkaṭameva. Pāḷiyaṃ pana anāgatāni aññānipi nāḷikeranimbakosambakaramandādīnaṃ telāni atthi, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaṃ atikkāmayato dukkaṭaṃ hoti. Ayametesu viseso – sesaṃ yāvakālikavatthuṃ yāvajīvikavatthuñca sallakkhetvā sāmaṃpākasavatthukapurebhattapacchābhattapaṭiggahitauggahitavatthuvidhānaṃ sabbaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

If oil can be made from mustard seeds and the like received before the meal by sunlight-cooking, it is permissible materially before the meal; after the meal, it is non-material; exceeding seven days, it is nissaggiya. Since mustard and madhuka powders are moistened and castor sticks roasted to make oil, oil made by unordained persons from these is permissible materially before the meal; due to the yāvajīvika nature of the materials, there is no fault in proper receipt. Self-made oil must be consumed non-materially for seven days. Made from heated items, it is non-consumable and permissible externally, with no offense after seven days. Oil made from mustard, madhuka, and castor sticks received for oil-making is sattāhakālika; if made the second day, it is permissible for six days; the third day, five days; the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days, one day. If it remains until dawn, it is nissaggiya; made on the eighth day, it is non-consumable, but permissible externally due to non-nissaggiya status. If not made, exceeding seven days for mustard seeds and the like taken for oil incurs a dukkaṭa. Oils not mentioned in the Pāli—like coconut, neem, kosamba, and karamanda—when received and exceeding seven days incur a dukkaṭa. The distinction here is: the rest—considering yāvakālika and yāvajīvika materials, self-cooking, proper receipt, before and after the meal, and heated items—are all to be understood as stated earlier.

But if oil can be made by sun-cooking from the powder of mustard seeds and others received before the meal, it is allowable even with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is allowable only without food; after the seven days have passed, it is nissaggiya. But because they make oil by steaming mustard and madhuka powders, and by roasting castor seeds, therefore, the oil of these, made by unordained persons, is allowable even with food before the meal; because the substances are lifelong, there is no fault in receiving them with their substance. What is made by oneself should be consumed only with the enjoyment of non-food for seven days. What is made from what has been learned is unsuitable for consumption; it is allowable for external use; even after the seven days have passed, there is no offense. Oil made from mustard seeds, madhuka, and castor seeds received for the purpose of making oil is allowed for seven days; what is made on the second day is allowable for six days; what is made on the third day is allowable for five days; what is made on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days is allowable only on that day. If it remains until the rising of the sun, it is nissaggiya; what is made on the eighth day is unsuitable for consumption; but because it is not nissaggiya, it is allowable for external use. Even if one does not make it, there is only a dukkaṭa offense after the seven days have passed for the mustard seeds and others taken for the purpose of oil. But there are also other oils not mentioned in the Pāḷi, such as those of coconut, nimba, kosamba, karamanda, and others; for receiving them and letting seven days pass, there is a dukkaṭa offense. This is the difference among them: having noted the remaining time-limited substances and lifelong substances, all the rules regarding cooking by oneself, substances, what is received before and after the meal, and what has been learned, should be understood in the same way as mentioned.

If sesame oil can be prepared by heating the powder of mustard, etc., received before the meal, it can be consumed with meat before the meal, but after the meal, it can only be consumed without meat. If it exceeds seven days, a nissaggiya offense is incurred. Since sesame oil is prepared by steaming mustard, madhuka, and castor wood powder, sesame oil prepared by an unordained person can be consumed with meat before the meal, but there is no fault in receiving it with a basis as the materials are permissible for a lifetime. If prepared by oneself, it can only be consumed without meat for seven days. Sesame oil prepared with stored materials cannot be consumed and is only permissible for external use. There is no offense even if it exceeds seven days. Sesame oil prepared for the purpose of making oil with mustard, madhuka, and castor wood received is permissible for seven days. If prepared on the second day, it is permissible for six days; if prepared on the third day, it is permissible for five days; if prepared on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day, it is permissible only for that day. If it remains until dawn, a nissaggiya offense is incurred. If prepared on the eighth day, it cannot be consumed, but since it is not subject to nissaggiya, it is permissible for external use. Even if not prepared, receiving mustard, etc., for the purpose of making oil incurs a dukkaṭa offense if it exceeds seven days. In the Pāli texts, other oils such as coconut, neem, kosambaka, and karanda are also mentioned. Receiving them and exceeding seven days incurs a dukkaṭa offense. The distinction here is that the rest should be understood by considering the rules for temporary and lifetime permissions, self-cooking, receiving with a basis, and receiving before or after the meal, as stated earlier.

Vasātelaṃ nāma “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañca vasāni acchavasaṃ macchavasaṃ susukāvasaṃ sūkaravasaṃ gadrabhavasa”nti (mahāva. 262) evaṃ anuññātavasānaṃ telaṃ. Ettha ca “acchavasa”nti vacanena ṭhapetvā manussavasaṃ sabbesaṃ akappiyamaṃsānaṃ vasā anuññātā. Macchaggahaṇena ca susukāpi gahitā honti, vāḷamacchattā pana visuṃ vuttaṃ. Macchādiggahaṇena cettha sabbesampi kappiyamaṃsānaṃ vasā anuññātā. Maṃsesu hi dasa manussahatthiassasunakhaahisīhabyagghadīpiacchataracchānaṃ maṃsāni akappiyāni, vasāsu ekā manussavasā. Khīrādīsu akappiyaṃ nāma natthi. Anupasampannehi kataṃ nibbaṭṭitaṃ vasātelaṃ purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana tattha sukhumarajasadisaṃ maṃsaṃ vā nhāru vā aṭṭhi vā lohitaṃ vā hoti, taṃ abbohārikaṃ. Sace pana vasaṃ paṭiggahetvā sayaṃ karoti, purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā pacitvā parissāvetvā sattāhaṃ nirāmisaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Nirāmisaparibhogañhi sandhāya idaṃ vuttaṃ “kāle paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ kāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ telaparibhogena paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 262). Tatrāpi abbohārikaṃ abbohārikameva, pacchābhattaṃ pana paṭiggahetuṃ vā kātuṃ vā na vaṭṭatiyeva. Vuttañhetaṃ –

The term “vasātela” refers to oil made from the fats permitted as follows: “I allow, bhikkhus, five kinds of fat: bear fat, fish fat, alligator fat, pig fat, and donkey fat” (mahāva. 262). Here, by the term “bear fat,” all fats from animals whose flesh is unsuitable, except human fat, are permitted. The mention of “fish” also includes alligator, but it is stated separately because it is a fierce fish. By mentioning “fish” and so forth, the fats of all animals with suitable flesh are permitted here. Among meats, ten kinds—human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena—are unsuitable; among fats, only human fat is unsuitable. There is nothing unsuitable among milk products and the like. Fat oil prepared by unordained persons, received before the meal, is allowable even with meat before the meal; from after the meal onward, it is allowable only without meat for seven days. However, if there is flesh resembling fine dust, or sinew, bone, or blood in it, that is unallowable. If, having received fat, one prepares it oneself, cooks it after receiving it before the meal, strains it, it should be used without meat for seven days. It is with reference to use without meat that it is said, “Received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, it may be used with oil” (mahāva. 262). Even there, what is unallowable remains unallowable, and after the meal, it is indeed not allowable to receive or prepare it. It has been said:

Vasātelaṃ (fat oil) means the oil of fats allowed thus: “I allow, monks, five fats: bear fat, fish fat, alligator fat, pig fat, and donkey fat” (mahāva. 262). And here, by the word “bear fat,” except for human fat, the fats of all unallowable meats are allowed. And by the taking of fish, alligators are also included; however, due to being dangerous fish, they are mentioned separately. By the taking of fish and the like, the fats of all allowable meats are allowed here. For among meats, the meats of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas are unallowable; among fats, only human fat. Regarding milk and the like, there is nothing unallowable. What is made and finished by non-fully ordained ones, fat oil accepted before the meal is permissible even with solid food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible for seven days only without solid food. But whatever meat, sinew, bone, or blood that is like fine dust there, that is insignificant. But if, having accepted fat, one makes it oneself, having accepted it before the meal, cooked it, and strained it, it should be consumed for seven days with a non-solid food consumption. For it is with reference to non-solid food consumption that this is stated: “What is accepted at the right time, prepared at the right time, and mixed at the right time, should be consumed with an oil consumption” (mahāva. 262). There also, what is insignificant is insignificant; however, it is not permissible to accept or make it after the meal. It is stated thus:

Vasātelaṃ refers to the oil derived from the five kinds of fat: “I allow, monks, the use of five kinds of fat—fat from bears, fish, crocodiles, pigs, and donkeys” (Mahāva. 262). Here, the term “acchavasa” (bear fat) implies that, apart from human fat, the fats of all animals whose meat is permissible are allowed. The inclusion of “macchavasa” (fish fat) also encompasses crocodile fat, but the fat of large fish is mentioned separately. Through the mention of fish and the like, the fats of all animals whose meat is permissible are allowed. Among meats, the flesh of ten animals—humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas—is prohibited, but among fats, only human fat is prohibited. There is nothing prohibited in milk and the like. Fat oil prepared by the unordained, if received before the meal, may be used with solid food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. However, if there is any fine residue like meat particles, sinews, bones, or blood, it is insignificant. If one receives the fat and prepares it oneself, having received it before the meal, cooked it, strained it, it may be used without solid food for seven days. The use without solid food is what is meant by the statement, “Received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, it may be used with oil” (Mahāva. 262). Even then, what is insignificant remains insignificant, but it is not permissible to receive or prepare it after the meal. It is said:

“Vikāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, taṃ ce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, taṃ ce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, taṃ ce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa . Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ kāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, taṃ ce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 262).

“If, bhikkhus, it is received at the wrong time, cooked at the wrong time, and mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of three dukkaṭas. If, bhikkhus, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the wrong time, and mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of two dukkaṭas. If, bhikkhus, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of one dukkaṭa. If, bhikkhus, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the proper time, and one uses it, there is no offense” (mahāva. 262).

“If, monks, it is accepted at the wrong time, prepared at the wrong time, and mixed at the wrong time, if one consumes it, there is an offense of three dukkaṭas. If, monks, it is accepted at the right time, prepared at the wrong time, and mixed at the wrong time, if one consumes it, there is an offense of two dukkaṭas. If, monks, it is accepted at the right time, prepared at the right time, and mixed at the wrong time, if one consumes it, there is an offense of a dukkaṭa. If, monks, it is accepted at the right time, prepared at the right time, and mixed at the right time, if one consumes it, there is no offense” (mahāva. 262).

“If, monks, it is received at the wrong time, cooked at the wrong time, and mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of three dukkaṭas. If, monks, it is received at the proper time but cooked at the wrong time and mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of two dukkaṭas. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, but mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of one dukkaṭa. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the proper time, and one uses it, there is no offense” (Mahāva. 262).

Upatissattheraṃ pana antevāsikā pucchiṃsu “bhante, sappinavanītavasāni ekato pacitvā nibbaṭṭitāni vaṭṭanti, na vaṭṭantī”ti? “Na vaṭṭanti, āvuso”ti. Thero kirettha pakkatelakasaṭe viya kukkuccāyati. Tato naṃ uttari pucchiṃsu “bhante, navanīte dadhiguḷikā vā takkabindu vā hoti, etaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti? “Etampi, āvuso, na vaṭṭatī”ti. Tato naṃ āhaṃsu “bhante, ekato pacitvā ekato saṃsaṭṭhāni tejavantāni honti, rogaṃ niggaṇhantī”ti. “Sādhāvuso”ti thero sampaṭicchi. Mahāsumatthero panāha “kappiyamaṃsavasāva sāmisaparibhoge vaṭṭati, itarā nirāmisaparibhoge vaṭṭatī”ti. Mahāpadumatthero pana “idaṃ ki”nti paṭikkhipitvā “nanu vātābādhikā bhikkhū pañcamūlakasāvayāguyaṃ acchasūkaratelādīni pakkhipitvā yāguṃ pivanti, sā tejussadattā rogaṃ niggaṇhātī”ti vatvā “vaṭṭatī”ti āha.

The disciples of the Elder Upatissa asked him, “Venerable sir, are ghee, butter, and fat cooked together and prepared allowable or not?” “They are not allowable, friends,” he replied. The Elder here seems to hesitate as if it were cooked oil. Then they asked him further, “Venerable sir, if there is a lump of curd or a drop of buttermilk in the butter, is that allowable?” “That too, friends, is not allowable,” he said. Then they said to him, “Venerable sir, when cooked together and mixed, they become potent and suppress illness.” “Very well, friends,” the Elder agreed. But the Elder Mahāsuma said, “Only the fat of suitable meat is allowable with meat; the rest is allowable without meat.” However, the Elder Mahāpaduma rejected this, saying, “What is this?” and added, “Do not bhikkhus afflicted with wind disorders put bear fat, pig fat oil, and the like into a gruel with a decoction of five roots and drink it? It suppresses illness due to its potency,” and concluded, “It is allowable.”

However, the disciples asked Upatissa Thera, “Venerable sir, are ghee, fresh butter, and fats cooked together and finished permissible or not permissible?” “They are not permissible, friends.” The Thera, it is said, is scrupulous here like with oil-soaked leather. Then they asked him further, “Venerable sir, in fresh butter, there is a curd lump or a drop of buttermilk, is this permissible?” “This also, friends, is not permissible.” Then they said to him, “Venerable sir, when cooked together and mixed together, they are potent and suppress illness.” “Very well, friends,” the Thera accepted. Mahāsuma Thera, however, said, “Only the fat of allowable meat is permissible with solid food consumption; the others are permissible with non-solid food consumption.” Mahāpaduma Thera, however, rejected this, saying, “What is this?” and said, “Do not monks with wind disorders drink a gruel of five roots with bear and pig oil and the like added, and does it not suppress the illness due to its potency?” and said, “It is permissible.”

The disciples of Upatissa Thera asked, “Venerable sir, is it permissible to cook butter, ghee, and fat together and strain them?” “It is not permissible, friends.” The elder was concerned here as if it were a pot of cooked oil. Then they further asked, “Venerable sir, if there are lumps of fresh butter or drops of buttermilk in the ghee, is it permissible?” “That too, friends, is not permissible.” Then they said, “Venerable sir, when cooked together and mixed, they become potent and cure diseases.” “Good, friends,” the elder agreed. Mahāsumana Thera, however, said, “Only the fat of animals whose meat is permissible may be used with solid food; others may only be used without solid food.” Mahāpaduma Thera rejected this, saying, “What is this? Do not monks suffering from wind disorders drink gruel mixed with the five roots, bear fat, pig fat, and the like? Such gruel, being potent, cures diseases.” Thus, he said it is permissible.

97. Madhu nāma madhukarīhi madhumakkhikāhi khuddakamakkhikāhi bhamaramakkhikāhi ca kataṃ madhu. Taṃ purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisaparibhogampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisaparibhogameva vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ. Sace silesasadisaṃ mahāmadhuṃ khaṇḍaṃ katvā ṭhapitaṃ, itaraṃ vā nānābhājanesu, vatthugaṇanāya nissaggiyāni. Sace ekameva khaṇḍaṃ, ekabhājane vā itaraṃ, ekameva nissaggiyaṃ. Uggahitakaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, arumakkhanādīsu upanetabbaṃ. Madhupaṭalaṃ vā madhusitthakaṃ vā sace madhunā amakkhitaṃ parisuddhaṃ, yāvajīvikaṃ, madhumakkhitaṃ pana madhugatikameva. Cīrikā nāma sapakkhā dīghamakkhikā tumbaḷanāmikā ca aṭṭhipakkhikā kāḷamahābhamarā honti, tesaṃ āsayesu niyyāsasadisaṃ madhu hoti, taṃ yāvajīvikaṃ.

97. Madhu refers to honey made by bees, large bees, small bees, and bumblebees. If received before the meal, it is allowable even with meat before the meal; from after the meal onward, it is allowable only without meat for seven days, and beyond seven days, it is subject to relinquishment. If a large piece of honey like a stone is cut and stored, or if other honey is kept in various containers, they are subject to relinquishment by counting the items. If it is one piece or in one container, it is a single item subject to relinquishment. What is lifted up should be understood as stated; it should be used for anointing sores and the like. If a honeycomb or honey residue is uncontaminated with honey and pure, it is allowable for life; if smeared with honey, it follows the rule for honey. “Cīrikā” refers to long bees with wings or those called tumbaḷa, and black large bumblebees with bones; the honey in their hives, resembling sap, is allowable for life.

97. Honey (Madhu) is the honey made by honeybees, small bees, and bumblebees. That accepted before the meal is permissible even with solid food consumption before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible for seven days only with non-solid food consumption; after seven days, it is to be forfeited. If great honey, like rock sugar, is placed after being cut into pieces, or if the others are in various containers, they are to be forfeited according to the number of objects. If it is only one piece, or if the others are in one container, only one is to be forfeited. What is learned should be understood in the same way as stated; it should be applied to wound-smearing and the like. A honeycomb or beeswax, if it is pure, not smeared with honey, is permissible for life; but if it is smeared with honey, it is of the same category as honey. Cīrikā is the name for winged long bees, and tumbaḷa is the name for bone-winged great black bumblebees; in their nests, there is honey like resin; that is permissible for life.

97. Honey refers to honey made by bees, honeybees, small flies, and bumblebees. If received before the meal, it may be used with solid food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. After seven days, it must be relinquished. If a large piece of honey resembling a stone is set aside, or if it is placed in separate containers, each container must be relinquished. If it is a single piece or in a single container, only one relinquishment is required. The method of taking it is as previously described, and it may be used for medicinal purposes like arum powder and the like. Honeycomb or honey powder, if not mixed with honey, is pure and may be used for a lifetime, but if mixed with honey, it follows the rules for honey. Cīrikā refers to long-winged flies, tumbaḷa flies, and black bumblebees. The honey found in their hives, resembling resin, may be used for a lifetime.

98. Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchurasaṃ upādāya apakkā vā avatthukapakkā vā sabbāpi avatthukā ucchuvikati. Taṃ phāṇitaṃ purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkame vatthugaṇanāya nissaggiyaṃ. Bahū piṇḍā cuṇṇe katvā ekabhājane pakkhittā honti ghanasannivesā, ekameva nissaggiyaṃ. Uggahitakaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, gharadhūpanādīsu upanetabbaṃ. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitena aparissāvitaucchurasena kataphāṇitaṃ sace anupasampannena kataṃ, sāmisampi vaṭṭati, sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya pana savatthukapaṭiggahitattā anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Pacchābhattaṃ aparissāvitapaṭiggahitena katampi anajjhoharaṇīyameva, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Esa nayo ucchuṃ paṭiggahetvā kataphāṇitepi. Purebhattaṃ pana parissāvitapaṭiggahitena kataṃ sace anupasampannena kataṃ, purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisameva. Sayaṃkataṃ purebhattampi nirāmisameva, pacchābhattaṃ parissāvitapaṭiggahitena kataṃ pana nirāmisameva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭati. Uggahitakataṃ vuttanayameva. “Jhāmaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā purebhattameva vaṭṭatī”ti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “etaṃ savatthukapakkaṃ vaṭṭati, no vaṭṭatī”ti pucchaṃ katvā “ucchuphāṇitaṃ pacchābhattaṃ no vaṭṭanakaṃ nāma natthī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Sītodakena kataṃ madhukapupphaphāṇitaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkame vatthugaṇanāya dukkaṭaṃ, khīraṃ pakkhipitvā kataṃ madhukaphāṇitaṃ yāvakālikaṃ. Khaṇḍasakkharaṃ pana khīrajallikaṃ apanetvā sodhenti, tasmā vaṭṭati.

98. Phāṇita refers to all unrefined sugarcane derivatives, whether uncooked or cooked without a base, starting from sugarcane juice. If that phāṇita is received before the meal, it is allowable even with meat before the meal; from after the meal onward, it is allowable only without meat for seven days, and beyond seven days, it is subject to relinquishment by counting the items. If many lumps are powdered and placed in one container as a solid mass, it is a single item subject to relinquishment. What is lifted up should be understood as stated; it should be used for fumigating homes and the like. Phāṇita made from unstrained sugarcane juice received before the meal, if prepared by an unordained person, is allowable even with meat; if self-made, it is allowable only without meat. From after the meal onward, since it was received with a base, it is not to be consumed, yet there is no offense beyond seven days. Even if made from unstrained juice received after the meal, it is not to be consumed, yet there is no offense beyond seven days. The same applies to phāṇita made from received sugarcane. However, if made from strained juice received before the meal and prepared by an unordained person, it is allowable with meat before the meal; from after the meal onward, it is allowable without meat for seven days. If self-made, it is allowable only without meat even before the meal; if made from strained juice received after the meal, it is allowable without meat for seven days. What is lifted up follows the stated method. “Burnt sugarcane phāṇita or pounded sugarcane phāṇita is allowable only before the meal,” says the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, the question “Is this cooked with a base allowable or not?” is raised, and it is said, “There is no sugarcane phāṇita that is not allowable after the meal,” which is reasonable. Phāṇita made from madhuka flowers with cool water is allowable with meat before the meal, and without meat for seven days from after the meal; beyond seven days, it incurs a dukkaṭa by counting the items. Phāṇita made from madhuka with milk added is allowable until mealtime. Lump sugar, however, is allowable after removing milk residue and purifying it.

98. Molasses (Phāṇita) is all unsolidified sugarcane juice, whether uncooked or solidified without an object. That molasses accepted before the meal is permissible even with solid food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible for seven days only without solid food; after seven days, it is to be forfeited according to the number of objects. If many lumps are made into powder and placed in one container, densely packed, only one is to be forfeited. What is learned should be understood in the same way as stated; it should be applied to house-fumigation and the like. Molasses made with unstrained sugarcane juice accepted before the meal, if made by a non-fully ordained one, is permissible even with solid food; what is made by oneself is permissible only without solid food; from after the meal onwards, however, due to having been accepted with an object, it is not to be swallowed; even after seven days, there is no offense. Even what is made with unstrained juice accepted after the meal is not to be swallowed; even after seven days, there is no offense. The same rule applies to molasses made after accepting sugarcane. However, what is made with strained juice accepted before the meal, if made by a non-fully ordained one, is permissible even with solid food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible for seven days only without solid food. What is made by oneself is permissible only without solid food even before the meal; but what is made with strained juice accepted after the meal is permissible only without solid food for seven days. What is made from what is learned is the same as stated. “Burnt sugarcane molasses or crushed sugarcane molasses is permissible only before the meal,” it is stated in the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, after asking the question, “Is this solidified with an object permissible or not permissible?” it is stated, “There is nothing called sugarcane molasses that is not permissible after the meal,” and that is correct. Madhuka flower molasses made with cold water is permissible even with solid food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible for seven days only without solid food; after seven days, there is a dukkaṭa according to the number of objects; madhuka molasses made with milk added is permissible for the day. However, they purify rock sugar by removing the milk residue; therefore, it is permissible.

98. Molasses refers to sugarcane juice that has been boiled down, whether thick or thin, or any other form of sugarcane product. If received before the meal, it may be used with solid food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. After seven days, it must be relinquished. Even if many lumps are ground into powder and placed in a single container, forming a solid mass, only one relinquishment is required. The method of taking it is as previously described, and it may be used for household purposes like fumigation. If molasses prepared from sugarcane juice received before the meal and not strained is made by the unordained, it may be used with solid food, but if made by oneself, it may only be used without solid food. From after the meal onwards, since it is received with residue, it is not to be consumed, and even after seven days, there is no offense. Molasses prepared from sugarcane juice received after the meal and not strained is also not to be consumed, and even after seven days, there is no offense. The same applies to molasses made from sugarcane received after the meal. If, however, it is prepared from sugarcane juice received before the meal and strained, and made by the unordained, it may be used with solid food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. If made by oneself, even before the meal, it may only be used without solid food. If prepared from sugarcane juice received after the meal and strained, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. The method of taking it is as previously described. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Burnt sugarcane molasses or ground sugarcane molasses may only be used before the meal.” In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is questioned whether this is permissible when cooked with residue, and it is said, “There is no such thing as sugarcane molasses that is not permissible after the meal,” which is appropriate. Molasses made with cold water from honey flowers may be used with solid food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, it may only be used without solid food for seven days. After seven days, it is an offense of dukkaṭa. Molasses made with milk is permissible for the day. Lump sugar, however, is cleaned by removing the milk residue, so it is permissible.

99. Madhukapupphaṃ pana purebhattampi allaṃ vaṭṭati. Bhajjitampi vaṭṭati, bhajjitvā tilādīhi missaṃ vā amissaṃ vā katvā koṭṭitaṃ vaṭṭati. Yadi pana taṃ gahetvā merayatthāya yojenti, yojitaṃ bījato paṭṭhāya na vaṭṭati. Kadalīkhajjūrīambalabujapanasaciñcādīnaṃ sabbesaṃ yāvakālikaphalānaṃ phāṇitaṃ yāvakālikameva. Maricapakkehi phāṇitaṃ karonti, taṃ yāvajīvikaṃ. Evaṃ yathāvuttāni sattāhakālikāni sappiādīni pañca “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañca bhesajjānī”ti (mahāva. 260) bhesajjanāmena anuññātattā bhesajjakiccaṃ karontu vā mā vā, āhāratthaṃ pharituṃ samatthānipi paṭiggahetvā tadahupurebhattaṃ yathāsukhaṃ, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sati paccaye vuttanayena sattāhaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, sattāhātikkame pana bhesajjasikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sacepi sāsapamattaṃ hoti, sakiṃ vā aṅguliyā gahetvā jivhāya sāyanamattaṃ, nissajjitabbameva pācittiyañca desetabbaṃ. Nissaṭṭhaṃ paṭilabhitvā na ajjhoharitabbaṃ, na kāyikena paribhogena paribhuñjitabbaṃ , kāyo vā kāye aru vā na makkhetabbaṃ. Tehi makkhitāni kāsāvakattarayaṭṭhiupāhanapādakaṭhalikamañcapīṭhādīnipi aparibhogāni. “Dvāravātapānakavāṭesupi hatthena gahaṇaṭṭhānaṃ na makkhetabba”nti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. “Kasāve pana pakkhipitvā dvāravātapānakavāṭāni makkhetabbānī”ti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Padīpe vā kāḷavaṇṇe vā upanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Aññena pana bhikkhunā kāyikena paribhogena paribhuñjitabbaṃ, na ajjhoharitabbaṃ. “Anāpatti antosattāhaṃ adhiṭṭhetī”ti (pārā. 625) vacanato pana sattāhabbhantare sappiñca telañca vasañca muddhani telaṃ vā abbhañjanaṃ vā madhuṃ arumakkhanaṃ phāṇitaṃ gharadhūpanaṃ adhiṭṭheti anāpatti, neva nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Sace adhiṭṭhitatelaṃ anadhiṭṭhitatelabhājane ākiritukāmo hoti, bhājane ce sukhumaṃ chiddaṃ, paviṭṭhaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ telaṃ purāṇatelena ajjhottharīyati, puna adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Atha mahāmukhaṃ hoti, sahasāva bahu telaṃ pavisitvā purāṇatelaṃ ajjhottharati, puna adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi. Adhiṭṭhitagatikameva hi taṃ hoti. Etena nayena adhiṭṭhitatelabhājane anadhiṭṭhitatelaākiraṇampi veditabbaṃ.

99. Madhuka flowers, even when fresh, are allowable before the meal. Roasted ones are allowable too; whether mixed or unmixed with sesame and the like and pounded, they are allowable. But if they are taken and used for liquor, from the moment of preparation onward, they are not allowable. The phāṇita of all fruits allowable until mealtime—banana, date, mango, jackfruit, tamarind, and the like—is allowable only until mealtime. Phāṇita made from pepper seeds is allowable for life. Thus, the five items allowable for seven days—ghee and the like—as stated, “I allow, bhikkhus, five medicines” (mahāva. 260), are permitted under the name of medicine. Whether they serve as medicine or not, even those capable of being used as food, when received, may be used freely before the meal on that day; from after the meal onward, if there is a reason, they should be used as stated for seven days. Beyond seven days, they are subject to relinquishment with a pācittiya offense per the medicine training rule. Even if it is as little as a mustard seed or tasted once with the finger on the tongue, it must be relinquished, and a pācittiya confessed. Once relinquished and taken back, it must not be consumed, nor used physically; the body must not be smeared with it, nor should sores be anointed. Items smeared with them—robes, bowls, sticks, sandals, footrests, beds, seats, and the like—are also not to be used. “Even doorways, window shutters, and drinking vessels must not be smeared at the handholds,” says the Mahāpaccariya. “But they may be smeared on robes, doorways, window shutters, and drinking vessels,” says the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. It is allowable to use them in lamps or on black surfaces. Another bhikkhu may use them physically but not consume them. “There is no offense if one resolves within seven days” (pārā. 625); thus, within seven days, if ghee, oil, fat, head oil, anointing oil, honey for anointing sores, or phāṇita for fumigating homes is resolved upon, there is no offense and no relinquishment. If one wishes to pour resolved oil into an unresolved oil container, and the container has a fine hole, as the oil enters, it is overwhelmed by the old oil and must be resolved again. If it has a wide mouth and much oil enters suddenly, overwhelming the old oil, no further resolution is needed; it follows the status of the resolved oil. The pouring of unresolved oil into a resolved oil container should be understood similarly.

99. However, the madhuka flower is permissible even before the meal when fresh. It is also permissible when roasted; it is permissible when roasted and mixed with sesame seeds and the like, or unmixed, and crushed. But if, taking it, they prepare it for intoxicating liquor, what is prepared is not permissible from the seed onwards. The molasses of all permissible-for-the-day fruits, such as plantain, jujube, mango, labuja, breadfruit, and tamarind, is permissible only for the day. They make molasses with pepper fruits; that is permissible for life. Thus, the stated seven-day-permissible ghee and the like, the five, are allowed under the name of medicines, “I allow, monks, five medicines” (mahāva. 260); therefore, whether they perform a medicinal function or not, they are able to be consumed for the purpose of nourishment; having accepted them, before the meal on that day, as desired; from after the meal onwards, with a cause, in the stated way, they should be consumed for seven days; after seven days, however, due to the medicine precept, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya. Even if it is as small as a mustard seed, or even a mere taste on the tongue with a finger, it must be forfeited, and the pācittiya must be confessed. Having obtained what has been forfeited, it should not be swallowed, it should not be consumed with a bodily consumption, the body or a wound on the body should not be smeared. Yellow robes, razor handles, sandals, footstools, couches, seats, and the like smeared with them are also unusable. “Even on doors, window panels, and door panels, the place of grasping with the hand should not be smeared,” it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. “However, doors, window panels, and door panels should be smeared after adding it to a dye,” it is stated in the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā. It is permissible to use it in a lamp or for a black spot. But it should be consumed by another monk with a bodily consumption, it should not be swallowed. “There is no offense if one determines it within seven days” (pārā. 625); therefore, within seven days, if one determines ghee, oil, fat, head oil, or anointing, honey for wound-smearing, and molasses for house-fumigation, there is no offense, it is not to be forfeited. If one wishes to pour determined oil into a container of undetermined oil, if there is a small hole in the container, the oil that enters is overwhelmed by the old oil; it should be determined again. If it is a large opening, a lot of oil enters suddenly and overwhelms the old oil; there is no need to determine it again. For it is of the same category as determined. By this method, the pouring of undetermined oil into a container of determined oil should also be understood.

99. Honey flowers, even if fresh, are permissible before the meal. They are also permissible if dried, and if dried and mixed with sesame or the like, whether ground or not, they are permissible. However, if they are taken and used for medicinal purposes, they are not permissible from the time they are used as medicine. The molasses of all seasonal fruits like bananas, dates, tamarinds, breadfruit, and the like are permissible only for the day. Molasses made with ripe peppers is permissible for a lifetime. Thus, the five items—ghee, oil, fat, honey, and molasses—are allowed for seven days, as they are permitted as medicines: “I allow, monks, the use of five medicines” (Mahāva. 260). Whether they are used for medicinal purposes or not, they may be received for food and used as desired before the meal on that day, but from after the meal onwards, they must be used according to the prescribed method for seven days. After seven days, they must be relinquished under the rule concerning medicines, and an offense of pācittiya is incurred. Even if it is as small as a mustard seed, or just a fingertip’s amount, or a lick’s worth, it must be relinquished, and the pācittiya offense must be confessed. Once relinquished, it must not be consumed, nor used for bodily application, nor applied to the body or wounds. Robes, staffs, sandals, footrests, beds, chairs, and the like that have been smeared with them are not to be used. “Even the handles of doors and windows should not be smeared with the hand,” as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. “However, doors and windows may be smeared with dye,” as stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. It is permissible to use them for lamps or black dye. Another monk, however, may use them for bodily application, but they must not be consumed. “There is no offense if one determines within seven days” (Pārā. 625). Thus, within seven days, one may determine ghee, oil, fat, head oil, ointment, honey, arum powder, molasses, or fumigation, and there is no offense, nor need they be relinquished. If one wishes to pour determined oil into an undetermined oil container, and the container has a small hole, the oil that enters mixes with the old oil, and one must determine it again. If the hole is large, much oil will quickly enter and mix with the old oil, and there is no need to determine it again. For it is already determined. In this way, the pouring of undetermined oil into a determined oil container should be understood.

Sace pana sattāhātikkantaṃ anupasampannassa pariccajitvā deti, puna tena attano santakaṃ katvā dinnaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace hi so abhisaṅkharitvā vā anabhisaṅkharitvā vā tassa bhikkhuno natthukammatthaṃ dadeyya, gahetvā natthukammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace bālo hoti, dātuṃ na jānāti, aññena bhikkhunā vattabbo “atthi te sāmaṇera tela”nti? “Āma, bhante, atthī”ti. Āhara therassa bhesajjaṃ karissāmāti. Evampi vaṭṭati. Sace dvinnaṃ santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ avibhattaṃ hoti, sattāhātikkame dvinnampi anāpatti, paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭati. Sace yena paṭiggahitaṃ, so itaraṃ bhaṇati “āvuso, imaṃ telaṃ sattāhamattaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti, so ca paribhogaṃ na karoti, kassa āpatti? Na kassaci. Kasmā? Yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā, itarassa appaṭiggahitattā.

If, however, something beyond seven days is given to an unordained person and relinquished, and that person makes it their own and gives it back, it is allowable to use. If they give it, whether intentionally prepared or not, for the bhikkhu’s nasal treatment, it should be taken and used for nasal treatment. If they are foolish and do not know to give it, another bhikkhu should say, “Do you have oil, novice?” “Yes, venerable sir, I do.” “Bring it; we will make medicine for the elder.” This too is allowable. If it belongs to two people and is received by one without division, beyond seven days, neither incurs an offense, but it is not allowable to use. If the one who received it says to the other, “Friend, this oil is allowable to use for seven days,” and the other does not use it, whose offense is it? No one’s. Why? Because the one who received it has relinquished it, and the other has not received it.

But if, having given what has passed seven days to a non-fully ordained one, and he, having made it his own, gives it back, it is permissible to consume it. For if he, whether having prepared it or not, were to give it to that monk for the purpose of nasal medication, having taken it, the nasal medication should be done. If he is a fool and does not know how to give, another monk should be told, “Novice, do you have oil?” “Yes, venerable sir, I have.” “Bring it, we will prepare medicine for the elder.” Even thus it is permissible. If what belongs to two is accepted by one and is undivided, after seven days, there is no offense for either; however, it is not permissible to consume it. If the one who accepted it says to the other, “Friend, this oil is permissible to consume for only seven days,” and he does not consume it, for whom is there an offense? For neither. Why? Because it was relinquished by the one who accepted it, and it was not accepted by the other.

If, after seven days, one gives it to the unordained, having relinquished it, and then takes it back as one’s own, it is permissible to use it. If, however, the unordained, whether intentionally or unintentionally, gives it to the monk for the purpose of destroying it, it should be taken and destroyed. If the unordained is foolish and does not know how to give, another monk should say, “Novice, do you have oil?” “Yes, venerable sir, I do.” “Bring it, I will make medicine for the elder.” This is also permissible. If two people’s oil is received by one and not divided, after seven days, neither incurs an offense, but it is not permissible to use it. If the one who received it says to the other, “Friend, this oil may be used for seven days,” and the other does not use it, whose offense is it? No one’s. Why? Because the one who received it has given it back, and the other has not received it.

100. Imesu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 305) pana catūsu kālikesu yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikanti idameva dvayaṃ antovutthakañceva sannidhikārakañca hoti, sattāhakālikañca yāvajīvikañca akappiyakuṭiyaṃ nikkhipitumpi vaṭṭati, sannidhimpi na janeti. Yāvakālikaṃ pana attanā saddhiṃ sambhinnarasāni tīṇipi yāmakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti. Yāmakālikaṃ dvepi sattāhakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti, sattāhakālikampi attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upaneti, tasmā yāvakālikena tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sambhinnarasaṃ sesakālikattayaṃ tadahupurebhattameva vaṭṭati. Yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati. Sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappati. Dvīhapaṭiggahitena chāhaṃ. Tīhapaṭiggahitena pañcāhaṃ…pe… sattāhapaṭiggahitena tadaheva kappatīti veditabbaṃ. Kālayāmasattāhātikkamesu cettha vikālabhojanasannidhibhesajjasikkhāpadānaṃ vasena āpattiyo veditabbā.

100. Among these (mahāva. aṭṭha. 305), of the four time-bound items, only the two—allowable until mealtime and allowable until nightfall—are considered as stored internally and subject to keeping in store. Those allowable for seven days and for life may be kept even in an unsuitable hut and do not constitute storing. That allowable until mealtime, when mixed with the other three—allowable until nightfall and so forth—brings them to its own nature. That allowable until nightfall brings the two—allowable for seven days and for life—to its own nature. That allowable for seven days, when mixed with that allowable for life, brings it to its own nature. Thus, the remaining three time-bound items, when mixed and blended in taste with that allowable until mealtime received that day, are allowable only before the meal on that day. When mixed with that allowable until nightfall received that day, the other two are allowable until dawn. But when mixed with that allowable for seven days received that day—whether received that day or earlier—that allowable for life is permissible for seven days. If received on the second day, for six days; if on the third day, for five days; and so forth; if received on the seventh day, it is permissible only that day. Offenses here due to exceeding the time, nightfall, or seven days should be understood per the training rules on eating at the wrong time, storing, and medicines.

100. Among these (mahāva. aṭṭha. 305) four kinds of permissible things, only these two, permissible-for-the-day and permissible-for-a-watch, are both to be kept inside and are to be stored; both seven-day-permissible and permissible-for-life are permissible to be placed even in an unallowable hut, and they do not generate storage. However, permissible-for-the-day, mixed in flavor with oneself, brings the three, permissible-for-a-watch and the like, to its own nature. Permissible-for-a-watch brings the two, seven-day-permissible and the like, to its own nature; even seven-day-permissible, mixed with oneself, brings permissible-for-life to its own nature; therefore, the remaining three kinds of permissible things, mixed in flavor with permissible-for-the-day accepted on that day, are permissible only before the meal on that day. However, the other two, mixed with permissible-for-a-watch accepted on that day, are permissible until dawn. But permissible-for-life, mixed with seven-day-permissible accepted on that day, whether accepted on that day or accepted before, is allowable for seven days. What is accepted two days ago is allowable for six days. What is accepted three days ago is allowable for five days… what is accepted seven days ago is allowable only on that day, it should be understood. Here, in the cases of exceeding the day, the watch, and the seven days, the offenses should be understood according to the precepts regarding eating at the wrong time, storing, and medicine.

100. Among these (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 305), the four time-based categories—permissible for the day, permissible for the watch, permissible for seven days, and permissible for a lifetime—are both stored and not stored. They may also be placed in an improper storeroom and do not generate proximity. The permissible for the day, however, when mixed with items of the same taste, includes the three categories—permissible for the watch, permissible for seven days, and permissible for a lifetime—and takes on their nature. The permissible for the watch includes the two categories—permissible for seven days and permissible for a lifetime—and takes on their nature. The permissible for seven days, when mixed with the permissible for a lifetime, takes on its nature. Therefore, what is permissible for the day, when mixed with what is received on the same day, is permissible before the meal on that day. What is permissible for the watch, when mixed with the other two, is permissible until dawn. What is permissible for seven days, when mixed with what is received on the same day or previously, is permissible for seven days. If received for two days, it is permissible for six days. If received for three days, it is permissible for five days… up to if received for seven days, it is permissible only for that day. Offenses concerning untimely eating, proximity, and medicines should be understood in relation to the time, watch, and seven days.

Sace pana ekato paṭiggahitānipi cattāri kālikāni sambhinnarasāni na honti, tassa tasseva kālassa vasena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭanti. Sace hi challimpi anapanetvā sakaleneva nāḷikeraphalena saddhiṃ ambapānādipānakaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ hoti, nāḷikeraṃ apanetvā taṃ vikālepi kappati. Upari sappipiṇḍaṃ ṭhapetvā sītalapāyāsaṃ denti, yaṃ pāyāsena asaṃsaṭṭhaṃ sappi, taṃ apanetvā sattāhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Thaddhamadhuphāṇitādīsupi eseva nayo. Takkolajātiphalādīhi alaṅkaritvā piṇḍapātaṃ denti, tāni uddharitvā dhovitvā yāvajīvaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni. Yāguyaṃ pakkhipitvā dinnasiṅgiverādīsupi telādīsu pakkhipitvā dinnalaṭṭhimadhukādīsupi eseva nayo. Evaṃ yaṃ yaṃ asambhinnarasaṃ hoti, taṃ taṃ ekato paṭiggahitampi yathā suddhaṃ hoti, tathā dhovitvā tacchetvā vā tassa tassa kālassa vasena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace sambhinnarasaṃ hoti saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, na vaṭṭati.

If, however, the four time-bound items are received together but not blended in taste, they may be used according to their respective times. For instance, if a coconut fruit with its husk is received along with mango juice or other drinks, the coconut, once separated, is allowable even at the wrong time. If cool rice porridge is given with a lump of ghee on top, the ghee not mixed with the porridge, when separated, may be used for seven days. The same applies to solidified honey, phāṇita, and the like. If almsfood is decorated with nutmeg, cloves, and the like, they should be removed, washed, and used for life. The same applies to ginger and the like added to gruel, or long pepper and the like added to oil. Thus, whatever is not blended in taste, even if received together, may be washed or separated and used according to its respective time as if pure. If blended in taste and mixed, it is not allowable.

But if even the four kinds of permissible things accepted together are not mixed in flavor, they are permissible to consume according to the time of each of them. For if a drink of mango, pānā, and the like is accepted together with a whole coconut without removing the husk, removing the coconut, that is allowable even at the wrong time. They give cold rice pudding with a lump of ghee placed on top; the ghee that is not mixed with the rice pudding, removing that, it is permissible to consume it for seven days. The same rule applies to solid honey, molasses, and the like. They offer alms-food adorned with cloves, nutmeg, and the like; those should be removed, washed, and consumed for life. The same rule applies to ginger and the like added to gruel, and to laṭṭhimadhuka and the like added to oil and the like. Thus, whatever is not mixed in flavor, even if accepted together, it should be washed or scraped so that it is pure, and it is permissible to consume it according to the time of each of them. If it is mixed in flavor and mixed, it is not permissible.

If, however, the four time-based categories are received together but not mixed in taste, each may be used according to its own time. For example, if a drink like mango juice is received with a whole coconut without removing the husk, the coconut may be removed and the drink is permissible even at the wrong time. If cold rice porridge is given with a lump of butter on top, the butter that is not mixed with the porridge may be removed and used for seven days. The same applies to hard honey or molasses. If food is given decorated with betel nuts, nutmeg, and the like, these should be removed, washed, and used for a lifetime. The same applies to gruel mixed with ginger and the like, or oil mixed with sticks of honey and the like. Thus, whatever is not mixed in taste, even if received together, should be washed or cut and used according to its own time. If it is mixed in taste, it is not permissible.

Thus ends the discussion on time-bound items in the Vinayavinicchaya-saṅgaha, free of canonical text.

19. Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathā

19. Discourse on the Determination of Suitable Grounds

19. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Allowable Ground

19. Discussion on Proper Storerooms

101. Kappiyācatubhūmiyoti ettha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catasso kappiyabhūmiyo ussāvanantikaṃ gonisādikaṃ gahapatiṃ sammuti”nti (mahāva. 295) vacanato ussāvanantikā gonisādikā gahapati sammutīti imā catasso kappiyabhūmiyo veditabbā. Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295) ussāvanantikā tāva evaṃ kātabbā – yo thambhānaṃ vā upari bhittipāde vā nikhanitvā vihāro karīyati, tassa heṭṭhā thambhapaṭicchakā pāsāṇā bhūmigatikā eva. Paṭhamatthambhaṃ pana paṭhamabhittipādaṃ vā patiṭṭhāpentehi bahūhi samparivāretvā “kappiyakuṭiṃ karoma, kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā”ti vācaṃ nicchārentehi manussesu ukkhipitvā patiṭṭhāpentesu āmasitvā vā sayaṃ ukkhipitvā vā thambho vā bhittipādo vā patiṭṭhāpetabbo. Kurundimahāpaccarīsu pana “kappiyakuṭi kappiyakuṭīti vatvā patiṭṭhāpetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “saṅghassa kappiyakuṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ pana avatvāpi aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena vutte doso natthi. Idaṃ panettha sādhāraṇalakkhaṇaṃ “thambhapatiṭṭhāpanañca vacanapariyosānañca samakālaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Sace hi aniṭṭhite vacane thambho patiṭṭhāti, appatiṭṭhite vā tasmiṃ vacanaṃ niṭṭhāti, akatā hoti kappiyakuṭi. Teneva mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ “bahūhi samparivāretvā vattabbaṃ, avassañhi ettha ekassapi vacananiṭṭhānañca thambhapatiṭṭhānañca ekato bhavissatī”ti. Iṭṭhakāsilāmattikākuṭṭakāsu pana kuṭīsu heṭṭhā cayaṃ bandhitvā vā abandhitvā vā karontu, yato paṭṭhāya bhittiṃ uṭṭhāpetukāmā honti, taṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ iṭṭhakaṃ vā silaṃ vā mattikāpiṇḍaṃ vā gahetvā vuttanayeneva kappiyakuṭi kātabbā, iṭṭhakādayo bhittiyaṃ paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhā na vaṭṭanti, thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭanti. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “thambhehi kariyamāne catūsu koṇesu cattāro thambhā, iṭṭhakādikuṭṭe catūsu koṇesu dve tisso iṭṭhakā adhiṭṭhātabbā”ti vuttaṃ. Tathā pana akatāyapi doso natthi, aṭṭhakathāsu hi vuttameva pamāṇaṃ.

101. Kappiyācatubhūmiyo: Here, “I allow, bhikkhus, four suitable grounds: ussāvanantika, gonisādika, gahapati, and sammuti” (mahāva. 295); thus, these four suitable grounds—ussāvanantika, gonisādika, gahapati, and sammuti—should be understood. Among them (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295), ussāvanantika is to be established as follows: For a dwelling made by fixing pillars or wall bases into the ground, below it, the pillar supports or stone bases are naturally part of the ground. When setting up the first pillar or wall base, many people should surround it, reciting, “We are making a suitable hut, we are making a suitable hut,” and while people lift and place it, touching it or lifting it themselves, the pillar or wall base should be set up. In the Kurundi and Mahāpaccari, it is said, “It should be set up saying, ‘Suitable hut, suitable hut.’” In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “I resolve this as a suitable hut for the Sangha,” but even without saying this, there is no fault if done as stated in the commentaries. The common characteristic here is, “The setting up of the pillar and the completion of the recitation should be simultaneous.” If the pillar is set before the recitation is complete, or if the recitation ends before it is set, the suitable hut is not established. Hence, it is said in the Mahāpaccari, “It should be recited surrounded by many, for surely at least one person’s recitation and the pillar’s setting will coincide.” For huts made of bricks, stones, or clay, whether a foundation is built below or not, when they intend to raise the wall, the very first brick, stone, or clay lump should be taken and the suitable hut established as stated; bricks and the like below the first brick in the wall are not allowable, but pillars rising above are allowable. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “For those made with pillars, four pillars at the four corners; for those of bricks and the like, two or three bricks at the four corners should be resolved upon.” Even if not done so, there is no fault, for what is stated in the commentaries is the standard.

101. The four acceptable grounds (Kappiyācatubhūmiyo): here, according to the statement, “I allow, monks, four allowable grounds: ussāvanantikā, gonisādikā, gahapati, and sammuti” (mahāva. 295), these four allowable grounds should be known: ussāvanantikā, gonisādikā, gahapati, and sammuti. Therein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295), ussāvanantikā should be done thus – when a monastery is built by digging pillars or the base of a wall into the ground, the stones supporting the pillars below it are indeed part of the ground. But when establishing the first pillar or the base of the first wall, surrounded by many, while saying, “We are making an allowable hut, we are making an allowable hut,” when the men are lifting and establishing it, after touching it or lifting it oneself, the pillar or the base of the wall should be established. In the Kurundi and Mahāpaccari, however, it is stated, “It should be established saying, ‘Allowable hut, allowable hut.’” In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is stated, “I determine an allowable hut for the Saṅgha,” but even without saying that, there is no fault in saying it in the way stated in the commentaries. This is the general characteristic here: “The establishing of the pillar and the completion of the utterance are permissible at the same time.” For if the pillar is established before the utterance is finished, or if the utterance is finished before it is established, the allowable hut is not made. Therefore, it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya, “It should be said surrounded by many, for indeed, here, the completion of the utterance of one and the establishing of the pillar will be together.” However, in huts made of bricks, stones, or clay, whether they build a foundation below or not, from where they wish to raise the wall, taking that very first brick, stone, or lump of clay, an allowable hut should be made in the same way as stated; bricks and the like are not permissible below the first bricks and the like on the wall; but pillars rise upwards, therefore they are permissible. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is stated, “When being made with pillars, four pillars at the four corners; in a brick and the like hut, two or three bricks should be determined at the four corners.” But even if it is not done thus, there is no fault; for what is stated in the commentaries is indeed the authority.

101. The four proper storerooms—here, “I allow, monks, four proper storerooms: near a boundary, near a cattle track, near a household, and by agreement” (Mahāva. 295). Thus, near a boundary, near a cattle track, near a household, and by agreement—these four are to be understood as proper storerooms. Among these (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 295), near a boundary is to be established as follows: when a monastery is built by embedding posts or foundation stones, the stones beneath the posts or foundation are considered part of the ground. When the first post or foundation stone is being set, many people should gather around and say, “We are making a proper storeroom, we are making a proper storeroom,” while lifting and setting the post or foundation stone. The post or foundation stone should be set by touching it or lifting it oneself. In the Kurundi Mahāpaccarī, it is said, “One should say, ‘A proper storeroom, a proper storeroom,’ while setting it.” In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “I determine this proper storeroom for the Sangha.” However, even if this is not said, there is no fault if done according to the method described in the commentaries. The common characteristic here is that the setting of the post and the conclusion of the speech must occur simultaneously. If the speech is not completed when the post is set, or if the speech is completed before the post is set, the proper storeroom is not established. Therefore, the Mahāpaccarī says, “Many people should gather and speak, for it is certain that the completion of the speech and the setting of the post will occur together.” In brick, stone, or clay huts, if a foundation is built below, whether bound or unbound, and one wishes to raise the wall from there, the first brick, stone, or clay lump should be taken and the proper storeroom established as described. Bricks and the like are not considered part of the wall below the first brick, but posts rise above, so they are permissible. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “When posts are being set, four posts should be set at the four corners; in brick huts, two or three bricks should be determined at the four corners.” However, even if this is not done, there is no fault, for the commentaries only describe the measure.

Gonisādikā duvidhā ārāmagonisādikā vihāragonisādikāti. Tāsu yattha neva ārāmo, na senāsanāni parikkhittāni honti, ayaṃ ārāmagonisādikā nāma. Yattha senāsanāni sabbāni vā ekaccāni vā parikkhittāni, ārāmo aparikkhitto, ayaṃ vihāragonisādikā nāma. Iti ubhayatrāpi ārāmassa aparikkhittabhāvoyeva pamāṇaṃ. “Ārāmo pana upaḍḍhaparikkhittopi bahutaraṃ parikkhittopi parikkhittoyeva nāmā”ti kurundimahāpaccarīsu vuttaṃ, ettha kappiyakuṭiṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati.

Gonisādikā is of two kinds: ārāmagonisādikā and vihāragonisādikā. Where neither a garden nor lodgings are enclosed, this is called ārāmagonisādikā. Where all or some lodgings are enclosed, but the garden is not, this is called vihāragonisādikā. Thus, in both cases, the lack of enclosure of the garden is the criterion. “Even a garden half-enclosed or mostly enclosed is still called enclosed,” say the Kurundi and Mahāpaccari; here, it is allowable to obtain a suitable hut.

Gonisādikā is of two kinds: ārāmagonisādikā and vihāragonisādikā. Among them, where there is neither a monastery nor dwellings enclosed, this is called ārāmagonisādikā. Where all or some of the dwellings are enclosed, but the monastery is not enclosed, this is called vihāragonisādikā. Thus, in both cases, the unenclosed nature of the monastery is indeed the authority. “But even if a monastery is half-enclosed or mostly enclosed, it is indeed called enclosed,” it is stated in the Kurundi and Mahāpaccari; here, it is permissible to obtain an allowable hut.

Near a cattle track is of two kinds: near a monastery cattle track and near a residence cattle track. Where there is neither a monastery nor enclosed dwellings, this is called near a monastery cattle track. Where all or some dwellings are enclosed, but the monastery is not enclosed, this is called near a residence cattle track. Thus, in both cases, the measure is the non-enclosure of the monastery. “Even if the monastery is half-enclosed or mostly enclosed, it is still considered enclosed,” as stated in the Kurundi Mahāpaccarī, and here a proper storeroom may be obtained.

Gahapatīti manussā āvāsaṃ katvā “kappiyakuṭiṃ dema, paribhuñjathā”ti vadanti, esā gahapati nāma, “kappiyakuṭiṃ kātuṃ demā”ti vuttepi vaṭṭatiyeva. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “yasmā bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā sesasahadhammikānaṃ sabbesañca devamanussānaṃ hatthato paṭiggaho ca sannidhi ca antovutthañca tesaṃ santakaṃ bhikkhussa vaṭṭati, tasmā tesaṃ gehāni vā tehi dinnakappiyakuṭi vā gahapatīti vuccatī”ti vuttaṃ, punapi vuttaṃ “bhikkhusaṅghassa vihāraṃ ṭhapetvā bhikkhunupassayo vā ārāmikānaṃ vā titthiyānaṃ vā devatānaṃ vā nāgānaṃ vā api brahmānaṃ vimānaṃ kappiyakuṭi hotī”ti, taṃ suvuttaṃ. Saṅghasantakameva hi bhikkhusantakaṃ vā gehaṃ gahapatikuṭikā na hoti.

Gahapati: People build a residence and say, “We give a suitable hut; use it,” and this is called gahapati. Even if they say, “We give it to make a suitable hut,” it is allowable. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Since receiving from the hands of all except a bhikkhu—co-religionists, all humans, and deities—and storing and keeping it internally as their property is allowable for a bhikkhu, their homes or a suitable hut given by them is called gahapati.” Further, it is said, “Except for a monastery for the Sangha of bhikkhus, a nuns’ lodging, or residences for gardeners, sectarians, deities, nāgas, or even Brahmā’s palace can be a suitable hut,” which is well said. Indeed, only what belongs to the Sangha or a bhikkhu is not a gahapati hut.

Gahapatī (householder): people build a dwelling and say, “We give an allowable hut, consume it;” this is called gahapati; even if it is said, “We give it to build an allowable hut,” it is indeed permissible. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, however, it is stated, “Because acceptance from the hand of all fellow practitioners of the Dhamma except for a monk, and of all gods and humans, and storage, and dwelling inside, what belongs to them is permissible for a monk, therefore their houses or an allowable hut given by them is called gahapati;” and it is further stated, “Except for a monastery of the community of monks, a bhikkhuni dwelling, or a dwelling of monastery attendants, or of heretics, or of deities, or of nāgas, or even the mansion of Brahmā is an allowable hut,” and that is well stated. For only what belongs to the Saṅgha or a dwelling belonging to a monk is not a householder’s allowable hut.

Near a household refers to people who, having built a residence, say, “We give a proper storeroom, use it,” or “We give to make a proper storeroom,” which is also permissible. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Since the acceptance, storage, and determination of what is given by all devas and humans, except for monks, belong to the monk, their houses or the proper storerooms given by them are called households.” It is further said, “Except for the monastery of the Sangha, the dwellings of monks, nuns, monastery workers, ascetics, devas, nagas, or even Brahma’s mansion may be a proper storeroom,” which is well said. For only what belongs to the Sangha or the monk is a household or a proper storeroom; it is not the household of a layperson.

Sammuti nāma ñattidutiyakammavācāya sāvetvā sammatā. Evañca pana, bhikkhave, sammannitabbā, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –

Sammuti refers to that which is agreed upon by the Sangha with a motion and second recitation. And thus, bhikkhus, it should be agreed upon: A competent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Sangha:

Appointment is when it is announced and agreed upon through a ñattidutiyakammavācā (a formal act consisting of a motion and one announcement). And thus, monks, should the appointment be made: a wise and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha –

Sammuti refers to what is agreed upon after being announced by the motion and the second proclamation. And thus, O monks, it should be agreed upon. A competent and knowledgeable monk should inform the Sangha:

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ kappiyabhūmiṃ sammanneyya, esā ñatti.

“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. If it seems timely to the Sangha, let the Sangha agree upon the monastery named so-and-so as a suitable ground. This is the motion.

“May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may appoint such-and-such a monastery as an allowable area; this is the motion.

“Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha may agree upon such and such a monastery as a kappiyabhūmi (permissible area). This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho. Saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ kappiyabhūmiṃ sammannati. Yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa vihārassa kappiyabhūmiyā sammuti, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. The Sangha agrees upon the monastery named so-and-so as a suitable ground. Let any venerable one who approves of the agreement upon the monastery named so-and-so as a suitable ground remain silent. Let any who does not approve speak.

“May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The Saṅgha appoints such-and-such a monastery as an allowable area. If the appointment of such-and-such a monastery as an allowable area is agreeable to any venerable one, let him remain silent. If it is not agreeable, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. The Sangha agrees upon such and such a monastery as a kappiyabhūmi. If any venerable one approves of the agreement of such and such a monastery as a kappiyabhūmi, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo vihāro kappiyabhūmi khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 295).

“The Sangha has agreed upon the monastery named so-and-so as a suitable ground. It is acceptable to the Sangha; therefore, it is silent. Thus, I hold it to be so” (mahāva. 295).

“The such-and-such monastery is appointed as an allowable area by the Saṅgha. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. Thus do I understand this” (Mahāva. 295).

“The Sangha has agreed upon such and such a monastery as a kappiyabhūmi. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold it.” (Mahāva. 295).

Even if done by announcement without the formal recitation, it is still considered agreed upon.

Even if done by announcing it through an apalokanakamma (a formal act of mere announcement) without reciting the formal kammavācā, it is still considered appointed.

Even if the formal act is not spoken, if it is announced by way of an informal act, it is still considered agreed upon.

102. Yaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295) imāsu catūsu kappiyabhūmīsu vuttaṃ āmisaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ antovutthasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca antovutthaantopakkamocanatthañhi kappiyakuṭiyo anuññātā. Yaṃ pana akappiyabhūmiyaṃ sahaseyyappahonake gehe vuttaṃ saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā vā santakaṃ ekarattampi ṭhapitaṃ, taṃ antovutthaṃ, tattha pakkañca antopakkaṃ nāma hoti, etaṃ na kappati. Sattāhakālikaṃ pana yāvajīvikañca vaṭṭati.

102. Whatever (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295) material is mentioned in these four suitable grounds does not count as stored internally. Suitable huts were permitted for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis to avoid internal storing and preparation. But anything belonging to a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni—whether Sangha-owned or personal—placed even for one night in an unsuitable ground in a house sufficient for cohabitation is considered stored internally; what is cooked there is called internally prepared, and this is not allowable. However, items allowable for seven days and for life are permissible.

102. Whatever food is mentioned in these four allowable areas, all that does not come under the category of what is stored indoors. For allowable huts are permitted for monks and nuns for the purpose of releasing what has been stored indoors and cooked indoors. But whatever is kept, whether belonging to the Saṅgha or to an individual, belonging to a monk or a nun, even for one night in a house suitable for co-residence in an unallowable area, that is stored indoors, and whatever is cooked there is called cooked indoors; this is not allowable. But what is allowable for seven days and what is allowable for life is allowable.

102. Whatever is said regarding the four kappiyabhūmis (permissible areas) in terms of material goods, all of that does not fall under the category of antovuttha (stored within). The kappiyakuṭis (permissible huts) are permitted for the purpose of storing and removing the belongings of monks and nuns within. However, whatever is said regarding non-permissible areas, such as in a house where one shares a sleeping place, whether it is communal or personal property of a monk or nun, even if stored for a single night, it is considered antovuttha. There, what is cooked is called antopakka (cooked within), and this is not permissible. However, what is allowed for seven days or for life is permissible.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – sāmaṇero bhikkhussa taṇḍulādikaṃ āmisaṃ āharitvā kappiyakuṭiyaṃ nikkhipitvā punadivase pacitvā deti, antovutthaṃ na hoti. Tattha akappiyakuṭiyaṃ nikkhittasappiādīsu kiñci pakkhipitvā deti. Mukhasannidhi nāma hoti. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “antovutthaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Tattha nāmamattameva nānākaraṇaṃ, bhikkhu akappiyakuṭiyaṃ ṭhapitasappiñca yāvajīvikapaṇṇañca ekato pacitvā paribhuñjati, sattāhaṃ nirāmisaṃ vaṭṭati. Sace āmisasaṃsaṭṭhaṃ katvā paribhuñjati, antovutthañceva sāmaṃpakkañca hoti. Etenupāyena sabbasaṃsaggā veditabbā. Yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ bhikkhuno pacituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sacepissa uṇhayāguyā sulasipaṇṇāni vā siṅgiveraṃ vā loṇaṃ vā pakkhipanti, tampi cāletuṃ na vaṭṭati, “yāguṃ nibbāpemī”ti pana cāletuṃ vaṭṭati. Uttaṇḍulabhattaṃ labhitvā pidahituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana manussā pidahitvā denti, vaṭṭati. “Bhattaṃ mā nibbāyatū”ti pidahituṃ vaṭṭati, khīratakkādīsu pana sakiṃ kuthitesu aggiṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati punapākassa anuññātattā.

Here is the determination: If a novice brings rice or other material to a bhikkhu, places it in a suitable hut, and cooks and gives it the next day, it is not stored internally. If something is added to ghee or the like placed in an unsuitable hut and given, it becomes oral storing. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “It is stored internally.” The difference there is merely nominal. If a bhikkhu cooks ghee placed in an unsuitable hut together with leaves allowable for life and uses it, it is allowable without meat for seven days. If mixed with meat and used, it is both stored internally and self-cooked. All combinations should be understood by this method. A bhikkhu may not cook any material himself. If hot gruel, rice leaves, ginger, or salt is added to it, he may not stir it; but he may stir it saying, “I am cooling the gruel,” and this is allowable. He may not cover rice with husks after receiving it. If people cover it and give it, it is allowable. Covering it saying, “May the rice not cool,” is allowable. For milk, buttermilk, and the like, once boiled, it is allowable to heat again, as reheating is permitted.

Here is the determination: a novice brings food such as rice and so on for a monk, places it in an allowable hut, and cooks and gives it on the following day; it is not stored indoors. He gives it after adding something to ghee and so on that was placed in an unallowable hut there. It is called proximity storage. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “It is stored indoors.” Here, only the name is different. A monk cooks ghee placed in an unallowable hut and leaves allowable for life together and consumes it; it is allowable for seven days without food. But if he consumes it after making it mixed with food, it is both stored indoors and cooked by himself. By this method, all mixings should be understood. Whatever food is not allowable for a monk to cook. Even if they put tender betel leaves, ginger, or salt into hot gruel for him, it is not allowable to stir it; but it is allowable to stir it thinking, “I am cooling the gruel.” It is not allowable to cover rice that has been cooked without water. But if people give it after covering it, it is allowable. It is allowable to cover it thinking, “Let the rice not cool.” But regarding milk, buttermilk, and so on, once they have boiled, it is allowable to light a fire, since cooking again is permitted.

Here is the decision: If a novice brings rice or other material goods for a monk and places them in a kappiyakuṭi, and the next day cooks and gives it, it is not considered antovuttha. If, however, it is placed in a non-permissible hut, such as with ghee, etc., and something is added to it, it is called mukhasannidhi (mouth proximity). Mahāpaccariya, however, states that it is considered antovuttha. There, it is merely a difference in name. If a monk cooks and consumes ghee stored in a non-permissible hut along with leaves allowed for life, it is permissible for seven days without material goods. If he consumes it mixed with material goods, it is considered both antovuttha and self-cooked. In this way, all associations should be understood. Whatever material goods a monk is not allowed to cook, if they add ginger, salt, etc., to hot gruel, they should not stir it. However, they may stir it to cool the gruel. If they receive hot rice, they should not cover it. If, however, people cover it and give it, it is permissible. They may cover it to prevent the rice from cooling, but in the case of milk, etc., once it has been heated, they may light a fire again for further cooking, as this is permitted.

Imā pana kappiyakuṭiyo kadā jahitavatthukā honti? Ussāvanantikā tāva yā thambhānaṃ upari bhittipāde vā nikhanitvā katā, sā sabbesu thambhesu ca bhittipādesu ca apanītesu jahitavatthukā hoti. Sace pana thambhe vā bhittipāde vā parivattenti, yo yo ṭhito, tattha tattha patiṭṭhāti, sabbesupi parivattitesu ajahitavatthukāva hoti. Iṭṭhakādīhi katā cayassa upari bhittiatthāya ṭhapitaṃ iṭṭhakaṃ vā silaṃ vā mattikāpiṇḍaṃ vā ādiṃ katvā vināsitakāle jahitavatthukāva hoti. Yehi pana iṭṭhakādīhi adhiṭṭhitā, tesu apanītesupi tadaññesu patiṭṭhātīti ajahitavatthukāva hoti. Gonisādikā pākārādīhi parikkhepe kate jahitavatthukāva hoti. Puna tasmiṃ ārāme kappiyakuṭiṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana punapi pākārādayo tattha tattha khaṇḍā honti, tato tato gāvo pavisanti, puna kappiyakuṭi hoti. Itarā pana dve gopānasīmattaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭhe jahitavatthukāva honti. Sace gopānasīnaṃ upari ekampi pakkhapāsakamaṇḍalaṃ atthi, rakkhati.

When do these suitable huts lose their base? For ussāvanantika, one made by fixing pillars or wall bases into the ground loses its base when all pillars and wall bases are removed. If they rotate the pillars or wall bases, wherever one stands, it remains established there; even if all are rotated, it does not lose its base. One made with bricks and the like loses its base when the first brick, stone, or clay lump placed above the foundation for the wall is destroyed. Even if those used for resolution are removed, it remains established with others, so it does not lose its base. Gonisādikā loses its base when an enclosure like a wall is made. It is then allowable to obtain a suitable hut again in that garden. If the wall or the like is broken in parts and cattle enter from there, it becomes a suitable hut again. The other two lose their base when all the roofing is destroyed except for the span of a beam. If even one corner of the roofing remains above the beams, it protects it.

But when do these allowable huts become abandoned structures? Those that are built by digging into the ground above the pillars or on the base of the walls, become abandoned structures when all the pillars and wall bases are removed. But if they replace the pillars or wall bases, it remains established wherever any are standing; even if all are replaced, it still remains an unabandoned structure. When those made of bricks and so on, starting with a brick, a stone, or a lump of clay placed on top of a pile for the purpose of a wall, are destroyed, it becomes an abandoned structure. But even if those by which it was supported, such as bricks and so on, are removed, it remains established on the others, and thus it is an unabandoned structure. When it is enclosed by fences and so on, such as those made of bamboo, it becomes an abandoned structure. It is allowable to obtain an allowable hut again in that monastery. But if the fences and so on are broken here and there again, and cows enter from there, it becomes an allowable hut again. But the other two become abandoned structures when the entire roof is destroyed, leaving only the extent of the rafters. If even one section of the roof frame is above the rafters, it protects.

When are these kappiyakuṭis considered abandoned? First, those built on top of pillars or embedded in wall foundations are considered abandoned when all the pillars or wall foundations are removed. If, however, the pillars or wall foundations are replaced, wherever it stands, it remains established there. If all are replaced, it is not considered abandoned. Those built with bricks, etc., for the purpose of supporting a wall, if the bricks, stones, or clay lumps are destroyed, are considered abandoned. Those supported by bricks, etc., even if those bricks are removed and replaced by others, are not considered abandoned. Those surrounded by cow pens, walls, etc., are considered abandoned when the enclosure is made. It is permissible to obtain a kappiyakuṭi again in that monastery. If, however, the walls, etc., are broken in places, and cows enter there, it becomes a kappiyakuṭi again. The other two, however, are considered abandoned when the entire roof is destroyed, except for the gopānasī (ridge beam). If even a single rafter or circle remains above the gopānasī, it is still considered intact.

103. Yatra panimā catassopi kappiyabhūmiyo natthi, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Anupasampannassa datvā tassa santakaṃ katvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Tatridaṃ vatthu – karavikatissatthero kira vinayadharapāmokkho mahāsīvattherassa santikaṃ agamāsi. So dīpālokena sappikumbhaṃ passitvā “bhante, kimeta”nti pucchi. Thero “āvuso, gāmato sappikumbho ābhato lūkhadivase sappinā bhuñjanatthāyā”ti āha. Tato naṃ tissatthero “na vaṭṭati, bhante”ti āha. Thero punadivase pamukhe nikkhipāpesi. Tissatthero puna ekadivasaṃ āgato taṃ disvā tatheva pucchitvā “bhante, sahaseyyappahonakaṭṭhāne ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti āha. Thero punadivase bahi nīharāpetvā nikkhipāpesi, taṃ corā hariṃsu. So puna ekadivasaṃ āgataṃ tissattheramāha “āvuso, tayā ’na vaṭṭatī’ti vutte so kumbho bahi nikkhitto corehi haṭo”ti. Tato naṃ tissatthero āha “nanu, bhante, anupasampannassa dātabbo assa, anupasampannassa hi datvā tassa santakaṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti.

103. Where none of these four suitable grounds exist, what should be done? It should be given to an unordained person, made their property, and then used. Here is a case: The Elder Karavikatissa, a Vinaya expert, went to the Elder Mahāsiva. Seeing a ghee pot by lamplight, he asked, “Venerable sir, what is this?” The Elder said, “Friend, a ghee pot was brought from the village to eat with ghee on a rough day.” Tissatthera said, “It is not allowable, venerable sir.” The next day, the Elder had it placed at the entrance. Tissatthera, coming again one day, saw it and asked the same, saying, “Venerable sir, it is not allowable to place it in a cohabitation area.” The Elder had it taken outside and placed there, and thieves stole it. When Tissatthera came again one day, the Elder said, “Friend, because you said, ‘It is not allowable,’ that pot was placed outside and stolen by thieves.” Tissatthera then said, “Venerable sir, should it not have been given to an unordained person? For if given to an unordained person and made their property, it is allowable to use.”

103. Where none of these four allowable areas exist, what should be done? It should be given to a non-fully ordained person, made his property, and then consumed. Here is the story: It is said that Karavikatissatthera, the foremost Vinaya expert, went to Mahāsīvatthera. He saw a ghee pot in the lamplight and asked, “Venerable sir, what is this?” The Thera said, “Friend, a ghee pot was brought from the village for consuming ghee on a day of rough food.” Then Tissatthera said to him, “It is not allowable, venerable sir.” The Thera had it placed in the front on the following day. Tissatthera, having come again one day, saw it, asked the same question, and said, “Venerable sir, it is not allowable to keep it in a place suitable for co-residence.” The Thera had it taken outside and placed there on the following day, and thieves stole it. He then said to Tissatthera, who had come again one day, “Friend, when you said, ‘It is not allowable,’ that pot was placed outside and stolen by thieves.” Then Tissatthera said to him, “Surely, venerable sir, it should have been given to a non-fully ordained person. For it is allowable to consume it after giving it to a non-fully ordained person and making it his property.”

103. Where none of these four kappiyabhūmis exist, what should be done? It should be given to an unordained person, made his property, and then consumed. Here is the story: The elder Karavika-Tissa, a foremost expert in the Vinaya, went to the elder Mahāsīva. Seeing a pot of ghee by the light of a lamp, he asked, “Venerable sir, what is this?” The elder replied, “Friend, a pot of ghee was brought from the village to be consumed on a poor day.” Tissa then said, “Venerable sir, it is not permissible.” The next day, the elder had it placed in front. When Tissa came again and saw it, he asked the same question and said, “Venerable sir, it is not permissible to store it in a place where one shares a sleeping place.” The elder then had it taken outside and placed there, but thieves stole it. When Tissa came again, the elder said, “Friend, because you said it was not permissible, the pot was placed outside and stolen by thieves.” Tissa then replied, “Venerable sir, should it not have been given to an unordained person? For it is permissible to give it to an unordained person, make it his property, and then consume it.”

Thus ends the discussion on suitable grounds in the Vinayavinicchaya-saṅgaha, free of canonical text.

20. Paṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathā

20. Discourse on the Determination of Receiving

20. The Discussion on the Determination of Acceptance

20. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Receiving

104. Khādanīyādipaṭiggāhoti ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – pañcahi aṅgehi paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhati, thāmamajjhimassa purisassa uccāraṇamattaṃ hoti, hatthapāso paññāyati, abhihāro paññāyati, devo vā manusso vā tiracchānagato vā kāyena kāyapaṭibaddhena nissaggiyena vā deti, tañce bhikkhu kāyena vā kāyapaṭibaddhena vā paṭiggaṇhāti. Evaṃ pañcahaṅgehi paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhati.

104. Khādanīyādipaṭiggāho: This is the receiving of anything edible or consumable to be ingested. Here is the determination: Receiving is established by five factors: it is the amount uttered by a person of average strength, the hand’s reach is evident, the offering is evident, a deity, human, or animal gives it with the body, something attached to the body, or something relinquished, and the bhikkhu receives it with the body or something attached to the body. Thus, receiving is established by these five factors.

104. Acceptance of edibles and so on means the acceptance of any edible or consumable that is to be swallowed. Here is the determination: acceptance arises with five factors: it is the amount that can be lifted by a man of medium strength, the hand’s reach is evident, the offering is evident, a god, a human, or an animal gives it with the body, with something connected to the body, or with a deliberate action, and the monk accepts it with the body or with something connected to the body. Thus, acceptance arises with five factors.

104. Receiving of edible food, etc., refers to the acceptance of any edible or consumable item by anyone. Here is the decision: Receiving is valid when five factors are present: the item is of moderate size for a man to excrete, the hand-reach is discernible, the offering is discernible, a deity, human, or animal gives it directly or through something connected to the body, and the monk receives it directly or through something connected to the body. Thus, receiving is valid with these five factors.

Tattha ṭhitanisinnanipannānaṃ vasena evaṃ hatthapāso veditabbo – sace bhikkhu nisinno hoti, āsanassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāya, sace ṭhito, paṇhiantato paṭṭhāya, sace nipanno, yena passena nipanno, tassa pārimantato paṭṭhāya, dāyakassa nisinnassa vā ṭhitassa vā nipannassa vā ṭhapetvā pasāritahatthaṃ yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅgaṃ, tassa orimantena paricchinditvā aḍḍhateyyahattho hatthapāso nāma.

Here, the hand’s reach should be understood based on standing, sitting, or lying: If the bhikkhu is seated, from the rear edge of the seat; if standing, from the heel; if lying, from the edge of the side on which he lies. For the giver, whether seated, standing, or lying, excluding an outstretched hand, the nearest limb is used to demarcate, and the hand’s reach is one and a half hands.

Here, hand’s reach should be understood thus, according to whether one is standing, sitting, or lying down: if the monk is sitting, starting from the back edge of the seat; if standing, starting from the heel; if lying down, starting from the outer edge of the side on which he is lying; and for the giver, whether sitting, standing, or lying down, extending the hand after placing it, the hand’s reach is two and a half cubits, measured from the outer edge of whichever limb is closer.

There, the hand-reach should be understood as follows: If a monk is sitting, it is measured from the edge of the seat; if standing, from the heel; if lying down, from the side on which he is lying, measured from the far edge. Excluding the donor’s sitting, standing, or lying position, the hand-reach is measured from the nearest limb of the donor, extending to a distance of two and a half cubits.

Sace pana dāyakapaṭiggāhakesu eko ākāse hoti, eko bhūmiyaṃ, bhūmaṭṭhassa ca sīsena, ākāsaṭṭhassa ca ṭhapetvā dātuṃ vā gahetuṃ vā pasāritahatthaṃ yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅgaṃ, tassa orimantena hatthapāsapamāṇaṃ paricchinditabbaṃ. Sacepi eko kūpe hoti, eko kūpataṭe, eko vā pana rukkhe, eko pathaviyaṃ, vuttanayeneva hatthapāsapamāṇaṃ paricchinditabbaṃ. Evarūpe hatthapāse ṭhatvā sacepi pakkhī mukhatuṇḍakena vā hatthī vā soṇḍāya gahetvā pupphaṃ vā phalaṃ vā deti, paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhati. Sace pana aḍḍhaṭṭhamaratanassapi hatthino khandhe nisinno tena soṇḍāya dīyamānaṃ gaṇhāti, vaṭṭatiyeva. Hatthādīsu yena kenaci sarīrāvayavena antamaso pādaṅguliyāpi dīyamānaṃ kāyena dinnaṃ nāma hoti. Paṭiggahaṇepi eseva nayo. Yena kenaci hi sarīrāvayavena gahitaṃ kāyena gahitameva hoti. Sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhāti, ābhogameva hettha pamāṇaṃ.

If one of the giver or receiver is in the air and the other on the ground, the head of the one on the ground and, excluding an outstretched hand for giving or taking, the nearest limb of the one in the air determine the measure of the hand’s reach. Even if one is in a pit and the other on the edge, or one on a tree and the other on the ground, the measure of the hand’s reach is determined as stated. Standing within such a hand’s reach, if a bird gives with its beak or an elephant with its trunk a flower or fruit, the receiving is established. Even if one seated on an elephant’s back, half or an eighth of a cubit high, takes what is given by its trunk, it is indeed allowable. Whatever bodily part—hand or otherwise, even a toe—is used to give is considered given with the body. The same applies to receiving: Whatever bodily part takes it is considered taken with the body. Even if something for nasal treatment is taken with the nostril by one unable or with the mouth, intent is the criterion here.

But if one of the giver and the receiver is in the sky and one is on the ground, the measure of the hand’s reach should be determined from the outer edge of whichever limb is closer, of the head of the one on the ground, and of the hand extended to give or to receive of the one in the sky. Even if one is in a well and one is on the edge of the well, or one is on a tree and one is on the ground, the measure of the hand’s reach should be determined in the manner stated. If, standing within such a hand’s reach, even a bird with its beak or an elephant with its trunk gives a flower or a fruit, acceptance arises. But if one is sitting on the shoulder of an elephant even two and a half cubits tall and accepts what is given by it with its trunk, it is allowable. What is given by any part of the body, such as the hand and so on, even with the toe, is called given by the body. The same principle applies to acceptance. What is accepted by any part of the body is called accepted by the body. Even if one accepts what is being given as nasal medication with the nostril, or an invalid with the mouth, the intention is the measure here.

If, however, one of the donor and receiver is in the air and the other on the ground, the hand-reach is measured from the head of the one on the ground and the feet of the one in the air, excluding the act of giving or receiving, from the nearest limb. Similarly, if one is in a well and the other on the well’s edge, or one in a tree and the other on the ground, the hand-reach is measured in the same way. Even if a bird gives a flower or fruit with its beak, or an elephant with its trunk, while standing within such a hand-reach, the receiving is valid. If, however, one is seated on an elephant’s shoulder and receives something given by its trunk, it is still permissible. In the case of elephants, etc., whatever is given by any part of the body, even a toe, is considered given directly. The same applies to receiving. Whatever is received by any part of the body is considered received directly. Even if something is given by a nose-tip or mouth without a container, it is still considered a valid offering.

105. Kaṭacchuādīsu pana yena kenaci upakaraṇena dinnaṃ kāyapaṭibaddhena dinnaṃ nāma hoti. Paṭiggahaṇepi eseva nayo. Yena kenaci hi sarīrasambaddhena pattathālakādinā gahitaṃ kāyapaṭibaddhena gahitameva hoti. Kāyato pana kāyapaṭibaddhato ca mocetvā hatthapāse ṭhitassa kāye vā kāyapaṭibaddhe vā pātiyamānampi nissaggiyena payogena dinnaṃ nāma hoti. Eko bahūni bhattabyañjanabhājanāni sīse katvā bhikkhussa santikaṃ āgantvā ṭhitakova “gaṇhathā”ti vadati, na tāva abhihāro paññāyati, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Sace pana īsakampi onamati, bhikkhunā hatthaṃ pasāretvā heṭṭhimabhājanaṃ ekadesenapi sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. Ettāvatā sabbabhājanāni paṭiggahitāni honti. Tato paṭṭhāya oropetvā ugghāṭetvā vā yaṃ icchati, taṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhattapacchiādimhi pana ekabhājane vattabbameva natthi.

105. With a spoon or the like, whatever is given with any implement is considered given with something attached to the body. The same applies to receiving: Whatever is taken with a bowl, bag, or the like attached to the body is considered taken with something attached to the body. If detached from the body or something attached to it and dropped into the hand’s reach of the receiver’s body or something attached to it, it is considered given by a relinquished effort. If one carries many vessels of rice and condiments on their head, comes to the bhikkhu, and says while standing, “Take it,” the offering is not yet evident, so it should not be taken. If they bend slightly, the bhikkhu should extend his hand and accept even part of the lowest vessel; by this, all vessels are received. From then on, lowering, opening, or taking what he wishes is allowable. For a rice basket or the like in one vessel, nothing need be said.

105. But what is given with any implement, such as a spoon and so on, is called given with something connected to the body. The same principle applies to acceptance. What is accepted with any bowl, plate, and so on, connected to the body, is called accepted with something connected to the body. But even what falls into the bowl, on the body, or on something connected to the body, of one who is standing within hand’s reach, after being released from the body and from something connected to the body, is called given with a deliberate action. One person, having placed many dishes of rice and side dishes on his head, comes to the monk and, standing, says, “Accept it.” The offering is not yet evident; therefore, it should not be accepted. But if he bends down even a little, the monk should extend his hand and receive even a part of the lowest dish. With this much, all the dishes are accepted. From then on, it is allowable to take down and uncover whatever one wishes. But there is nothing to say about a single dish in a rice basket and so on.

105. In the case of ladles, etc., whatever is given by any utensil is considered given through something connected to the body. The same applies to receiving. Whatever is received by any body-connected item, such as a bowl or cloth, is considered received through something connected to the body. However, if something is given by throwing it within the hand-reach of one standing, without direct or body-connected contact, it is considered given by release. If one person brings many food containers on his head and, standing, says, “Take it,” the offering is not yet discernible, so it should not be taken. If, however, he bends slightly, the monk should extend his hand and accept at least part of the lower container. Thus, all containers are considered received. From then on, it is permissible to take whatever one wants after lowering or removing them. In the case of leftover food, etc., there is no need to speak regarding a single container.

Kājena bhattaṃ harantopi sace kājaṃ onametvā deti, vaṭṭati. Tiṃsahattho veṇu hoti, ekasmiṃ ante guḷakumbho baddho, ekasmiṃ sappikumbho, tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitameva. Ucchuyantadoṇito paggharantameva “rasaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, abhihāro na paññāyatīti na gahetabbo. Sace pana kasaṭaṃ chaḍḍetvā hatthena ussiñcitvā deti, vaṭṭati. Bahū pattā mañce vā pīṭhe vā kaṭasāre vā doṇiyaṃ vā phalake vā ṭhapitā honti, yattha ṭhitassa dāyako hatthapāse hoti, tattha ṭhatvā paṭiggahaṇasaññāya mañcādīni aṅguliyāpi phusitvā ṭhitena vā nisinnena vā nipannena vā yaṃ tesu pattesu dīyati, taṃ sabbaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ hoti. Sacepi “paṭiggahessāmī”ti mañcādīni abhiruhitvā nisīdati, vaṭṭatiyeva.

Even those carrying rice with a yoke, if they bend the yoke and give, it is allowable. A bamboo thirty hands long has a ball of sugar tied at one end and a ghee pot at the other; if he receives it, all is received. If juice flows from a sugarcane press and they say, “Take the juice,” the offering is not evident, so it should not be taken. If they discard the refuse and pour it with their hand, it is allowable. Many bowls are placed on a bed, seat, mat, trough, or plank; where the giver stands within the hand’s reach, standing, sitting, or lying there and touching the bed or the like with a finger, whatever is given in those bowls is all received. Even if he climbs onto the bed or the like saying, “I will receive,” and sits, it is indeed allowable.

Even one who is carrying food with a carrying pole, if he bends down the carrying pole and gives it, it is allowable. There is a bamboo thirty cubits long; on one end, a pot of molasses is tied, on one end, a pot of ghee; if one accepts that, all is accepted. He says, “Take the juice,” while it is still flowing from the sugarcane press; the offering is not evident, so it should not be taken. But if he throws away the sediment and scoops it up with his hand and gives it, it is allowable. Many bowls are placed on a bench, a stool, a mat, in a trough, or on a plank; standing where the giver is within hand’s reach, standing, sitting, or lying down, touching even with a finger the bench and so on with the intention of accepting, whatever is given in those bowls, all that is accepted. Even if one sits down after climbing onto the bench and so on, thinking, “I will accept,” it is allowable.

Even if someone carries food on a pole, if he bends the pole and gives it, it is permissible. A thirty-cubit-long bamboo pole with a sugar pot tied at one end and a ghee pot at the other, if received, is all considered received. If someone says, “Take the juice,” while pouring it from a dripping vessel, the offering is not discernible, so it should not be taken. If, however, he removes the dripping and pours it with his hand, it is permissible. Many bowls placed on a bed, bench, chair, or plank, where the donor stands within hand-reach, are all considered received if given while standing, sitting, or lying down. Even if one climbs onto the bed, etc., with the intention to receive, it is permissible.

Pathaviyaṃ pana sacepi kucchiyā kucchiṃ āhacca ṭhitā honti, yaṃ yaṃ aṅguliyā vā sūciyā vā phusitvā nisinno hoti, tattha tattha dīyamānameva paṭiggahitaṃ hoti. Yattha katthaci mahākaṭasārahatthattharaṇādīsu ṭhapitapatte paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatīti vuttaṃ, taṃ hatthapāsātikkamaṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ, hatthapāse pana sati yattha katthaci vaṭṭati aññatra tatthajātakā. Tatthajātake pana paduminipaṇṇe vā kiṃsukapaṇṇādimhi vā na vaṭṭati. Na hi taṃ kāyapaṭibaddhasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Yathā ca tatthajātake, evaṃ khāṇuke bandhitvā ṭhapitamañcādimhi asaṃhārime phalake vā pāsāṇe vā na ruhatiyeva. Tepi hi tatthajātakasaṅkhyupagā honti. Bhūmiyaṃ atthatesu sukhumesu tintiṇikādipaṇṇesu paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhati. Na hi tāni sandhāretuṃ samatthānīti. Mahantesu pana paduminipaṇṇādīsu ruhati. Sace hatthapāsaṃ atikkammaṭhito dīghadaṇḍakena uḷuṅkena deti, “āgantvā dehī”ti vattabbo. Vacanaṃ asutvā vā anādiyitvā vā patte ākiratiyeva, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Dūre ṭhatvā bhattapiṇḍaṃ khipantepi eseva nayo.

On the ground, even if bowls touch each other at the rim, wherever he sits touching with a finger or needle, what is given there is received. It is said that receiving does not occur with bowls placed on a large mat, handcloth, or the like anywhere; this should be understood as referring to exceeding the hand’s reach. Within the hand’s reach, it is allowable anywhere except for what grows there. For what grows there, such as a lotus leaf or kiṃsuka leaf, it is not allowable, as it is not counted as attached to the body. Just as with what grows there, so too with a bed or the like tied to a stake, an immovable plank, or a stone, it does not occur, as these are counted as growing there. On the ground, with fine leaves like tintiṇika spread out, receiving does not occur, as they cannot hold it. But with large lotus leaves and the like, it does occur. If one standing beyond the hand’s reach gives with a long stick or ladle, he should be told, “Come and give.” If they do not hear or heed and pour into the bowl, it must be received again. The same applies to one throwing a rice ball from a distance.

But on the ground, even if they are touching belly to belly, only what is given where one is sitting, touching with a finger or a needle, is accepted. It is said that acceptance does not arise in a large mat spread on the ground and so on, placed anywhere; that should be understood as referring to exceeding the hand’s reach; but if within hand’s reach, it is allowable anywhere except on what has grown there. But on what has grown there, such as on a lotus leaf or a kiṃsuka leaf and so on, it is not allowable. For that does not come under the category of connected to the body. And just as on what has grown there, so also on a bench and so on tied to a stump, or on an unmovable plank or stone, it does not arise. For they too come under the category of what has grown there. Acceptance does not arise on fine leaves such as those of the tamarind tree spread on the ground. For they are not capable of supporting it. But on large lotus leaves and so on, it arises. If one who is standing beyond the hand’s reach gives it with a long stick or a 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 accepted again. The same principle applies to one who throws a ball of rice from a distance.

If, however, they stand belly to belly on the ground, whatever is given by touching with a finger or needle while sitting is considered received. Wherever large chairs, mats, etc., are placed, receiving is not valid, as this refers to exceeding the hand-reach. However, within the hand-reach, it is permissible anywhere except in certain cases. In certain cases, such as on a lotus leaf or palmyra leaf, it is not permissible, as it does not count as body-connected. Similarly, on a bench tied to a stump or on an immovable plank or stone, it is not valid, as these are considered fixed. Even on the ground, on very fine grass blades, etc., receiving is not valid, as they cannot bear the weight. On large lotus leaves, etc., it is valid. If someone stands beyond hand-reach and gives with a long stick or pole, one should say, “Come closer and give.” If he does not listen or heed and pours into the bowl, it should be received again. The same applies if someone throws a lump of food from a distance.

106. Sace pattathavikato nīhariyamāne patte rajanacuṇṇāni honti, sati udake dhovitabbo, asati rajanacuṇṇaṃ puñchitvā paṭiggahetvā vā piṇḍāya caritabbaṃ. Sace piṇḍāya carantassa patte rajaṃ patati, paṭiggahetvā bhikkhā gaṇhitabbā, appaṭiggahetvā gaṇhato vinayadukkaṭaṃ, taṃ pana puna paṭiggahetvā bhuñjato anāpatti. Sace pana “paṭiggahetvā dethā”ti vutte vacanaṃ asutvā vā anādiyitvā vā bhikkhaṃ dentiyeva, vinayadukkaṭaṃ natthi, puna paṭiggahetvā aññā bhikkhā gahetabbā. Sace mahāvāto tato tato rajaṃ pāteti, na sakkā hoti bhikkhaṃ gahetuṃ, “anupasampannassa dassāmī”ti suddhacittena ābhogaṃ katvā gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ piṇḍāya caritvā vihāraṃ vā āsanasālaṃ vā gantvā taṃ anupasampannassa datvā puna tena dinnaṃ vā tassa vissāsena vā paṭiggahetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace bhikkhācāre sarajaṃ pattaṃ bhikkhussa deti, so vattabbo “imaṃ paṭiggahetvā bhikkhaṃ vā gaṇheyyāsi paribhuñjeyyāsi vā”ti, tena tathā kātabbaṃ. Sace rajaṃ upari uppilavati, kañjikaṃ pavāhetvā sesaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace antopaviṭṭhaṃ hoti, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Anupasampanne asati hatthato amocenteneva yattha anupasampanno atthi, tattha netvā paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Sukkhabhatte patitarajaṃ apanetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace atisukhumaṃ hoti, upari bhattena saddhiṃ apanetabbaṃ, paṭiggahetvā vā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Yāguṃ vā sūpaṃ vā purato ṭhapetvā āluḷentānaṃ bhājanato phusitāni uggantvā patte patanti, patto paṭiggahetabbo.

106. If there is dyeing powder in a bowl being taken from a bag, it should be washed with water if available; if not, the powder wiped off, and it may be received or used for almsround. If dust falls into the bowl while on almsround, it should be received, and alms taken; taking without receiving incurs a Vinaya dukkaṭa, but eating after receiving again incurs no offense. If they say, “Receive and give,” and they give alms without hearing or heeding, there is no Vinaya dukkaṭa; it should be received again, and other alms taken. If a strong wind scatters dust from everywhere, making it impossible to take alms, intending purely, “I will give it to an unordained person,” it is allowable to take. Going on almsround and returning to the monastery or assembly hall, giving it to an unordained person, it may be received again from them or used with their trust. If one gives a dusty bowl to a bhikkhu on almsround, he should be told, “Receive this and either take alms or use it,” and he should do so. If dust floats on top, the sour liquid should be poured off, and the rest eaten. If it has entered inside, it should be received. If no unordained person is present, it should be taken without detaching from the hand to where an unordained person is and received. Dust falling on dry rice may be removed and eaten. If too fine, it should be removed with the rice on top or received and eaten. If drops splash into the bowl from a vessel while stirring gruel or curry in front, the bowl should be received.

106. If there is dye powder in the bowl when it is being taken out of the bowl bag, if there is water, it should be washed; if not, the dye powder should be wiped off, and one should accept it or go for alms. If dust falls into the bowl while one is going for alms, one should accept it and take the alms; taking it without accepting it is a vinayadukkaṭa offense, but there is no offense for one who consumes it after accepting it again. But if, when one says, “Accept it and give it,” he does not hear the words or disregards them and just gives the alms, there is no vinayadukkaṭa offense; one should accept it again and take other alms. If a strong 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, making an intention, thinking, “I will give it to a non-fully ordained person.” Having gone for alms thus, and having gone to the monastery or the seating hall, one should give it to a non-fully ordained person, and it is allowable to accept and consume what is given by him or through his trust. If he gives a bowl full of dust while going for alms, he should be told, “Accept this and either take alms or consume it”; he should do so. If the dust floats on top, the watery part should be poured off, and the rest should be consumed. If it has entered inside, it should be accepted. If there is no non-fully ordained person, without releasing it from the hand, one should take it to where there is a non-fully ordained person and accept it. Dust that has fallen on dry rice should be removed and consumed. If it is very fine, it should be removed along with the rice on top, or it should be accepted and consumed. When gruel or soup is placed in front and stirred, drops splash from the dish and fall into the bowl; the bowl should be accepted.

106. If, while carrying a bowl, dye powder is found in it, it should be washed if water is available; if not, the dye powder should be wiped off and received, or one may go for alms. If dust falls into the bowl while going for alms, one should receive it and take the alms; if not received, it is a minor offense. However, if one receives it again and eats, there is no offense. If, however, when told, “Receive it and give,” one does not listen or heed and gives the alms, there is no minor offense, but the alms should be received again by another monk. If a strong wind blows dust from various directions, making it impossible to receive the alms, one may, with a pure mind, intend to give it to an unordained person and take it. After going for alms, one may return to the monastery or the dining hall, give it to an unordained person, and then receive it again from him or with his trust and eat. If someone gives a dusty bowl to a monk on alms round, he should be told, “Receive this and take the alms or eat.” He should do so. If the dust floats on top, the rice water should be poured off and the rest eaten. If it is mixed in, it should be received. If there is no unordained person, it should be taken to where an unordained person is and received. Dust on dry rice should be removed and eaten. If it is too fine, it should be removed with the rice and eaten or received and eaten. If, while stirring gruel or soup placed in front, some spills from the container and falls into the bowl, the bowl should be received.

107. Uḷuṅkena āharitvā dentānaṃ paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patanti, supatitā, abhihaṭattā doso natthi. Sacepi carukena bhatte ākiriyamāne carukato masi vā chārikā vā patati, abhihaṭattā nevatthi doso. Anantarassa bhikkhuno dīyamānaṃ pattato uppatitvā itarassa patte patati, supatitaṃ. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ hoti. Sace jajjharisākhādiṃ phāletvā ekassa bhikkhuno dentānaṃ sākhato phusitāni aññassa patte patanti, patto paṭiggahetabbo, yassa pattassa upari phālenti, tassa patte patitesu dātukāmatāya abhihaṭattā doso natthi. Pāyāsassa pūretvā pattaṃ denti, uṇhattā heṭṭhā gahetuṃ na sakkoti, mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace tathāpi na sakkoti, ādhārakena gahetabbo. Āsanasālāya pattaṃ gahetvā nisinno bhikkhu niddaṃ okkanto hoti, neva āhariyamānaṃ, na dīyamānaṃ jānāti, appaṭiggahitaṃ hoti. Sace pana ābhogaṃ katvā nisinno hoti, vaṭṭati. Sacepi so hatthena ādhārakaṃ muñcitvā pādena pelletvā niddāyati, vaṭṭatiyeva. Pādena ādhārakaṃ akkamitvā paṭiggaṇhantassa pana jāgarantassapi anādarapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tasmā na kattabbaṃ. Keci “evaṃ ādhārakena paṭiggahaṇaṃ kāyapaṭibaddhapaṭibaddhena paṭiggahaṇaṃ nāma hoti , tasmā na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ vacanamattameva, atthato pana sabbampetaṃ kāyapaṭibaddhameva hoti. Kāyasaṃsaggepi cesa nayo dassito. Yampi bhikkhussa dīyamānaṃ patati, tampi sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

107. When brought with a ladle, the first drops falling from the ladle into the bowl are well-fallen; there is no fault due to being offered. Even if soot or ash falls from a ladle while pouring rice, there is no fault due to being offered. If something being given to the next bhikkhu leaps from his bowl into another’s, it is well-fallen, as it was already received. If branches like jajjhari are split and given to one bhikkhu, and drops from the branch fall into another’s bowl, the bowl should be received; for the one whose bowl it is split over, there is no fault due to the intent to give, as it was offered. They give a bowl filled with rice porridge; if too hot to hold from below, it may be held by the rim. If still unable, it should be taken with a stand. A bhikkhu seated in the assembly hall with a bowl falls asleep, unaware of it being brought or given; it is not received. If he sits with intent, it is allowable. Even if he releases the stand with his hand and presses it with his foot while sleeping, it is indeed allowable. But receiving by stepping on the stand with the foot, even when awake, is disrespectful receiving and should not be done. Some say, “Such receiving with a stand is receiving with something attached to the body’s attachment, so it is not allowable”; this is mere words, but in meaning, all this is indeed attached to the body. The same method is shown for bodily contact. Whatever falls while being given to a bhikkhu may be picked up and used by oneself.

107. When it is being given after being brought with a ladle, first drops fall into the bowl from the ladle; they have fallen well; there is no fault because it has been offered. Even if dirt or ashes fall from the pot when rice is being poured from a cooking pot, there is no fault because it has been offered. What falls into the bowl of another after splashing from the bowl of a neighboring monk who is being given to, has fallen well. For it has been accepted. If, when splitting a brittle branch and so on and giving it to one monk, drops splash from the branch and fall into the bowl of another, the bowl should be accepted; when they fall into the bowl of the one above whose bowl they are splitting, there is no fault because it has been offered with the intention of giving. They give a bowl filled with rice pudding; because it is hot, it is not possible to hold it from below; it is allowable to hold it even by the rim. If it is not possible even then, it should be taken with a stand. A monk who is sitting with a bowl in the seating hall falls asleep; he does not know what is being brought or what is being given; it is not accepted. But if he is sitting after making an intention, it is allowable. Even if he releases the stand with his hand and pushes it with his foot and sleeps, it is allowable. But for one who accepts after stepping on the stand with his foot, even while awake, it is disrespectful acceptance; therefore, it should not be done. Some say, “Thus, acceptance with a stand is called acceptance with something connected to something connected to the body; therefore, it is not allowable”; that is mere words; but in reality, all this is connected to the body. This principle is shown even in the case of contact with the body. Even what falls while being given to a monk, it is allowable to take it himself and consume it.

107. If someone brings something with a pole and pours it into the bowl, if it falls from the pole first and then into the bowl, it is well-poured, and there is no fault due to the offering. Even if, while pouring hot food, soot or charcoal falls from the ladle, there is no fault due to the offering. If something is given to a nearby monk and spills into another monk’s bowl, it is well-poured. It is considered received. If someone breaks a branch and gives it to one monk, and some spills from the branch into another monk’s bowl, the bowl should be received. If they pour over a bowl, intending to give to that bowl, there is no fault due to the offering. If someone fills a bowl with porridge and gives it, and it is too hot to hold from below, it may be held by the rim. If even this is not possible, it should be held with a support. If a monk takes a bowl in the dining hall, sits down, and falls asleep, and something is brought or given without his knowledge, it is not received. If, however, he sits with attention, it is valid. Even if he releases the support with his hand and kicks it with his foot while sleeping, it is still valid. If, however, he steps on the support and receives while awake, it is careless receiving and should not be done. Some say, “Receiving with a support is considered receiving through something connected to the body, and thus is not permissible,” but this is merely a statement. In meaning, all of this is considered connected to the body. The same applies to bodily contact. Even if something given to a monk falls, he may pick it up and eat it.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ dīyamānaṃ patati, taṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ, pariccattaṃ taṃ, bhikkhave, dāyakehī”ti (cūḷava. 273).

“I allow, bhikkhus, that which falls while being given to be picked up and used by oneself. That, bhikkhus, is relinquished by the givers” (cūḷava. 273).

“Monks, I allow you to take and consume what falls while being given; that, monks, has been relinquished by the givers” (Cūḷava. 273).

“I allow, monks, that what is given and falls may be picked up and eaten. It is relinquished by the donors.” (Cūḷava. 273).

Idañca pana suttaṃ neyyatthaṃ, tasmā evamettha adhippāyo veditabbo – yaṃ dīyamānaṃ dāyakassa hatthato parigaḷitvā suddhāya vā bhūmiyā paduminipaṇṇe vā vatthakaṭasārakādīsu vā patati, taṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana sarajāya bhūmiyaṃ patati, taṃ rajaṃ puñchitvā vā dhovitvā vā paṭiggahetvā vā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace pavaṭṭantaṃ aññassa bhikkhuno santikaṃ gacchati, tena āharāpetumpi vaṭṭati. Sace taṃ bhikkhuṃ vadati “tvaṃyeva khādā”ti, tassapi khādituṃ vaṭṭati, anāṇattena pana tena na gahetabbaṃ. “Anāṇattenapi itarassa dassāmīti gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kasmā panetaṃ itarassa bhikkhuno gahetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti? Bhagavatā ananuññātattā. Bhagavatā hi “sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjitu”nti vadantena yasseva taṃ dīyamānaṃ patati, tassa appaṭiggahitakampi taṃ gahetvā paribhogo anuññāto. “Pariccattaṃ taṃ, bhikkhave, dāyakehī”ti vacanena panettha parasantakabhāvo dīpito, tasmā aññassa sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati, tassa pana āṇattiyā vaṭṭatīti ayaṃ kirettha adhippāyo. Yasmā ca etaṃ appaṭiggahitakattā anuññātaṃ, tasmā yathāṭhitaṃyeva anāmasitvā kenaci pidahitvā ṭhapitaṃ dutiyadivasepi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, sannidhipaccayā anāpatti, paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Taṃ divasaṃyeva hi tassa sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhogo anuññāto, na tato paranti ayampi kirettha adhippāyo.

This sutta is of inferred meaning, so its intent should be understood thus: What falls from the giver’s hand while being given onto clean ground, a lotus leaf, a cloth, a mat, or the like may be picked up and used by oneself. What falls onto dusty ground should be wiped, washed, or received and used. If it rolls to another bhikkhu’s vicinity, it may be brought back by him. If he says to that bhikkhu, “You eat it,” it is allowable for him to eat; but without instruction, he should not take it. “Even without instruction, it is allowable to take it intending to give it to another,” says the Kurundi. Why is it not allowable for another bhikkhu to take it? Because it was not permitted by the Blessed One. By saying, “Picked up and used by oneself,” the Blessed One permitted only the one to whom it was being given to take and use it, even if not received. By saying, “That, bhikkhus, is relinquished by the givers,” it indicates it is another’s property; thus, it is not allowable for another to pick up and use it oneself, but it is allowable with his instruction—this is the intent here. Since it is permitted as unaccepted, it may be used the next day without touching it, covered by someone, without incurring an offense for storing; but it must be received and used. For only on that day is picking it up and using it oneself permitted, not beyond—this too is the intent here.

But this sutta is to be interpreted; therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: what falls from the hand of the giver while being given and falls on a clean ground, on a lotus leaf, or on cloth, a mat, and so on, it is allowable to take it himself and consume it. But what falls on dusty ground, that dust should be wiped off or washed off, or it should be accepted and consumed. If, while rolling, it goes to another monk, it is allowable to have him bring it. If he says to that monk, “You eat it,” it is allowable for him to eat it; but he should not take it without being instructed. It is said in the Kurundiyaṃ, “It is allowable to take it thinking, ‘I will give it to another even without being instructed.’” But why is it not allowable for the other monk to take it? Because it is not permitted by the Blessed One. For the Blessed One, saying, “Take it himself and consume it,” permitted the consumption of even what is not accepted by the very one to whom it falls while being given. By the words, “That, monks, has been relinquished by the givers,” the state of belonging to another is shown here; therefore, it is not allowable for another to take it himself and consume it, but it is allowable by his instruction; this is said to be the meaning here. And since this is permitted because it is not accepted, it is allowable to consume it even on the following day, kept covered by something without touching it as it was; there is no offense due to storage, but it should be consumed after accepting it. For the consumption of it after taking it himself is permitted only on that day, not beyond that; this is also said to be the meaning here.

This rule is of interpretable meaning, and thus the intention here should be understood as follows: What is given and falls from the donor’s hand onto clean ground, a lotus leaf, a cloth, a chair, etc., may be picked up and eaten. What, however, falls on dusty ground should be wiped or washed, received, and then eaten. If it rolls to another monk, he may be asked to bring it. If that monk says, “You eat it,” he may also eat it, but it should not be taken without permission. “Even without permission, it is permissible to take it with the intention to give it to another,” as stated in Kurundi. Why, then, is it not permissible for another monk to take it? Because it was not permitted by the Blessed One. The Blessed One, saying, “Pick it up and eat it,” permitted the consumption of what was given and fell, even if not received, only to the one to whom it was given. The statement, “It is relinquished by the donors,” indicates that it becomes the property of the recipient. Therefore, another monk may not pick it up and eat it, but he may do so with permission. Since this is permitted due to not being received, it may be eaten the next day without touching it, covered by something, as there is no offense due to proximity. However, it should be received and then eaten. The permission to pick it up and eat is only for that day, not beyond. This is the intention here.

108. Idāni abbohārikanayo vuccati. Bhuñjantānañhi dantā khīyanti, nakhā khīyanti, pattassa vaṇṇo khīyati, sabbaṃ abbohārikaṃ. Satthakena ucchuādīsu phālitesu malaṃ paññāyati, etaṃ navasamuṭṭhitaṃ nāma, paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Satthakaṃ dhovitvā phālitesu malaṃ na paññāyati, lohagandhamattaṃ hoti, taṃ abbohārikaṃ. Yampi satthakaṃ gahetvā pariharanti , tena phālitepi eseva nayo. Na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantīti. Mūlabhesajjādīni pisantānaṃ vā koṭṭentānaṃ vā nisadanisadapotakaudukkhalamusalādīni khīyanti, pariharaṇakavāsiṃ tāpetvā bhesajjatthāya takke vā khīre vā pakkhipanti, tattha nīlikā paññāyati, satthake vuttasadisova vinicchayo. Āmakatakkādīsu pana sayaṃ na pakkhipitabbā, pakkhipati ce, sāmaṃpākato na muccati. Deve vassante piṇḍāya carantassa sarīrato vā cīvarato vā kiliṭṭhaudakaṃ patte patati, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Rukkhamūlādīsu bhuñjantassa patitepi eseva nayo. Sace pana sattāhaṃ vassante deve suddhaṃ udakaṃ hoti, abbhokāsato vā patati, vaṭṭati.

108. Now the method of non-requisites is explained. When eating, teeth wear down, nails wear down, the bowl’s color fades—all are non-requisites. When sugarcane or similar is split with a knife, impurities appear; this is called newly arisen and must be received and used. When the knife is washed and used to split, no impurities appear, only a metallic smell remains—this is a non-requisite. Even when carried and used to split, the same applies, for it is not carried for use. When grinding or pounding root medicines or similar, the pestle, mortar, or similar wear down. Heating a carried axe and adding it to buttermilk or milk for medicine, a blue tinge appears; the determination is as stated for the knife. Raw buttermilk or similar should not be added oneself; if added, it does not escape self-cooking. When it rains while collecting alms, dirty water from the body or robe falls into the bowl—it must be received. The same applies if it falls while eating under a tree root or similar. If it rains for seven days and the water is pure, or falls from open space, it is allowable.

108. Now the negligible rule is explained. When eating, teeth wear down, nails wear down, the color of the bowl wears down; all this is negligible. When a knife is used to split sugarcane and so on, a stain appears; this is called newly-arisen, it should be accepted and used. When the knife is washed and used to split, no stain appears, only a metallic smell remains; that is negligible. The same method applies even when a knife is used and handled. For it is not handled for the purpose of consumption. When grinding or pounding root-medicines and so on, the seat, the grinding stone, the mortar, the pestle, and so on wear down. When a handled knife is heated and dipped into buttermilk or milk for medicinal purposes, a blue color appears; the decision is the same as described for the knife. However, one should not oneself dip it into raw buttermilk and so on; if one dips it, one is not freed from one’s own cooking. When it rains, while going for alms, dirty water from the body or the robe falls into the bowl; it should be accepted. The same method applies even when it falls while eating at the foot of a tree and so on. But if, when it rains for seven days, the water is pure, or it falls from the open sky, it is permissible.

108. Now, the method of what is not to be accepted is explained. For those who are eating, their teeth wear down, their nails wear down, and the color of the alms bowl fades—all these are not to be accepted. When sugarcane is split with a knife, the residue that appears is considered newly produced and should be accepted and consumed. However, if the knife is washed and no residue is seen, only the metallic smell remains, which is not to be accepted. Even if one carries a knife around, the same principle applies. It is not carried for the purpose of use. When grinding or pounding medicinal roots, the mortar, pestle, and other tools wear down. If one heats a container used for storing medicine and then places it in rice porridge or milk, and a blue stain appears, the same judgment as with the knife applies. However, if one places uncooked rice porridge or similar items oneself, one is not free from the offense. If rain falls while one is walking for alms, and dirty water from the body or robe falls into the bowl, it should be accepted. The same applies if it falls while eating at the foot of a tree. However, if it rains continuously for seven days and pure water falls from the sky, it is acceptable.

109. Sāmaṇerassa odanaṃ dentena tassa pattagataṃ acchupanteneva dātabbo, patto vāssa paṭiggahetabbo. Appaṭiggahite odanaṃ chupitvā puna attano patte odanaṃ gaṇhantassa uggahitako hoti. Sace pana dātukāmo hutvā “āhara, sāmaṇera, pattaṃ, odanaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, itaro “alaṃ mayha”nti paṭikkhipati, puna “tavetaṃ mayā pariccatta”nti ca vutte “na mayhaṃ etenattho”ti vadati, satakkhattumpi pariccajatu, yāva attano hatthagataṃ, tāva paṭiggahitameva hoti. Sace pana ādhārake ṭhitaṃ nirapekkho “gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Sāpekkho ādhārake pattaṃ ṭhapetvā “etto pūvaṃ vā bhattaṃ vā gaṇhāhī”ti sāmaṇeraṃ vadati, sāmaṇero hatthaṃ dhovitvā sacepi satakkhattuṃ gahetvā attano pattagataṃ aphusantova attano patte pakkhipati, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Yadi pana attano pattagataṃ phusitvā tato gaṇhāti, sāmaṇerasantakena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ hoti, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Keci pana “sacepi gayhamānaṃ chijjitvā tattha patati, puna paṭiggahetabba”nti vadanti. Taṃ “ekaṃ bhattapiṇḍaṃ gaṇha, ekaṃ pūvaṃ gaṇha, imassa guḷapiṇḍassa ettakaṃ padesaṃ gaṇhā”ti evaṃ paricchinditvā vutte veditabbaṃ, idha pana paricchedo natthi, tasmā yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati, tadeva paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati, hatthagataṃ pana yāva sāmaṇero vā “ala”nti na oramati, bhikkhu vā na vāreti, tāva bhikkhusseva santakaṃ, tasmā paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati. Sace attano vā bhikkhūnaṃ vā yāgupacanakabhājane kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipati, “sāmaṇera, bhājanassa upari hatthaṃ karohī”ti vatvā tassa hatthe pakkhipitabbaṃ. Tassa hatthato bhājane patitañhi dutiyadivase bhājanassa akappiyabhāvaṃ na karoti pariccattattā. Sace evaṃ akatvā pakkhipati, pattamiva bhājanaṃ nirāmisaṃ katvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ.

109. When giving rice to a novice, it should be given without touching what is in his bowl, or his bowl must be received. Touching the rice in an unreceived bowl and then taking rice into one’s own bowl makes it taken. If, intending to give, one says, “Bring your bowl, novice, take rice,” and he refuses, saying, “Enough for me,” and even when told, “This is relinquished by me,” says, “I have no need of it,” even if relinquished a hundred times, as long as it remains in one’s hand, it is received. If he says, “Take it,” without attachment to what is on a stand, it must be received again. If, with attachment, he places the bowl on a stand and says, “Take cake or rice from here,” and the novice washes his hands and takes it a hundred times without touching his own bowl and puts it in his bowl, no further receiving is needed. But if he touches his own bowl and takes from there, it is mixed with the novice’s property and must be received again. Some say, “Even if what is taken breaks and falls there, it must be received again.” This applies when specified, “Take one rice lump, one cake, this portion of sugar lump”; here, no specification exists, so what falls into the novice’s bowl loses its received status, but what remains in hand remains the monk’s as long as the novice does not say “enough” or the monk does not stop—so it does not lose its received status. If one adds rice to a gruel-cooking vessel for oneself or monks for someone’s sake, say, “Novice, put your hand over the vessel,” and place it in his hand. What falls from his hand into the vessel does not make it akappiya the next day, being relinquished. If added without this, the vessel must be made non-material like a bowl and used.

109. When giving rice to a novice, one should give it without touching what is in his bowl, or his bowl should be accepted. For one who touches the rice without accepting it and then takes rice into his own bowl, it becomes accepted-beforehand. But if, wanting to give, one says, “Bring your bowl, novice, take the rice,” and the other refuses, “Enough for me,” and again, if one says, “This has been given up by me for you,” and he says, “I have no need of this,” even if he gives it up a hundred times, as long as it is in one’s own hand, it is considered accepted. But if, placed on a stand, without expectation, one says, “Take it,” it should be accepted again. With expectation, placing the bowl on a stand, one says to the novice, “Take either the cake or the meal from this.” If the novice, having washed his hands, even if he takes it a hundred times and places it in his own bowl without touching what is in his own bowl, there is no need for re-acceptance. But if he touches what is in his own bowl and then takes from it, it becomes mixed with what belongs to the novice; it should be re-accepted. Some, however, say, “Even if what is being taken breaks and falls there, it should be re-accepted.” That should be understood when it is said with specification, “Take one lump of meal, take one cake, take this much of this lump of jaggery,” but here there is no specification. Therefore, only what falls into the novice’s bowl relinquishes acceptance. But what is in hand, as long as the novice does not stop, saying, “Enough,” or the bhikkhu does not prevent, it still belongs to the bhikkhu; therefore, it does not relinquish acceptance. If one places meal in the vessel for cooking gruel for oneself or for the bhikkhus, one should say, “Novice, place your hand over the vessel,” and place it in his hand. For what has fallen from his hand into the vessel does not make the vessel unsuitable on the following day, because it has been given up. If one places it without doing so, the vessel, like the bowl, should be made free of food and used.

109. When giving rice to a novice, it should be given without touching his bowl, or his bowl should be received. If the rice is touched before being given and then taken back into one’s own bowl, it is considered accepted. If one wishes to give and says, “Come, novice, take your bowl and receive the rice,” and the other refuses, saying, “Enough for me,” and even if one says, “I have given it to you,” and the other replies, “I have no need for this,” even if one offers it a hundred times, it is considered accepted only when it is in his hand. If one places the bowl on a stand and says, “Take it,” it should be received again. If one places the bowl on a stand and says, “Take this cake or rice,” and the novice washes his hands and takes it a hundred times without touching his own bowl, there is no need to receive it again. However, if he touches his own bowl and then takes it, it is considered mixed with the novice’s possession and should be received again. Some say that even if what is being taken breaks and falls there, it should be received again. When one says, “Take one lump of rice, one cake, or this much of the jaggery lump,” it should be understood as specified. Here, however, there is no specification, so whatever falls into the novice’s bowl is considered relinquished. But as long as the novice does not say “Enough” or the monk does not stop him, it remains the monk’s possession, and thus it is not relinquished. If one places rice in a vessel for cooking gruel for oneself or other monks, one should say, “Novice, place your hand over the vessel,” and then place it in his hand. If it falls from his hand into the vessel the next day, it does not make the vessel improper because it has been relinquished. If one does not do this and places it directly, the vessel should be treated as empty and consumed.

110. Dāyakā yāgukuṭaṃ ṭhapetvā gatā, taṃ daharasāmaṇero paṭiggaṇhāpetuṃ na sakkoti, bhikkhu pattaṃ upanāmeti, sāmaṇero kuṭassa gīvaṃ pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ ṭhapetvā āvajjeti, pattagatā yāgu paṭiggahitāva hoti. Atha vā bhikkhu bhūmiyaṃ hatthaṃ ṭhapeti, sāmaṇero pavaṭṭetvā hatthaṃ āropeti, vaṭṭati. Pūvapacchibhattapacchiucchubhārādīsupi eseva nayo. Sace paṭiggahaṇūpagaṃ bhāraṃ dve tayo sāmaṇerā denti, ekena vā balavatā ukkhittaṃ dve tayo bhikkhū gaṇhanti, vaṭṭati. Mañcassa vā pīṭhassa vā pāde telaghaṭaṃ vā phāṇitaghaṭaṃ vā laggenti, bhikkhussa mañcepi pīṭhepi nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati, uggahitakaṃ nāma na hoti.

110. Donors leave a gruel pot, and a young novice cannot have it received. The monk brings his bowl near; the novice places the pot’s neck on the bowl’s rim and tilts it—the gruel in the bowl is received. Or the monk places his hand on the ground, and the novice rolls it onto the hand—it is allowable. The same applies to cake baskets, rice baskets, sugar loads, or similar. If two or three novices give a receivable load, or one strong one lifts it and two or three monks take it, it is allowable. If an oil pot or molasses pot is hung on a bed or stool’s leg, it is allowable for the monk to sit on the bed or stool; it is not taken.

110. The donors have placed a pot of gruel and gone. The junior novice is unable to have it accepted. The bhikkhu presents the bowl. The novice, placing the neck of the pot on the rim of the bowl, pours it; the gruel that has entered the bowl is considered accepted. Or, the bhikkhu places his hand on the ground. The novice, pouring it, places it on the hand; it is permissible. The same method applies to cakes, preceding meals, following meals, loads of sugarcane, and so on. If two or three novices give a load that is to be accepted, or if two or three bhikkhus take what has been lifted by one strong one, it is permissible. A pot of oil or a pot of treacle is attached to the legs of a bed or a seat; it is permissible for the bhikkhu to sit on the bed or the seat; it is not called accepted-beforehand.

110. When donors leave after placing a pot of gruel, and a young novice cannot receive it, the monk brings his bowl, and the novice places the neck of the pot on the rim of the bowl and pours it. The gruel in the bowl is considered received. Alternatively, the monk places his hand on the ground, and the novice turns it and lifts it—this is acceptable. The same applies to cakes, leftover rice, and other items. If two or three novices give a load suitable for receiving, or if one strong novice lifts it and two or three monks receive it, it is acceptable. If oil or molasses pots are attached to the legs of a bed or chair, it is permissible for a monk to sit on the bed or chair, and it is not considered accepted.

Nāgadantake vā aṅkusake vā dve telaghaṭā laggitā honti upari paṭiggahitako, heṭṭhā appaṭiggahitako. Uparimaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, heṭṭhā paṭiggahitako, upari appaṭiggahitako, uparimaṃ gahetvā itaraṃ gaṇhato uparimo uggahitako hoti. Heṭṭhāmañce appaṭiggahitakaṃ telathālakaṃ hoti, tañce sammajjanto sammuñjaniyā ghaṭṭeti, uggahitakaṃ na hoti, “paṭiggahitakaṃ gaṇhissāmī”ti appaṭiggahitakaṃ gahetvā ñatvā puna ṭhapeti, uggahitakaṃ na hoti, bahi nīharitvā sañjānāti, bahi aṭṭhapetvā haritvā tattheva ṭhapetabbaṃ, natthi doso. Sace pana pubbe vivaritvā ṭhapitaṃ, na pidahitabbaṃ. Yathā pubbe ṭhitaṃ, tatheva ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace bahi ṭhapeti, puna na chupitabbaṃ.

If two oil pots are hung on an elephant tusk or hook—one received above, one unreceived below—taking the upper one is allowable. If the lower is received and the upper unreceived, taking the upper after the lower makes the upper taken. An unreceived oil dish under a bed, if brushed by a broom while sweeping, is not taken. Intending, “I will take the received,” one takes the unreceived, realizes it, and puts it back—it is not taken. Taking it outside and recognizing it, it should be brought back and placed there without fault. If it was uncovered before, it should not be covered. It should be placed as it was. If placed outside, it should not be touched again.

Two pots of oil are hung on an elephant’s tusk or a hook; the upper one is accepted, the lower one is not accepted. It is permissible to take the upper one. The lower one is accepted, the upper one is not accepted. If one takes the upper one and then takes the other, the upper one becomes accepted-beforehand. There is an unaccepted oil-dish on the lower bed. If, while sweeping, one touches it with the broom, it does not become accepted-beforehand. If, thinking, “I will take the accepted one,” one takes the unaccepted one, and knowing it, places it back, it does not become accepted-beforehand. If one takes it outside and recognizes it, having taken it outside without placing it down, it should be placed back there; there is no fault. But if it was previously opened and placed, it should not be closed. As it was previously placed, so it should be placed. If one places it outside, it should not be touched again.

If two oil pots are attached to an elephant tusk or a hook, the upper one is accepted, and the lower one is not. It is permissible to take the upper one. If the lower one is accepted and the upper one is not, taking the upper one makes it accepted. If an unaccepted oil pot is on the lower bed, and one sweeps it, touching it with the broom, it is not considered accepted. If one takes an unaccepted pot thinking it is accepted and then puts it back, it is not considered accepted. If one takes it outside and realizes it, one should place it outside and carry it—there is no offense. If it was previously opened and placed, it should not be closed. It should be left as it was. If placed outside, it should not be touched again.

111. Paṭiggahitake telādimhi kaṇṇikā uṭṭheti, siṅgiverādimhi ghanacuṇṇaṃ, taṃsamuṭṭhānameva nāma taṃ, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Tālaṃ vā nāḷikeraṃ vā āruḷho yottena phalapiṇḍiṃ otāretvā upari ṭhitova “gaṇhathā”ti vadati, na gahetabbaṃ. Sace añño bhūmiyaṃ ṭhito yottapāsake gahetvā ukkhipitvā deti, vaṭṭati. Saphalaṃ mahāsākhaṃ kappiyaṃ kāretvā paṭiggaṇhāti, phalāni paṭiggahitāneva honti, yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Antovatiyaṃ ṭhatvā vatiṃ chinditvā ucchuṃ vā timbarūsakaṃ vā denti, hatthapāse sati vaṭṭati. Daṇḍakesu apaharitvā niggataṃ gaṇhantassa vaṭṭati, paharitvā niggate aṭṭhakathāsu doso na dassito. Mayaṃ pana “yaṃ ṭhānaṃ pahaṭaṃ, tato sayaṃpatitamiva hotī”ti takkayāma, tampi ṭhatvā gacchante yujjati suṅkaghātato pavaṭṭetvā bahipatitabhaṇḍaṃ viya. Vatiṃ vā pākāraṃ vā laṅghāpetvā denti, sace pana aputhulo pākāro, antopākāre bahipākāre ca ṭhitassa hatthapāso pahoti, hatthasatampi uddhaṃ gantvā sampattaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

111. In received oil or similar, a flake arises, or in ginger or similar, a solid powder—it is self-arisen, and no further receiving is needed. One atop a palm or coconut tree lowers a fruit bunch with a rope and says from above, “Take it”—it should not be taken. If another on the ground takes the rope loop, lifts it, and gives it, it is allowable. A fruitful large branch is made kappiya and received—the fruits are received and may be used as desired. Standing inside a fence, they cut the fence and give sugarcane or timbarūsaka—within the hatthapāsa, it is allowable. Taking what comes off without striking with sticks is allowable; striking and taking shows no fault in commentaries. We reason, “Where struck, it is as if it fell itself,” which fits with goods rolled from a toll falling outside. If given over a fence or wall, if the wall is not thick and the hatthapāsa reaches from inside to outside, even reaching up a hundred hands to take it is allowable.

111. A kaṇṇikā (film) forms on accepted oil and so on, a thick powder on ginger and so on; that is called arisen-from-that; there is no need for re-acceptance. If one, climbing a tāla or coconut tree, lowers a bunch of fruits with a rope, and while still up there, says, “Take it,” it should not be taken. But if another, standing on the ground, takes the end of the rope and lifts it and gives it, it is permissible. If one has a large, fruit-bearing branch made permissible and accepts it, the fruits are considered accepted; it is permissible to use them as desired. Standing within the fence, having cut the fence, they give sugarcane or timbarūsaka; if it is within hand’s reach, it is permissible. For one who takes what has come out without striking, in the case of stakes, it is permissible; in the commentaries, no fault is shown for what has come out after striking. But we reason, “The place that is struck, it is like what has fallen spontaneously from it.” It is also appropriate for one standing and going, like goods that have fallen outside due to toll-collection, being rolled. They give by making it jump over a fence or a wall. But if the wall is not thick, the hand’s reach of one standing inside the wall and one standing outside the wall is sufficient; it is permissible to take what has arrived after going even a hundred hands upward.

111. In the case of accepted oil, if a scum forms, or in the case of ginger powder, if it becomes compact, it is considered newly produced, and there is no need to receive it again. If one climbs a palm or coconut tree and lowers a bunch of fruit while standing above and says, “Take it,” it should not be taken. If another person standing on the ground takes the rope and lifts it to give, it is acceptable. If one makes a large branch with fruit allowable and receives it, the fruits are considered received, and one may consume them as one wishes. If one stands inside a fence and cuts a vine to give sugarcane or timbaru fruit, it is acceptable if it is within arm’s reach. If one takes what has been carried away from sticks, it is acceptable. If one strikes and carries it away, no offense is shown in the commentaries. However, we reason that what is struck and falls by itself is like goods falling from a cart turned by a goad. If one gives after making someone climb over a fence or wall, and if the wall is not thick, and the arm’s reach extends to both the inner and outer walls, even if one reaches a hundred hands high, it is acceptable to take what is reached.

Bhikkhu gilānaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ khandhena vahati, so phalāphalaṃ disvā gahetvā khandhe nisinnova deti , vaṭṭati. Aparo bhikkhuṃ vahanto khandhe nisinnassa bhikkhuno deti, vaṭṭatiyeva. Bhikkhu phaliniṃ sākhaṃ chāyatthāya gahetvā gacchati, phalāni khādituṃ citte uppanne paṭiggahāpetvā khādituṃ vaṭṭati. Macchikavāraṇatthaṃ kappiyaṃ kāretvā paṭiggaṇhāti, khāditukāmo ce hoti, mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭati, khādantassa natthi doso. Bhikkhu paṭiggahaṇārahaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ manussānaṃ yāne ṭhapetvā maggaṃ gacchati, yānaṃ kaddame laggati, daharo cakkaṃ gahetvā ukkhipati, vaṭṭati, uggahitakaṃ nāma na hoti. Nāvāya ṭhapetvā nāvaṃ arittena vā pājeti, hatthena vā kaḍḍhati, vaṭṭati. Uḷumpepi eseva nayo. Cāṭiyaṃ vā kuṇḍake vā ṭhapetvāpi taṃ anupasampannena gāhāpetvā anupasampannaṃ bāhāyaṃ gahetvā tarituṃ vaṭṭati. Tasmimpi asati anupasampannaṃ gāhāpetvā taṃ bāhāyaṃ gahetvā tarituṃ vaṭṭati.

A monk carries a sick novice on his shoulder; seeing fruit or non-fruit, the novice takes it and gives it while sitting on the shoulder—it is allowable. Another carrying a monk gives to the monk sitting on his shoulder—it is certainly allowable. A monk takes a fruitful branch for shade while walking; if intent to eat arises, receiving and eating it is allowable. To ward off flies, it is made kappiya and received; if he wishes to eat, the initial receiving suffices—no fault in eating. A monk places receivable goods in people’s cart and travels; the cart gets stuck in mud, and a youth lifts the wheel—it is allowable, not taken. Placing it in a boat and rowing or pulling by hand is allowable. The same applies to a raft. Placing it in a jar or pot and having an unordained person hold it while holding their arm to cross is allowable. If none, holding an unordained person by the arm to cross is allowable.

A bhikkhu carries a sick novice on his shoulder. He, seeing fruits, takes them and, while still sitting on the shoulder, gives them; it is permissible. Another, carrying a bhikkhu, gives to the bhikkhu sitting on his shoulder; it is also permissible. A bhikkhu, taking a fruit-bearing branch for shade, goes. If the thought arises to eat the fruits, it is permissible to have them accepted and eat them. If one has it made permissible and accepts it for the purpose of warding off flies, and if one wants to eat it, acceptance of the root is sufficient; there is no fault for one who eats. A bhikkhu, placing acceptable goods in the vehicle of humans, goes on a journey. The vehicle gets stuck in the mud. A junior lifts the wheel and takes it; it is permissible; it is not called accepted-beforehand. Having placed it in a boat, one propels the boat with an oar or pulls it with the hand; it is permissible. The same method applies to a raft. Having placed it in a pot or a basket, it is permissible to have a non-ordained person carry it and to cross holding the non-ordained person by the arm. Even in his absence, it is permissible to have a non-ordained person carry it and to cross holding him by the arm.

If a monk carries a sick novice on his shoulder and sees fruit, takes it, and gives it while sitting on the shoulder, it is acceptable. Another monk carrying a monk on his shoulder and giving to the sitting monk is also acceptable. If a monk takes a branch with fruit for shade and while walking wishes to eat the fruit, he may receive it and eat it. If one makes a fish barrier allowable and receives it, and wishes to eat, only the initial reception is required, and there is no offense in eating. If a monk places goods worthy of reception in a vehicle and goes on a journey, and the vehicle gets stuck in mud, and a young novice takes the wheel and lifts it, it is acceptable, and it is not considered accepted. If one places goods in a boat and rows it with an oar or pulls it with a hand, it is acceptable. The same applies to a raft. If one places goods in a cart or a pit and has an unordained person hold them, it is acceptable to cross with the unordained person holding them in his arms. Even if there is no boat, it is acceptable to have an unordained person hold them and cross with them in his arms.

Upāsakā gamikabhikkhūnaṃ pātheyyataṇḍule denti, sāmaṇerā bhikkhūnaṃ taṇḍule gahetvā attano taṇḍule gahetuṃ na sakkonti, bhikkhū tesaṃ taṇḍule gaṇhanti, sāmaṇerā attanā gahitataṇḍulesu khīṇesu itarehi taṇḍulehi yāguṃ pacitvā sabbesaṃ pattāni paṭipāṭiyā ṭhapetvā yāguṃ ākiranti, paṇḍito sāmaṇero attano pattaṃ gahetvā therassa deti, therassa pattaṃ dutiyattherassāti evaṃ sabbānipi parivatteti, sabbehi sāmaṇerassa santakaṃ bhuttaṃ hoti, vaṭṭati. Sacepi sāmaṇero apaṇḍito hoti, attano patte yāguṃ sayameva pātuṃ ārabhati, “āvuso, tuyhaṃ yāguṃ mayhaṃ dehī”ti therehi paṭipāṭiyā yācitvāpi pivituṃ vaṭṭati, sabbehi sāmaṇerassa santakameva bhuttaṃ hoti, neva uggahitapaccayā, na sannidhipaccayā vajjaṃ phusanti. Ettha pana mātāpitūnaṃ telādīni, chāyādīnaṃ atthāya sākhādīni ca harantānaṃ imesañca viseso na dissati, tasmā kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

Laypeople give travel rice to departing monks; novices take rice for the monks but cannot take their own; monks take theirs. When their rice runs out, novices cook gruel with the others’ rice, place bowls in order, and pour gruel. A wise novice takes his bowl and gives it to the elder, the elder’s to the next, rotating all—everyone eats the novice’s property, and it is allowable. Even if the novice is unwise and starts drinking his own gruel, the elders request, “Friend, give me your gruel,” and drink in order—it is allowable; all eat the novice’s property, with no fault from taking or storage. Here, carrying oil or similar for parents or branches for shade shows no difference, so the reason should be examined.

Lay supporters give travel-provisions of rice to traveling bhikkhus. The novices, having taken the rice for the bhikkhus, are unable to take their own rice. The bhikkhus take their rice. The novices, when the rice they have taken themselves is exhausted, cook gruel with the other rice, place all the bowls in order, and pour the gruel. A wise novice takes his own bowl and gives it to the elder. He gives the elder’s bowl to the second elder; thus, he exchanges all of them. What belongs to the novice has been eaten by all; it is permissible. Even if the novice is not wise, and begins to drink the gruel in his own bowl himself, it is permissible to ask for it in order, saying, “Friend, give your gruel to me,” and drink it. What belongs to the novice has been eaten by all; they do not incur a fault either due to accepting-beforehand or due to storing. Here, however, no distinction is seen between taking oil and so on for parents and taking branches and so on for shade and so on; therefore, the reason should be investigated.

Lay devotees give travel provisions to monks, and novices take rice from the monks but cannot take their own rice. The monks take the rice from the novices, and when the novices’ own rice is exhausted, they cook gruel with the other rice, place all the bowls in order, and pour the gruel. A wise novice takes his own bowl and gives it to the elder, the elder’s bowl to the second elder, and so on, rotating all the bowls. All the gruel consumed by the novices is considered their own, and it is acceptable. Even if the novice is unwise and starts drinking the gruel from his own bowl, and the elders ask in turn, “Friend, give me your gruel,” it is acceptable to drink, and all the gruel consumed by the novices is considered their own. There is no offense due to accepted requisites or proximity. Here, however, there is no distinction seen for those who carry oil, etc., for parents, or branches for shade. Therefore, the reason should be examined.

112. Sāmaṇero bhattaṃ pacitukāmo taṇḍule dhovitvā niccāletuṃ na sakkoti, bhikkhunā taṇḍule ca bhājanañca paṭiggahetvā taṇḍule dhovitvā niccāletvā bhājanaṃ uddhanaṃ āropetabbaṃ, aggi na kātabbo, pakkakāle vivaritvā pakkabhāvo jānitabbo. Sace duppakkaṃ hoti, pākatthāya pidahituṃ na vaṭṭati, rajassa vā chārikāya vā apatanatthāya vaṭṭati, pakkakāle oropituṃ bhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Sāmaṇero paṭibalo pacituṃ, khaṇo panassa natthi katthaci gantukāmo, bhikkhunā sataṇḍulodakaṃ bhājanaṃ paṭiggahetvā uddhanaṃ āropetvā “aggiṃ jāletvā gacchā”ti vattabbo. Tato paraṃ purimanayeneva sabbaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhu yāguatthāya suddhabhājanaṃ āropetvā udakaṃ tāpeti, vaṭṭati. Tatte udake sāmaṇero taṇḍule pakkhipati, tato paṭṭhāya bhikkhunā aggi na kātabbo, pakkayāguṃ paṭiggahetvā pātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sāmaṇero yāguṃ pacati, hatthakukkuccako bhikkhu kīḷanto bhājanaṃ āmasati, pidhānaṃ āmasati, uggataṃ pheṇaṃ chinditvā paharati, tasseva pātuṃ na vaṭṭati, durupaciṇṇaṃ nāma hoti. Sace pana dabbiṃ vā uḷuṅkaṃ vā gahetvā anukkhipanto āloḷeti, sabbesaṃ na vaṭṭati, sāmaṃpākañceva hoti durupaciṇṇañca. Sace ukkhipati, uggahitakampi hoti.

112. A novice wanting to cook rice washes it but cannot drain it. The monk receives the rice and vessel, washes and drains it, and places the vessel on the stove—fire should not be lit. When cooked, uncover to check doneness. If undercooked, covering to cook is not allowable, but covering to prevent dust or ash is allowable. When cooked, lowering and eating is allowable—no further receiving is needed. If the novice can cook but has no time, wanting to go somewhere, the monk receives the rice-water vessel, places it on the stove, and says, “Light the fire and go.” Thereafter, all is allowable as before. A monk heats a clean vessel with water for gruel—it is allowable. The novice adds rice to the hot water; from then, the monk should not light the fire. Receiving and drinking the cooked gruel is allowable. A novice cooks gruel; a hand-fussy monk playfully touches the vessel or lid, or strikes the rising foam—it is not allowable for him to drink, being mishandled. If he takes a spoon or ladle and stirs without adding, it is not allowable for all—it is self-cooked and mishandled. If he adds, it is also taken.

112. A novice, wanting to cook rice, washes the rice but is unable to drain it. The bhikkhu, having accepted the rice and the vessel, should wash the rice, drain it, and place the vessel on the fire; the fire should not be lit. At the time of cooking, having opened it, the state of being cooked should be known. If it is badly cooked, it is not permissible to cover it for the purpose of cooking; it is permissible for the purpose of preventing dust or ashes from falling. At the time of cooking, it is permissible to take it down and eat it; there is no need for re-acceptance. The novice is capable of cooking, but he does not have time, wanting to go somewhere. The bhikkhu, having accepted the vessel with rice and water, should place it on the fire and say, “Light the fire and go.” After that, everything should be done as in the previous method. A bhikkhu places a clean vessel on the fire to heat water for gruel; it is permissible. When the water is hot, the novice places the rice in it. From then on, the bhikkhu should not light the fire; having accepted the cooked gruel, it is permissible to drink it. A novice cooks gruel. A playful bhikkhu with restless hands touches the vessel, touches the lid, removes and throws away the rising foam; it is not permissible for him to drink it; it is called improperly-done. But if, taking a ladle or a spoon, he stirs it without lifting it, it is not permissible for all; it is both self-cooked and improperly-done. If he lifts it, it is also accepted-beforehand.

112. If a novice wishes to cook rice and cannot wash the rice and stir it, the monk should receive the rice and the vessel, wash the rice, stir it, and place the vessel on the fire. The fire should not be lit. When it is time to cook, one should open it and check the cooking. If it is undercooked, it should not be covered for cooking. It is permissible to cover it to prevent dust or ashes from falling. When it is cooked, it may be taken down and eaten, and there is no need to receive it again. If the novice is capable of cooking but has no time and wishes to go somewhere, the monk should receive the vessel with rice and water, place it on the fire, and say, “Light the fire and go.” After that, everything should be done as before. If a monk heats water in a clean vessel for gruel, it is acceptable. When the water is hot, the novice places the rice in it, and from then on, the monk should not light the fire. The cooked gruel may be received and consumed. If the novice cooks the gruel, and a monk playing around touches the vessel, touches the lid, cuts off the rising foam, or strikes it, it is not acceptable for him to consume it. It is considered improperly handled. If he takes a ladle or a spoon and stirs it, it is not acceptable for anyone to consume it. It is considered self-cooked and improperly handled. If he lifts it, it is also considered accepted.

113. Bhikkhunā piṇḍāya caritvā ādhārake patto ṭhapito hoti. Tatra ce añño lolabhikkhu kīḷanto pattaṃ āmasati, pattapidhānaṃ āmasati, tasseva tato laddhabhattaṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace na pattaṃ ukkhipitvā ṭhapeti, sabbesaṃ na vaṭṭati. Tatthajātakaphalinisākhāya vā valliyā vā gahetvā cāleti, tasseva tato laddhaphalaṃ na vaṭṭati, durupaciṇṇadukkaṭañca āpajjati. “Phalarukkhaṃ pana apassayituṃ vā tattha kaṇṭakaṃ vā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati, durupaciṇṇaṃ na hotī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Araññe patitaṃ pana ambaphalādiṃ disvā “sāmaṇerassa dassāmī”ti āharitvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sīhavighāsādiṃ disvāpi “sāmaṇerassa dassāmī”ti paṭiggahetvā vā appaṭiggahetvā vā āharitvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ, tato laddhaṃ khāditumpi vaṭṭati, neva āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇapaccayā, na uggahitakapaccayā vajjaṃ phusati. Mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya telādīni gahetvā gacchato antarāmagge byādhi uppajjati, tato yaṃ icchati, taṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana mūlepi paṭiggahitaṃ hoti, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Mātāpitūnaṃ taṇḍule āharitvā deti, te tatoyeva yāguādīni sampādetvā tassa denti, vaṭṭati, sannidhipaccayā uggahitapaccayā vā doso natthi.

113. A monk collecting alms places his bowl on a stand. If another greedy monk playfully touches the bowl or lid, what is obtained from it is not allowable for him. If he does not lift and replace the bowl, it is not allowable for all. Moving it with a branch or creeper growing there bearing fruit, what is obtained is not allowable for him, and he incurs a mishandling offense. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “Shaking a fruit tree or tying a thorn there is allowable, not mishandling.” Seeing fallen mango fruit or similar in the forest, intending, “I will give it to a novice,” bringing and giving it is allowable. Seeing lion’s leftovers or similar, intending, “I will give it to a novice,” bringing it received or unreceived and giving it is allowable. If he can purify his intent, eating what is obtained is allowable, with no fault from taking raw meat or taking. Carrying oil or similar for parents, if illness arises en route, receiving and using what he wishes is allowable. If received at the outset, no further receiving is needed. Bringing rice for parents, they prepare gruel or similar and give it to him—it is allowable, with no fault from storage or taking.

113. A bhikkhu, having gone for alms, has placed his bowl on a stand. There, if another greedy bhikkhu, playing, touches the bowl, touches the lid of the bowl, the meal obtained from it is not permissible for him. If he lifts the bowl without placing and places it, it is not permissible for all. If he takes a fruit-bearing branch or creeper that has grown there and shakes it, the fruit obtained from it is not permissible for him; and he incurs an improperly-done dukkaṭa. But it is said in the Mahāpaccariya, “It is permissible to look at a fruit tree or to tie a thorn there; it is not improperly-done.” But having seen a mango fruit and so on fallen in the forest, thinking, “I will give it to the novice,” it is permissible to bring it and give it. Having seen even a lion’s leftovers and so on, thinking, “I will give it to the novice,” whether having accepted it or not having accepted it, it is permissible to bring it and give it. But if one is able to purify the thought, it is permissible to eat what is obtained from it; one does not incur a fault either due to accepting raw meat or due to accepting-beforehand. If a sickness arises on the way while taking oil and so on for parents, it is permissible to accept and use whatever one desires from it. But if it was accepted at the beginning, there is no need for re-acceptance. One brings and gives rice to one’s parents; they prepare gruel and so on from it and give it to him; it is permissible; there is no fault due to storing or due to accepting-beforehand.

113. If a monk, after walking for alms, places his bowl on a stand, and another playful monk touches the bowl or the lid, the food obtained from it is not acceptable for him. If he does not lift the bowl and place it, it is not acceptable for anyone. If he shakes a branch or a vine growing there, the fruit obtained from it is not acceptable for him, and he commits an offense of improper handling. However, the Mahāpaccariya states, “It is permissible to avoid a fruit tree or to tie a thorn there, and it is not considered improperly handled.” If one sees a mango fruit or the like fallen in the forest and thinks, “I will give it to the novice,” it is acceptable to bring it and give it. If one sees lion’s leftovers or the like and thinks, “I will give it to the novice,” it is acceptable to bring it and give it, whether received or not. If one can purify the thought, it is acceptable to eat what is obtained, and there is no offense due to receiving raw meat or accepted requisites. If one takes oil, etc., for parents and falls ill on the way, one may receive and consume what one wishes. If it was received at the root, there is no need to receive it again. If one brings rice for parents and they prepare gruel or the like from it and give it, it is acceptable, and there is no offense due to proximity or accepted requisites.

114. Bhikkhu pidahitvā udakaṃ tāpeti, yāva parikkhayā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace panettha chārikā patati, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Dīghasaṇḍāsena thālakaṃ gahetvā telaṃ pacantassa chārikā patati, hatthena amuñcanteneva pacitvā otāretvā paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Sace aṅgārāpi dārūnipi paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitāni, mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭati. Bhikkhu ucchuṃ khādati, sāmaṇero “mayhampi dethā”ti vadati, “ito chinditvā gaṇhā”ti vutto gaṇhāti, avasese puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Guḷapiṇḍaṃ khādantassapi eseva nayo. Vuttokāsato chinditvā gahitāvasesañhi ajahitapaṭiggahaṇameva hoti. Bhikkhu guḷaṃ bhājento paṭiggahetvā koṭṭhāse karoti, bhikkhūpi sāmaṇerāpi āgantvā ekaggahaṇeneva ekamekaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ gaṇhanti, gahitāvasesaṃ paṭiggahitameva hoti. Sace lolasāmaṇero gaṇhitvā gaṇhitvā puna ṭhapeti, tassa gahitāvasesaṃ appaṭiggahitakameva hoti.

114. A monk covers and heats water—it is allowable to use until exhausted. If ash falls in, it must be received. Cooking oil in a dish with long tongs, if ash falls, cook without letting go by hand, lower, and receive it. If embers or wood were received and placed, the initial receiving suffices. A monk eats sugarcane; a novice says, “Give me some,” and being told, “Cut from here and take,” takes it—no further receiving is needed for the rest. The same applies to eating a sugar lump. What remains after cutting from the specified place retains its received status. A monk receives and divides a sugar lump; monks and novices come and take one portion each with one grasp—the remaining received portion stays received. If a greedy novice takes repeatedly and puts back, what remains of his taking is unreceived.

114. A bhikkhu heats water having covered it; it is permissible to use it until it is exhausted. If ashes fall into it, it should be accepted. When one is cooking oil, taking the pan with long tongs, and ashes fall, having cooked it without releasing it with the hand, having taken it down, it should be accepted. If both coals and firewood have been accepted and placed, acceptance of the root is sufficient. A bhikkhu eats sugarcane. A novice says, “Give me also.” Being told, “Break it from here and take it,” he takes it; there is no need for re-acceptance of the remainder. The same method applies to one eating a lump of jaggery. For the remainder of what has been broken and taken from the stated place is still considered accepted. A bhikkhu, distributing jaggery, having accepted it, makes portions. Bhikkhus and novices come and take one portion each with a single taking; the remainder of what has been taken is considered accepted. If a greedy novice takes and takes and places it back again, the remainder of what he has taken is considered unaccepted.

114. If a monk heats water after covering it, it is acceptable to consume it until it is exhausted. If ashes fall into it, they should be received. If one takes a long-handled ladle and heats oil, and ashes fall, one should continue heating and pour it out to receive it. If one receives embers or firewood and places them, only the initial reception is required. If a monk eats sugarcane and a novice says, “Give me some too,” and he is told, “Cut it from here and take it,” and he takes it, there is no need to receive the remainder again. The same applies to eating a lump of jaggery. If one cuts and takes the remainder from the stated portion, it is considered unrelinquished acceptance. If a monk receives jaggery and divides it into portions, and monks or novices come and take one portion each, the remainder is considered received. If a playful novice takes and puts it back repeatedly, the remainder is considered unaccepted.

Bhikkhu dhūmavaṭṭiṃ paṭiggahetvā dhūmaṃ pivati, mukhañca kaṇṭho ca manosilāya litto viya hoti, yāvakālikaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, yāvakālikena yāvajīvikasaṃsagge doso natthi. Pattaṃ vā rajanaṃ vā pacantassa kaṇṇanāsacchiddehi dhūmo pavisati, byādhipaccayā pupphaṃ vā phalaṃ vā upasiṅghati, abbohārikattā vaṭṭati. Bhattuggāro tāluṃ āhacca antoyeva pavisati, avisayattā vaṭṭati, mukhaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ pana ajjhoharato vikāle āpatti. Dantantare laggassa āmisassa raso pavisati, āpattiyeva. Sace sukhumaṃ āmisaṃ hoti, raso na paññāyati, abbohārikapakkhaṃ bhajati. Upakaṭṭhe kāle nirudakaṭṭhāne bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā kakkhāretvā dve tayo kheḷapiṇḍe pātetvā udakaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā mukhaṃ vikkhāletabbaṃ. Paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitasiṅgiverādīnaṃ aṅkurā nikkhamanti, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Loṇe asati samuddodakena loṇakiccaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitaloṇodakaṃ loṇaṃ hoti, loṇaṃ vā udakaṃ hoti, raso vā phāṇitaṃ hoti, phāṇitaṃ vā raso hoti, mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭati.

A monk receives a smoking wick and inhales smoke; his mouth and throat feel coated with red arsenic—it is allowable to eat time-limited food; mixing time-limited with life-limited incurs no fault. Cooking a bowl or dye, smoke enters the ears and nose; smelling flowers or fruit for illness is allowable as a non-requisite. A belch from rice hits the palate and re-enters—it is allowable, being unintended; but entering the mouth and swallowing out of time incurs an offense. Juice from food stuck between teeth enters—an offense. If fine food has no detectable juice, it leans toward non-requisite. Eating rice at a near time in a waterless place, coughing up two or three phlegm lumps, then washing the mouth at a water place is needed. Sprouts emerge from received and stored ginger or similar—no further receiving is needed. Without salt, using seawater for salt is allowable. Received and stored saltwater becomes salt or water, juice becomes molasses, or molasses becomes juice—the initial receiving suffices.

A bhikkhu accepts a smoking-pipe and smokes. The mouth and throat are as if smeared with yellow orpiment; it is permissible to eat time-limited food; there is no fault in the contact of time-limited food with life-long food. Smoke enters through the nostrils of one cooking a bowl or dye; due to sickness, one smells a flower or a fruit; it is permissible because it is negligible. A belch of food touches the palate and enters inside; it is permissible because it is not a case of responsibility. But if what has entered the mouth is swallowed at the wrong time, there is an offense. The taste of food stuck between the teeth enters; there is an offense. If it is fine food, and the taste is not apparent, it falls into the negligible category. At the appointed time, in a place without water, having eaten the meal, having cleared the throat, having dropped two or three lumps of phlegm, one should go to the water-place and rinse the mouth. Sprouts come out of accepted and placed ginger and so on; there is no need for re-acceptance. In the absence of salt, it is permissible to use sea water for the purpose of salt. Accepted and placed salt-water becomes salt, or salt becomes water, or juice becomes treacle, or treacle becomes juice; acceptance of the root is sufficient.

If a monk receives a smoking tube and smokes, and his mouth and throat become as if smeared with red arsenic, it is acceptable to consume it temporarily, and there is no offense in temporary or lifelong association. If smoke enters through the ears or nose while heating a bowl or dye, or if due to illness, one inhales the scent of flowers or fruits, it is not to be accepted. If the roof of the mouth is touched and only the inside is entered, it is not an offense, but if it enters the mouth and is swallowed at the wrong time, it is an offense. If the juice of meat stuck between the teeth enters, it is an offense. If the meat is fine and the juice is not noticeable, it falls under the category of what is not to be accepted. After eating at a waterless place at the wrong time, one should rinse the mouth with two or three lumps of saliva and go to a place with water to rinse the mouth. If sprouts emerge from ginger, etc., that have been received and placed, there is no need to receive them again. If there is no salt, it is permissible to perform the function of salt with seawater. If salt water is received and placed, it becomes salt, or water, or juice, or molasses, or molasses becomes juice—only the initial reception is required.

Himakarakā udakagatikā eva. Pārihārikena katakaṭṭhinā udakaṃ pasādenti, taṃ abbohārikaṃ, āmisena saddhiṃ vaṭṭati. Āmisagatikehi kapitthaphalādīhi pasāditaṃ purebhattameva vaṭṭati. Pokkharaṇīādīsu udakaṃ bahalaṃ hoti, vaṭṭati. Sace pana mukhe hatthe ca laggati, na vaṭṭati, paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Khettesu kasitaṭṭhāne bahalaṃ udakaṃ hoti, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Sace sanditvā kandarādīni pavisitvā nadiṃ pūreti, vaṭṭati. Kakudhasobbhādayo honti rukkhato patitehi pupphehi sañchannodakā. Sace puppharaso na paññāyati, paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Parittaṃ udakaṃ hoti, raso paññāyati, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Pabbatakandarādīsu kāḷavaṇṇapaṇṇacchannaudakepi eseva nayo.

Snow pellets follow water’s rules. Water hardened by a filter clears it—it is a non-requisite and allowable with material goods. Water cleared with material fruits like kapittha is allowable only before noon. Water in ponds or similar is thick—it is allowable. If it sticks to mouth or hands, it is not allowable; receive and use it. Water in plowed fields is thick—it must be received. If it flows, enters ravines, and fills a river, it is allowable. Kakudha pools or similar have water covered with fallen flower—it is allowable if no flower juice is evident; no receiving is needed. If water is scarce and juice evident, it must be received. The same applies to water in mountain ravines covered with dark leaves.

Hailstones are indeed water-courses. They clarify water with portable kataka wood; that is negligible; it is permissible with food. Clarified with fruit and so on that are water-courses, it is permissible only before the meal. In ponds and so on, the water is thick; it is permissible. But if it sticks to the mouth and hands, it is not permissible; it should be accepted and used. In places where fields are plowed, the water is thick; it should be accepted. If, having flowed, it enters ravines and so on and fills a river, it is permissible. Kakudha hollows and so on are covered with water from flowers fallen from trees. If the taste of the flower-juice is not apparent, there is no need for acceptance. The water is small, the taste is apparent; it should be accepted. The same method applies to water covered with black leaves in mountain ravines and so on.

The same applies to snow and water currents. If water is purified with a filtering cloth made by a steward, it is not to be accepted, but it is acceptable with meat. Water purified with meat-like substances such as wood apples is acceptable only before the meal. In ponds, etc., if the water is thick, it is acceptable. If it sticks to the mouth or hands, it is not acceptable and should be received and consumed. In fields, plowed areas, or thick water, it should be received. If it flows and fills rivers by entering caves, it is acceptable. Water in lotus ponds, etc., covered with fallen flowers is acceptable if the flower juice is not noticeable, and there is no need to receive it. If the water is little and the juice is noticeable, it should be received. The same applies to water covered with black leaves in mountain caves.

Pānīyaghaṭe sareṇukāni vā savaṇṭakhīrāni vā pupphāni pakkhittāni honti, paṭiggahetabbaṃ, pupphāni vā paṭiggahetvā pakkhipitabbāni. Pāṭalimallikā pakkhittā honti, vāsamattaṃ tiṭṭhati, taṃ abbohārikaṃ. Dubhiyadivasepi āmisena saddhiṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhunā ṭhapitapupphavāsitakapānīyato sāmaṇero pānīyaṃ gahetvā pītāvasesakaṃ tattheva ākirati, paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Padumasarādīsu udakaṃ santharitvā ṭhitaṃ pupphareṇuṃ ghaṭena vikkhambhetvā udakaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitaṃ dantakaṭṭhaṃ hoti, sace tassa rasaṃ pivitukāmo , mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭati, appaṭiggahetvā ṭhapitaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Ajānantassa rase paviṭṭhepi āpattiyeva. Acittakañhi idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ.

In a water pot, dust, milk drops with stalks, or flowers are added—it must be received, or receive flowers and add them. Pāṭali or jasmine is added, leaving only fragrance—it is a non-requisite. Even on both days, it is allowable with material goods. A novice takes water from a monk’s flower-scented pot and pours the remainder back—it must be received. In lotus lakes or similar, spreading water and stirring flower dust with a pot to take water is allowable. A toothpick made kappiya, received, and stored—if he wishes to drink its juice, the initial receiving suffices; unreceived and stored must be received. If juice enters unknowingly, an offense occurs, for this rule is intent-free.

Flowers of sareṇukā or savaṇṭakhīrā are placed in a water-pot; it should be accepted, or the flowers should be accepted and placed. Pāṭali and mallikā are placed; only the fragrance remains; that is negligible. Even on a doubtful day, it is permissible with food. A novice, having taken water from water perfumed with flowers placed by a bhikkhu, pours the remainder of what he has drunk back into it; it should be accepted. It is permissible to take water after disturbing the pollen of flowers spread on the water in lotus ponds and so on with a pot. There is a tooth-stick that has been made permissible and accepted and placed. If one wants to drink its juice, acceptance of the root is sufficient. What has been placed without being accepted should be accepted. Even if the juice enters for one who does not know, there is an offense. For this is a training rule without intention.

If in a water pot, there are water lilies or flowers with milk-like sap, they should be received, or the flowers should be received and placed. If jasmine flowers are placed, they remain for a while, and it is not to be accepted. On fasting days, it is acceptable with meat. If a monk places scented water with flowers, and a novice takes the water and pours the remainder there, it should be received. In lotus ponds, etc., if water is spread and left, one may take the water by removing the flower pollen with a pot. If one makes tooth-cleaning sticks allowable and receives them, and if one wishes to drink their juice, only the initial reception is required. If one places them without receiving, they should be received. If one unknowingly drinks the juice, it is an offense. This training rule is not intentional.

115. Mahābhūtesu kiṃ vaṭṭati, kiṃ na vaṭṭatīti? Khīraṃ tāva vaṭṭati, kappiyamaṃsakhīraṃ vā hotu akappiyamaṃsakhīraṃ vā, pivantassa anāpatti. Assu kheḷo siṅghāṇikā muttaṃ karīsaṃ semhaṃ dantamalaṃ akkhigūthako kaṇṇagūthako sarīre uṭṭhitaloṇanti idaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ panettha ṭhānato cavitvā patte vā hatthe vā patati, taṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, aṅgalaggaṃ paṭiggahitakameva. Uṇhapāyāsaṃ bhuñjantassa sedo aṅgulianusārena ekābaddhova hutvā pāyāse santiṭṭhati, piṇḍāya vā carantassa hatthato pattassa mukhavaṭṭito vā pattatalaṃ orohati, ettha paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, jhāmamahābhūte idaṃ nāma na vaṭṭatīti natthi, dujjhāpitaṃ pana na vaṭṭati. Sujjhāpitaṃ pana manussaṭṭhimpi cuṇṇaṃ katvā lehe upanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Cattāri mahāvikaṭāni asati kappiyakārake sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭanti. Ettha ca dubbacopi asamatthopi kappiyakārako asantapakkheyeva tiṭṭhati. Chārikāya asati sukkhadāruṃ jhāpetvā chārikā gahetabbā. Sukkhadārumhi asati alladāruṃ rukkhato chinditvāpi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Idaṃ pana catubbidhampi mahāvikaṭaṃ kālodissaṃ nāma, sappadaṭṭhakkhaṇeyeva vaṭṭati.

115. Among the great elements, what is allowable, what is not? Milk is allowable, whether from allowable or unallowable meat—drinking it incurs no fault. Tears, saliva, mucus, urine, feces, phlegm, tooth dirt, eye discharge, ear discharge, and salt arising in the body—all are allowable. Whatever falls from its place into the bowl or hand must be received; what sticks to limbs is already received. While eating hot porridge, sweat flows along the finger joint and stays with the porridge, or while collecting alms, it drips from hand or bowl rim to the bowl’s base—no receiving is needed here. No great scorched element is unallowable; but poorly charred is not allowable. Well-charred human bone powder mixed into a salve is allowable. Without an allowable maker, the four great impurities may be taken and used by oneself. Here, even a stubborn or incapable maker counts as absent. Without ash, dry wood may be burned to take ash. Without dry wood, cutting green wood from a tree is allowable. These four great impurities are time-specified—allowable only at the moment of a snakebite.

115. What is allowable and what is not allowable regarding the major elements? Milk, whether it is properly or improperly prepared with meat, is allowable; there is no offense for one who drinks it. Tears, nasal mucus, urine, feces, phlegm, tooth debris, eye discharge, earwax, and bodily salt that arises on the body are all allowable. Whatever of these falls from its place onto the bowl or hand should be received; what is attached to the finger is considered as already received. When one is eating hot gruel, sweat, following along the fingers, remains connected with the gruel, or while going for alms, it flows down from the hand to the rim of the bowl or to the bottom of the bowl; in this case, there is no need to receive it. There is nothing called “burnt major element” which is not allowable, but if it is poorly cooked, it is not allowable. However, properly cooked human bone, even if ground into powder, is allowable to be added to a paste. The four great unconverted (foods) are allowable to be taken and consumed by oneself if there is no one to make it allowable. Here, even one who speaks poorly or is incapable functions as a “maker-allowable” in absence of a competent one. In the absence of ashes, dry wood should be burnt to obtain ashes. If dry wood is unavailable, it is allowable to cut even fresh wood from a tree to do it. But this fourfold great unconverted (food) is termed “according to the occasion,” and it is only allowable at the very moment of being bitten by a snake.

115. What is permissible among the great elements, and what is not? First, milk is permissible; whether it is milk from an animal whose meat is allowable or not, there is no offense for one who drinks it. Saliva, nasal mucus, urine, feces, phlegm, tooth stains, eye discharge, earwax, and salt that has arisen from the body—all these are permissible. However, if any of these falls from its place onto a bowl or hand, it should be accepted, as it is considered to have been received at the edge of the limb. For one eating warm porridge, sweat that flows down the finger and settles in the porridge in a single stream is permissible. If, while walking for alms, food falls from the hand or from the mouth onto the bowl’s surface, there is no need to accept it, as it is not considered impure. Even if it is difficult to purify, it is still permissible. If it is easily purified, even human bones ground into powder and mixed with food are permissible. The four great impurities, in the absence of a proper agent, can be taken and consumed by oneself. Here, even if the agent is difficult to instruct or incapable, they remain untainted. If there is no charcoal, dry wood should be burned to obtain charcoal. If there is no dry wood, even green wood cut from a tree can be used. These four great impurities are considered permissible only at the moment of necessity, such as when bitten by a snake.

21. Pavāraṇāvinicchayakathā

21. Discussion on the Determination of Invitation

21. The Discussion on Determining Invitation

21. Discussion on the Determination of Invitation (Pavāraṇā)

116. Paṭikkhepapavāraṇāti pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhuñjamānena yassa kassaci abhihaṭabhojanassa paṭikkhepasaṅkhātā pavāraṇā. Sā ca na kevalaṃ paṭikkhepamattena hoti, atha kho pañcaṅgavasena. Tatrimāni pañcaṅgāni – asanaṃ, bhojanaṃ, dāyakassa hatthapāse ṭhānaṃ, abhihāro, abhihaṭassa paṭikkhepoti. Tattha asananti vippakatabhojanaṃ, bhuñjamāno cesa puggalo hotīti attho. Bhojananti pavāraṇappahonakaṃ bhojanaṃ, odanādīnañca aññataraṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhojanaṃ hotīti attho. Dāyakassa hatthapāse ṭhānanti pavāraṇappahonakaṃ bhojanaṃ gaṇhitvā dāyakassa aḍḍhateyyahatthappamāṇe okāse avaṭṭhānaṃ. Abhihāroti hatthapāse ṭhitassa dāyakassa kāyena abhihāro. Abhihaṭassa paṭikkhepoti evaṃ abhihaṭassa kāyena vā vācāya vā paṭikkhepo. Iti imesaṃ pañcannaṃ aṅgānaṃ vasena pavāraṇā hoti. Vuttampi cetaṃ –

116. Paṭikkhepapavāraṇā means the invitation defined as the refusal of any offered food while eating one of the five foods. It does not occur merely by refusal but by five factors. These are the five factors: eating, food, standing in the donor’s hatthapāsa, offering, and refusal of what is offered. Here, eating means partial eating, indicating this person is eating. Food means food suitable for invitation, one of rice or similar to be refused. Standing in the donor’s hatthapāsa means standing within two and a half hands’ measure where the donor holds food suitable for invitation. Offering means the donor’s bodily offering within the hatthapāsa. Refusal of what is offered means refusing what is offered thus, by body or speech. Thus, invitation occurs by these five factors. It is said:

116. Invitation with refusal refers to the invitation constituted by the refusal of an offered food item by someone who is eating one of the five kinds of food. It does not occur by the mere act of refusal, but by way of five factors. These five factors are: the eating, the food, the giver’s standing within reach, the offering, and the refusal of what is offered. Here, eating means the unfinished food; that is, this person is eating. Food means enough food to constitute an invitation; that is, there is food to be refused, one of the types of food such as cooked rice, etc. The giver’s standing within reach is standing within a distance of two and a half cubits with the food to constitute an invitation from the offerer. Offering is the offering by the giver who stands within reach through action of body. The refusal of what is offered is the refusal of what is offered through action of the body or by words. Thus the invitation occurs through the presence of five factors. It is also said:

116. Refusal Invitation (Paṭikkhepapavāraṇā): When someone is eating any of the five kinds of food and refuses an offered meal, this is called a refusal invitation. This is not merely a refusal but involves five factors. These five factors are: the seat, the food, the proximity to the donor, the offering, and the refusal of the offered food. Here, seat refers to the food being uncooked, and the person is eating. Food refers to the food suitable for invitation, and it includes rice, etc., which should be refused. Proximity to the donor means standing within a cubit’s distance from the donor while holding the food suitable for invitation. Offering refers to the donor’s physical offering. Refusal of the offered food means refusing the offered food either physically or verbally. Thus, the invitation is established through these five factors. It is also stated:

“Pañcahi, upāli, ākārehi pavāraṇā paññāyati, asanaṃ paññāyati, bhojanaṃ paññāyati, hatthapāse ṭhito, abhiharati, paṭikkhepo paññāyatī”ti (pari. 428).

“By five aspects, Upāli, an invitation is known: eating is evident, food is evident, standing in the hatthapāsa, offering, and refusal is evident” (pari. 428).

“Upatissa, invitation is known through five factors, eating is present, food is present, standing within reach, offering, refusal is known.” (pari. 428).

“Upāli, an invitation is recognized by five factors: the seat, the food, standing within reach, offering, and refusal” (pari. 428).

117. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9) – “asana”ntiādīsu tāva yaṃ asnāti, yañca bhojanaṃ hatthapāse ṭhitena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipati, taṃ odano kummāso sattu maccho maṃsanti imesaṃ aññatarameva veditabbaṃ. Tattha odano nāma sāli vīhi yavo godhumo kaṅgu varako kudrūsakoti sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ taṇḍulehi nibbatto. Tatra sālīti antamaso nīvāraṃ upādāya sabbāpi sālijāti. Vīhīti sabbāpi vīhijāti. Yavagodhumesu bhedo natthi. Kaṅgūti setarattakāḷabhedā sabbāpi kaṅgujāti. Varakoti antamaso varakacorakaṃ upādāya sabbāpi setavaṇṇā varakajāti. Kudrūsakoti kāḷakudrūsako ceva sāmākādibhedā ca sabbāpi tiṇadhaññajāti. Nīvāravarakacorakā cettha dhaññānulomāti vadanti, dhaññāni hontu dhaññānulomāni vā, etesaṃ vuttappabhedānaṃ sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ taṇḍule gahetvā “bhattaṃ pacissāmā”ti vā “yāguṃ pacissāmā”ti vā “ambilapāyāsādīsu aññataraṃ pacissāmā”ti vā yaṃ kiñci sandhāya pacantu, sace uṇhaṃ sītalaṃ vā bhuñjantānaṃ bhojanakāle gahitagahitaṭṭhāne odhi paññāyati, odanasaṅgahameva gacchati, pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Sace odhi na paññāyati, yāgusaṅgahaṃ gacchati, pavāraṇaṃ na janeti.

117. Here is the determination (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9): in “eating” and so forth, what one eats and what food offered by one standing in the hatthapāsa is refused must be understood as one of these: rice, porridge, flour, fish, or meat. Here, rice means that produced from the grains of seven types—sāli, vīhi, yava, godhuma, kaṅgu, varaka, kudrūsaka. Among these, sāli includes all sāli types, even wild rice. Vīhi includes all vīhi types. Yava and godhuma have no distinction. Kaṅgu includes all kaṅgu types—white, red, black. Varaka includes all white varaka types, even varaka-coraka. Kudrūsaka includes black kudrūsaka and types like sāmāka, all grass grains. Wild rice and varaka-coraka are said to align with grains here. Whether grains or grain-like, taking the grains of these seven specified types and cooking them intending, “We will cook rice,” “We will cook gruel,” or “We will cook sour porridge or similar,” if at eating time a limit is evident where taken, it falls under rice and generates an invitation. If no limit is evident, it falls under gruel and does not generate an invitation.

117. Herein is the determination (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9): In regard to “eating,” etc., what one is eating, and the food one is refusing while standing within the giver’s reach, that should be understood as one of these: rice, gruel, flour-food, fish, or meat. Here, cooked rice is what is prepared with the grains of the seven kinds of grain: rice, paddy, barley, wheat, millet, panic grass, and wild rice.

117. Here is the determination (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9): First, regarding seat, etc., what is eaten and what food is refused while standing within reach of the donor should be understood as one of the following: rice, barley porridge, flour, fish, or meat. Here, rice refers to the grain produced from seven types of crops: sāli, vīhi, yava, godhūma, kaṅgu, varaka, and kudrūsaka. Among these, sāli includes all varieties of sāli, even nīvāra. Vīhi includes all varieties of vīhi. Yava and godhūma have no distinction. Kaṅgu includes all varieties, whether white or black. Varaka includes all white varieties, even varakacoraka. Kudrūsaka includes black kudrūsaka and other grass grains like sāmāka. Nīvāra and varakacoraka are considered grains or grain-like. These seven types of grains, when taken as rice and cooked with the intention of making rice, gruel, or sour porridge, etc., if the rice is visible when eaten hot or cold, it is considered rice and generates an invitation. If the rice is not visible, it is considered gruel and does not generate an invitation.

Yopi pāyāso vā paṇṇaphalakaḷīramissakā ambilayāgu vā uddhanato otāritamattā abbhuṇhā hoti āvajjitvā pivituṃ sakkā, hatthena gahitokāsepi odhiṃ na dasseti, pavāraṇaṃ na janeti. Sace pana usumāya vigatāya sītalabhūtā ghanabhāvaṃ gacchati, odhiṃ dasseti, puna pavāraṇaṃ janeti, pubbe tanubhāvo na rakkhati. Sacepi dadhitakkādīni āropetvā bahū paṇṇaphalakaḷīre pakkhipitvā muṭṭhimattāpi taṇḍulā pakkhittā honti, bhojanakāle ce odhi paññāyati, pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Ayāguke nimantane “yāguṃ dassāmā”ti bhatte udakakañjikakhīrādīni ākiritvā “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti denti. Kiñcāpi tanuko hoti, pavāraṇaṃ janetiyeva. Sace pana pakkuthitesu udakādīsu pakkhipitvā pacitvā denti, yāgusaṅgahameva gacchati. Yāgusaṅgahaṃ gatepi tasmiṃ vā aññasmiṃ vā yattha macchamaṃsaṃ pakkhipanti, sace sāsapamattampi macchamaṃsakhaṇḍaṃ vā nhāru vā paññāyati, pavāraṇaṃ janeti, suddharasako pana rasakayāgu vā na janeti. Ṭhapetvā vuttadhaññataṇḍule aññehi veṇutaṇḍulādīhi vā kaṇḍamūlaphalehi vā yehi kehici kataṃ bhattampi pavāraṇaṃ na janeti, pageva ghanayāgu. Sace panettha macchamaṃsaṃ pakkhipanti, janeti. Mahāpaccariyaṃ “pupphiatthāya bhattampi pavāraṇaṃ janetī”ti vuttaṃ. Pupphiatthāya bhattaṃ nāma pupphikhajjakatthāya kuthitudake pakkhipitvā seditataṇḍulā vuccanti. Sace pana te taṇḍule sukkhāpetvā khādanti, vaṭṭati, neva sattusaṅkhyaṃ, na bhattasaṅkhyaṃ gacchanti. Puna tehi katabhattaṃ pavāretiyeva. Te taṇḍule sappitelādīsu vā pacanti, pūvaṃ vā karonti, na pavārenti. Puthukā vā tāhi katasattubhattādīni vā na pavārenti.

Porridge or gruel mixed with leaves, fruits, or shoots, just removed from the stove and still steaming hot, if tiltable and drinkable without showing a limit when held, does not generate an invitation. If the heat subsides, it cools, thickens, and shows a limit, it generates an invitation again—the prior thinness does not protect. Even if curd or buttermilk is added with much leaves, fruits, or shoots, and a fistful of grains is included, if a limit is evident at eating time, it generates an invitation. At an invitation with gruel, saying, “We will give gruel,” they pour water, sour liquid, or milk into rice and say, “Take gruel.” Though thin, it generates an invitation. If cooked after adding to boiling water or similar, it falls under gruel alone. Even in that or another where fish or meat is added, if even a mustard seed-sized piece of fish or meat or tendon is evident, it generates an invitation; pure juice or juice-gruel does not. Except for the stated grain types, rice made from bamboo grains or any root or fruit does not generate an invitation, let alone thick gruel. If fish or meat is added there, it generates an invitation. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “Rice for flowers generates an invitation.” Rice for flowers means grains boiled in water for chewing and settled. If they dry and eat them, it is allowable—they count neither as flour nor rice. Rice made from them generates an invitation. If they cook them in ghee or oil or make cakes, it does not generate an invitation. Puffed rice or flour or rice made from them does not generate an invitation.

Also, any kind of sweet rice gruel or sour gruel mixed with leaves, fruits, and shoots, which has just been taken off the fire and is not hot, and which can be sipped once poured, and does not show a solid mass even when held in the hand, does not create an invitation. However, if after the heat has dissipated and it has become cold, it reaches a solid state and shows a solid mass, then it creates an invitation; the previous liquid state does not prevent it. Even if many leaves, fruits, and shoots are added, and a handful of grains are mixed in with curd, buttermilk, etc., if a solid mass is discernible at the time of eating, it creates an invitation. At a non-gruel invitation, they say ‘We will give gruel,’ and they pour in water, sour rice-water, milk, etc., and say ‘Take gruel.’ Even though it is thin, it still creates an invitation. However, if they add them to boiling water, etc., cook it, and then offer it, it is reckoned as gruel. Even if it is reckoned as gruel, or in any other instance where fish or meat is added, if there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece of fish or meat or sinew visible, it creates an invitation, but plain broth, like a vegetable broth, does not. Anything prepared using grains other than the ones specified, such as bamboo grains, etc., or roots and fruits, even solid food, does not create an invitation, much less thickened gruel. However, if fish or meat is added to it, it does. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya that ‘even solid food made for the sake of flowers creates an invitation.’ Solid food made for the sake of flowers is said to be grains that have been soaked in boiling water and steamed for the sake of making flower-food. However, if they dry those grains and eat them, it is allowable; they do not enter into the category of flour-food or solid food. Again, solid food made from these creates an invitation. If they cook those grains in ghee, etc., or make them into cakes, they do not create an invitation. Crushed grains, or flour-foods, solid foods, etc., made with them, do not create an invitation.

Even if the porridge or sour gruel, mixed with leaves, fruits, or stems, is stirred and remains hot enough to drink, and no rice is visible even when held in the hand, it does not generate an invitation. However, if it cools and thickens, showing rice, it generates an invitation again, as the previous thinness is not maintained. Even if a handful of rice is mixed with dadhi, etc., and cooked with many leaves, fruits, or stems, if the rice is visible during the meal, it generates an invitation. In a gruel invitation, if water, kanjika, or milk is poured over the rice and offered as gruel, even if it is thin, it generates an invitation. However, if it is cooked by boiling with water, etc., it is considered gruel. Even if fish or meat is added to the gruel, if a mustard-seed-sized piece of fish or meat is visible, it generates an invitation, but pure rasa gruel does not. Except for the mentioned grains, rice made from bamboo grains, roots, or fruits does not generate an invitation, let alone thick gruel. However, if fish or meat is added, it generates an invitation. Mahāpaccariya states that even rice made for the purpose of flowers generates an invitation. Rice made for flowers refers to rice cooked with kuthi water and sedi rice. If these grains are dried and eaten, it is permissible, but they are not counted as rice or gruel. However, rice made from them still generates an invitation. If these grains are cooked with ghee, etc., or made into cakes, they do not generate an invitation. Ordinary people also do not invite with sattu or rice made from them.

Kummāso nāma yavehi katakummāso. Aññehi pana muggādīhi katakummāso pavāraṇaṃ na janeti.

Kummāsa means porridge made from yava. Porridge made from mung beans or similar does not generate an invitation.

Gruel (Kummāsa) is gruel made with barley. However, gruel made with other things, such as mung beans, etc., does not create an invitation.

Barley porridge (Kummāsa) refers to porridge made from barley. Porridge made from other grains like mung beans does not generate an invitation.

Sattu nāma sālivīhiyavehi katasattu. Kaṅguvarakakudrūsakasīsānipi bhajjitvā īsakaṃ koṭṭetvā thuse palāpetvā puna daḷhaṃ koṭṭetvā cuṇṇaṃ karonti. Sacepi taṃ allattā ekabaddhaṃ hoti, sattusaṅgahameva gacchati. Kharapākabhajjitānaṃ vīhīnaṃ taṇḍule koṭṭetvā denti, tampi cuṇṇaṃ sattusaṅgahameva gacchati. Samapākabhajjitānaṃ pana vīhīnaṃ vā vīhipalāsānaṃ vā taṇḍulā bhajjitataṇḍulā eva vā na pavārenti. Tesaṃ pana taṇḍulānaṃ cuṇṇaṃ pavāreti, kharapākabhajjitānaṃ vīhīnaṃ kuṇḍakampi pavāreti. Samapākabhajjitānaṃ pana ātapasukkhānaṃ vā kuṇḍakaṃ na pavāreti. Lājā vā tehi katabhattasattuādīni vā na pavārenti, bhajjitapiṭṭhaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci suddhakhajjakaṃ vā na pavāreti. Macchamaṃsapūritakhajjakaṃ pana sattumodako vā pavāreti. Maccho maṃsañca pākaṭameva.

Sattu means flour made from sāli, vīhi, or yava. Kaṅgu, varaka, kudrūsaka, or heads are roasted, slightly pounded, husks removed, and firmly pounded into powder. Even if wet and clumped, it falls under flour. Hard-roasted vīhi grains pounded and given as powder fall under flour. Evenly roasted vīhi or vīhi husks, roasted grains, or pounded grains do not generate an invitation. Their powder generates an invitation; hard-roasted vīhi chaff generates an invitation. Evenly roasted, sun-dried chaff does not generate an invitation. Popped rice or rice or flour made from them or any pure edible does not generate an invitation. Edibles filled with fish or meat or flour balls generate an invitation. Fish and meat are obvious.

Flour-food (Sattu) is flour-food made with rice, paddy, and barley. Millet, panic grass, wild rice, and sesame are also roasted, lightly crushed, their husks are winnowed, then they are thoroughly crushed and made into powder. Even if, because of its moistness, it is joined as one mass, it is still reckoned as flour-food. If one offers flour by grinding grains from fiercely parched paddy, that powder is also included in flour-food. Grains that have been moderately parched, of paddy, or grain and straw, or parched grain, do not produce an invitation.

Flour (Sattu) refers to flour made from sāli, vīhi, or barley. Even if kaṅgu, varaka, or kudrūsaka are roasted, slightly pounded, and sieved, then pounded again into powder, if it becomes moist and forms a lump, it is still considered flour. If the grains are roasted hard, pounded, and given as flour, it is still considered flour. However, if the grains are roasted evenly, their rice or chaff does not generate an invitation. Their powdered rice generates an invitation, but roasted grains do not. Roasted grains dried in the sun also do not generate an invitation. Lāja or rice flour made from them does not generate an invitation, nor does pure flour or any pure snack. However, snacks filled with fish or meat, or flour mixed with fish or meat, generate an invitation. Fish and meat are obvious.

Ayaṃ pana viseso – sace yāguṃ pivantassa yāgusitthamattāneva dve macchakhaṇḍāni vā maṃsakhaṇḍāni vā ekabhājane vā nānābhājane vā denti, tāni ce akhādanto aññaṃ yaṃ kiñci pavāraṇappahonakaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Tato ekaṃ khāditaṃ, ekaṃ hatthe vā patte vā hoti, so ce aññaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Dvepi khāditāni honti, mukhe sāsapamattampi avasiṭṭhaṃ natthi, sacepi aññaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kappiyamaṃsaṃ khādanto kappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Kappiyamaṃsaṃ khādanto akappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kasmā? Avatthutāya. Yañhi bhikkhuno khādituṃ vaṭṭati, taṃyeva paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Idaṃ pana jānanto akappiyattā paṭikkhipati, ajānantopi paṭikkhipitabbaṭṭhāne ṭhitameva paṭikkhipati nāma, tasmā na pavāreti. Sace pana akappiyamaṃsaṃ khādanto kappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Kasmā? Vatthutāya. Yañhi tena paṭikkhittaṃ, taṃ pavāraṇāya vatthu, yaṃ pana khādati, taṃ kiñcāpi paṭikkhipitabbaṭṭhāne ṭhitaṃ, khādiyamānaṃ pana maṃsabhāvaṃ na jahati, tasmā pavāreti. Akappiyamaṃsaṃ vā khādanto akappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, purimanayeneva na pavāreti. Kappiyamaṃsaṃ vā akappiyamaṃsaṃ vā khādanto pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ yaṃ kiñci kappiyabhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Kuladūsakavejjakammauttarimanussadhammārocanasāditarūpiyādīhi nibbattaṃ buddhapaṭikuṭṭhaṃ anesanāya uppannaṃ akappiyabhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kappiyabhojanaṃ vā akappiyabhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kappiyabhojanaṃ vā akappiyabhojanaṃ vā bhuñjantopi kappiyabhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Akappiyabhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāretīti sabbattha vuttanayeneva kāraṇaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Here is the distinction: if while drinking gruel, only gruel remains and two pieces of fish or meat are given in one or separate vessels, refusing another invitation-worthy food without eating them does not constitute an invitation. After eating one, with one in hand or bowl, refusing another constitutes an invitation. Both eaten, with not even a mustard seed remaining in the mouth, refusing another does not constitute an invitation. Eating allowable meat and refusing allowable meat constitutes an invitation. Eating allowable meat and refusing unallowable meat does not constitute an invitation—why? Due to lack of basis. Only refusing what a monk may eat constitutes an invitation. Knowing it is unallowable, he refuses; even unknowingly, he refuses what stands to be refused, so it does not constitute an invitation. Eating unallowable meat and refusing allowable meat constitutes an invitation—why? Due to basis. What is refused is the basis for invitation; what he eats, though standing to be refused, retains its meat nature while eaten, so it constitutes an invitation. Eating unallowable meat and refusing unallowable meat does not constitute an invitation, as before. Eating allowable or unallowable meat and refusing any allowable food among the five generates an invitation. Refusing unallowable food produced by corrupting a family, medical practice, claiming superhuman states, accepting money, or condemned by the Buddha does not constitute an invitation. Refusing allowable or unallowable food does not constitute an invitation. Eating allowable or unallowable food and refusing allowable food constitutes an invitation; refusing unallowable food does not—reasons should be understood as stated.

But here is the distinction: if, while one is drinking gruel, just the amount of two pieces of fish or two pieces of meat equal to the gruel are given, either in one vessel or in separate vessels, if, without eating them, one refuses something else that is sufficient to create an invitation, it does not create an invitation. Then, one has been eaten, and one is in the hand or bowl; if one then refuses something else, it creates an invitation. Both have been eaten; not even a mustard-seed-sized piece remains in the mouth; even if one refuses something else, it does not create an invitation. If one is eating properly prepared meat and refuses properly prepared meat, it creates an invitation. If one is eating properly prepared meat and refuses improperly prepared meat, it does not create an invitation. Why? Because of the lack of proper substance. For an invitation only occurs when one refuses that which is allowable for a bhikkhu to eat. If one refuses improperly prepared food, it does not create an invitation, because it is not proper food. In contrast, if one is eating improperly prepared meat and refuses properly prepared meat, it creates an invitation. Why? Because of proper substance. That which he has refused is the substance for invitation, but what he is eating, although it is in the place of what should be refused, it does not lose its nature of meat while it is being eaten, so, it produces invitation. If one is eating improperly prepared meat and refuses improperly prepared meat, it does not create an invitation, just as in the previous case. Whether one is eating properly prepared meat or improperly prepared meat, if one refuses any of the five kinds of food that is properly prepared, it creates an invitation. If one refuses improperly prepared food that is obtained through forbidden means, condemned by the Buddha, such as by family corruption, medical practice, declaring super-human states, carrying around coins, etc., it does not create an invitation. If one refuses allowable food, that is non-allowable, it does not create an invitation. Even while one is eating allowable food or non-allowable food, if one refuse allowable food, it creates an invitation. Refusing non-allowable food does not create invitation; the reason in every case should be understood as per the principles mentioned.

Here is a distinction: If, while drinking gruel, two pieces of fish or meat are given in the same or different vessels, and one refuses another suitable food without eating them, there is no invitation. If one piece is eaten and the other remains in the hand or bowl, and one refuses another, the invitation is valid. If both are eaten and nothing remains in the mouth, even if one refuses another, there is no invitation. Eating allowable meat and refusing allowable meat generates an invitation. Eating allowable meat and refusing unallowable meat does not generate an invitation. Why? Because of the inappropriateness. What a monk is allowed to eat, if refused, generates an invitation. However, if one refuses knowing it is unallowable, or refuses without knowing, it is still a refusal, and thus no invitation is generated. If one eats unallowable meat and refuses allowable meat, the invitation is valid. Why? Because of the appropriateness. What is refused is the basis for the invitation, and what is eaten, though it may be in a state to be refused, does not lose its nature as meat, so the invitation is valid. Eating unallowable meat and refusing unallowable meat does not generate an invitation, as before. Eating allowable or unallowable meat and refusing any of the five allowable foods generates an invitation. Food produced through wrong means, such as corrupting families, practicing medicine, or claiming superhuman powers, if refused, does not generate an invitation. Refusing allowable or unallowable food does not generate an invitation. Eating allowable or unallowable food and refusing allowable food generates an invitation. Refusing unallowable food does not generate an invitation. The reason should be understood as stated above.

118. Evaṃ “asana”ntiādīsu yañca asnāti, yañca bhojanaṃ hatthapāse ṭhitena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipanto pavāraṇaṃ āpajjati, taṃ utvā idāni yathā āpajjati, tassa jānanatthaṃ ayaṃ vinicchayo – asanaṃ bhojananti ettha tāva yena ekasitthampi ajjhohaṭaṃ hoti so sace pattamukhahatthānaṃ yattha katthaci pañcasu bhojanesu ekasmimpi sati aññaṃ pañcasu bhojanesu ekampi paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Katthaci bhojanaṃ natthi, āmisagandhamattaṃ paññāyati, na pavāreti. Mukhe ca hatthe ca bhojanaṃ natthi, patte atthi, tasmiṃ pana āsane abhuñjitukāmo, vihāraṃ vā pavisitvā bhuñjitukāmo, aññassa vā dātukāmo tasmiṃ ce antare bhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kasmā? Vippakatabhojanabhāvassa upacchinnattā. “Yopi aññatra gantvā bhuñjitukāmo mukhe bhattaṃ gilitvā sesaṃ ādāya gacchanto antarāmagge aññaṃ bhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, tassapi pavāraṇā na hotī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathā ca patte, evaṃ hatthepi. Mukhepi vā vijjamānaṃ bhojanaṃ sace anajjhoharitukāmo hoti, tasmiñca khaṇe aññaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Ekasmiñhi pade vuttaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ sabbattha veditabbaṃ hoti. Apica kurundiyaṃ esa nayo dassitoyeva. Vuttañhi tattha “mukhe bhattaṃ gilitaṃ, hatthe bhattaṃ vighāsādassa dātukāmo, patte bhattaṃ bhikkhussa dātukāmo, sace tasmiṃ khaṇe paṭikkhipati, na pavāretī”ti.

118. Having detailed what one eats and what food offered in the hatthapāsa is refused to incur an invitation, now the determination of how it is incurred is explained for understanding: In eating food, if even one morsel is swallowed and any of the five foods remains in the bowl, mouth, or hand, refusing any of the five foods constitutes an invitation. If no food is anywhere and only a food scent is evident, it does not constitute an invitation. No food in mouth or hand, but some in the bowl, and unwilling to eat at that seat—intending to eat in the monastery or give to another—if he refuses food in that interval, it does not constitute an invitation—why? Because the state of partial eating is interrupted. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “One intending to eat elsewhere, swallowing rice in the mouth and taking the rest, refusing food en route does not incur an invitation.” The same applies to the hand as to the bowl. Even with food in the mouth, if unwilling to swallow and refusing another at that moment, it does not constitute an invitation. A stated characteristic in one case applies everywhere. The Kurundiyaṃ shows this method, saying, “Rice swallowed in the mouth, rice in hand to give to a scavenger, rice in the bowl to give to a monk—if he refuses at that moment, he does not incur an invitation.”

118. Thus, regarding ‘eating’ etc., it was said what one eats and what food one is refusing while standing within offering reach results in creating an invitation. Now, here is a determination for understanding how this occurs: In ‘eating, food’, if even a single grain has been swallowed, and if any of the five foods is present anywhere in the bowl, mouth, or hand, and one refuses even one item from amongst the other five foods, one creates an invitation. If no food is present, only the smell of food, that does not produce invitation. If there is no food in the mouth or hand, but there is in the bowl, and one intends to eat not in that place, or to go into the monastery and eat, or to give it to someone else, if in the meantime one refuses food, it does not create an invitation. Why? Because the state of unfinished food has been interrupted. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya that ‘even if someone, intending to go elsewhere to eat, swallows the food in his mouth, takes the remainder, and while going along the road refuses other food, for him also there is no invitation.’ Just as with the bowl, so too with the hand. Also, if one does not intend to swallow the food present in the mouth, and at that moment refuses other food, it does not create an invitation. For the characteristic mentioned in one instance should be understood in all cases. Moreover, this principle is indeed shown in the Kurundi. For it is said there: ‘The food in the mouth has been swallowed; one intends to give the food in the hand to a scavenger; one intends to give the food in the bowl to a bhikkhu; if at that moment one refuses, it does not create an invitation.’

118. Thus, regarding seat, etc., what is eaten and what food is refused while standing within reach of the donor generates an invitation. Now, to understand how this happens, here is the determination: Seat and food: First, if even a single grain is swallowed, and if one refuses any of the five foods while holding the bowl or hand, the invitation is valid. If no food is present, but the smell of meat is detected, no invitation is generated. If there is no food in the mouth or hand, but there is food in the bowl, and one does not wish to eat it there, but wishes to enter the monastery or give it to another, and refuses the food in the meantime, no invitation is generated. Why? Because the state of uncooked food is interrupted. Mahāpaccariya states: “Even if one wishes to eat elsewhere, swallows the rice in the mouth, takes the rest, and on the way refuses another food, no invitation is generated.” The same applies to the hand as to the bowl. If food is present in the mouth and one does not wish to swallow it, and at that moment refuses another, no invitation is generated. The characteristic stated in one case should be understood in all cases. Moreover, this principle is shown in Kurundi. It is stated there: “If rice is swallowed in the mouth, rice is in the hand for giving to another, and rice is in the bowl for giving to a monk, and at that moment one refuses, no invitation is generated.”

Hatthapāse ṭhitoti ettha pana sace bhikkhu nisinno hoti, āsanassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāya, sace ṭhito, paṇhiantato paṭṭhāya, sace nipanno, yena passena nipanno, tassa pārimantato paṭṭhāya, dāyakassa nisinnassa vā ṭhitassa vā nipannassa vā ṭhapetvā pasāritahatthaṃ yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅgaṃ, tassa orimantena paricchinditvā aḍḍhateyyahattho “hatthapāso”ti veditabbo. Tasmiṃ ṭhatvā abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipantasseva pavāraṇā hoti, na tato paraṃ.

Standing in the hatthapāsa means: if the monk is sitting, from the seat’s rear edge; if standing, from the heel’s edge; if lying, from the edge of the side he lies on. Excluding the donor’s extended hand—whether sitting, standing, or lying—the nearest limb’s lower edge defines it, and two and a half hands is the hatthapāsa. Only refusing what is offered while standing there constitutes an invitation, not beyond.

Regarding ‘Standing within reach,’ if the bhikkhu is seated, then starting from the back edge of the seat, if standing, then starting from the heel, if lying down, then starting from the furthest edge of whichever side he is lying on, of the offerer who is seated, standing, or lying down, excluding the extended hand, the distance to the closest limb is two-and-a-half cubits, which is understood as ‘within reach.’ Only if one refuses an offering while standing within that distance does it create an invitation, not beyond that.

Standing within reach: Here, if a monk is sitting, the reach is measured from the back of the seat; if standing, from the heel; if lying down, from the side one is lying on. Excluding the donor’s outstretched hand, the nearest limb is measured as a cubit, and this is considered “within reach.” Standing there and refusing the offered food generates an invitation, but not beyond that.

Abhiharatīti hatthapāsabbhantare ṭhito gahaṇatthaṃ upanāmeti. Sace pana anantaranisinnopi bhikkhu hatthe vā ūrūsu vā ādhārake vā ṭhitaṃ pattaṃ anabhiharitvā “bhattaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi. Bhattapacchiṃ ānetvā purato bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā “gaṇhāhī”ti vuttepi eseva nayo. Īsakaṃ pana uddharitvā vā apanāmetvā vā “gaṇhathā”ti vutte paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Therāsane nisinno thero dūre nisinnassa daharabhikkhussa pattaṃ pesetvā “ito odanaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadati, gaṇhitvā pana gato tuṇhī tiṭṭhati, daharo “alaṃ mayha”nti paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kasmā? Therassa dūrabhāvato dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato. Sace pana gahetvā āgato bhikkhu “idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhā”ti vadati, taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Parivesanāyaeko ekena hatthena odanapacchiṃ, ekena kaṭacchuṃ gahetvā bhikkhuṃ parivisati, tatra ce añño āgantvā “ahaṃ pacchiṃ dhāressāmi, tvaṃ odanaṃ dehī”ti vatvā gahitamattameva karoti, parivesako eva pana taṃ dhāreti, tasmā sā abhihaṭāva hoti, tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hoti. Sace pana parivesakena phuṭṭhamattāva hoti, itarova naṃ dhāreti, tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā na hoti, kaṭacchunā uddhaṭabhatte pana hoti. Kaṭacchunā abhihāroyeva hi tassa abhihāro. “Dvinnaṃ samabhārepi paṭikkhipanto pavāretiyevā”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Anantarassa bhikkhuno bhatte dīyamāne itaro pattaṃ hatthena pidahati, pavāraṇā natthi. Kasmā? Aññassa abhihaṭe paṭikkhittattā.

Offers means bringing it within the hatthapāsa for taking. If a nearby monk, without offering a bowl in hand, on thighs, or on a stand, says, “Take rice,” refusing it does not constitute an invitation. Bringing a rice basket, placing it on the ground before him, and saying, “Take it,” follows the same rule. But lifting or moving it slightly and saying, “Take it,” refusing it constitutes an invitation. An elder seated in the senior seat sends a bowl to a young monk far off, saying, “Take rice from here,” and the taker stands silent; the young monk refuses, saying, “Enough for me”—it does not constitute an invitation—why? Due to the elder’s distance and the messenger’s lack of offering. If the monk who took it says, “Take this rice,” refusing it constitutes an invitation. One serving takes a rice basket in one hand and a spoon in the other to serve a monk; if another comes, saying, “I’ll hold the basket, you give rice,” and merely takes it, but the server holds it, it remains offered—refusing it with intent to take constitutes an invitation. If only touched by the server and held by the other, refusing it with intent to take does not constitute an invitation; but with rice scooped by a spoon, it does. The spoon’s offering is his offering. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “Even with equal shares of two, refusing constitutes an invitation.” Covering the bowl with the hand when rice is given to the next monk does not constitute an invitation—why? Because what is offered to another is refused.

‘Offering’ means bringing (the food) forward for acceptance while standing within reach. However, even if a bhikkhu is seated nearby, if he says, ‘Take the solid food,’ without bringing forward the bowl that is on the hand, on the lap, or on a stand, there is no invitation for one who refuses it. The same principle applies if the alms-basket is brought and placed on the ground in front and one says, ‘Take it.’ However, if one lifts it slightly or moves it aside and says, ‘Take it,’ there is an invitation for one who refuses it. A senior monk seated on a senior seat sends a bowl to a junior monk seated at a distance and says, ‘Take some rice from here.’ Having taken it, he goes and remains silent. The junior monk says, ‘That is enough for me,’ and refuses; it does not create an invitation. Why? Because of the senior monk’s distance and the messenger’s not offering it. However, if the bhikkhu who brought it says, ‘Take this solid food,’ it creates an invitation for one who refuses it. One person is serving food, holding the alms-basket with one hand and the ladle with the other. If another person comes and says, ‘I will hold the basket; you give the solid food,’ and merely takes hold of it, but the server is still holding it, then it is still considered as offered; therefore, it creates an invitation for one who refuses to take from it, intending to give. However, if it is merely touched by the server and the other person is holding it, then it does not create an invitation for one who refuses to take from it, intending to give; but it does create an invitation with the solid food lifted with the ladle. For the offering with the ladle is indeed his offering. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya that ‘even if the weight is shared by two people, one who refuses still creates an invitation.’ If, while solid food is being given to the adjacent bhikkhu, another covers the bowl with his hand, there is no invitation. Why? Because he has refused what was offered to someone else.

Offering: Standing within reach, the donor offers for the purpose of giving. If a monk sitting nearby does not offer the bowl in his hand or on his lap or stand, but says, “Take the food,” and refuses, no invitation is generated. Even if the food is brought and placed in front on the ground, and one says, “Take it,” the same applies. However, if one lifts it slightly or moves it away and says, “Take it,” and refuses, the invitation is valid. An elder sitting on an elder’s seat sends a bowl to a young monk sitting far away and says, “Take rice from here,” and the young monk takes it and remains silent, then says, “Enough for me,” and refuses, no invitation is generated. Why? Because of the elder’s distance and the messenger’s lack of offering. However, if the monk takes it and comes back and says, “Take this food,” and one refuses, the invitation is valid. A server holding a rice ladle in one hand and a spoon in the other serves a monk, and if another comes and says, “I will hold the ladle, you give the rice,” and takes it, the server still holds it, so it is considered offered, and refusing it generates an invitation. If the server only touches it, and the other holds it, then refusing it does not generate an invitation, but it does if the food is taken with a spoon. The offering with the spoon is indeed the offering. Mahāpaccariya states: “Even if two are equally balanced, refusing generates an invitation.” If, while food is being given to a nearby monk, another covers the bowl with his hand, no invitation is generated. Why? Because the refusal is of another’s offering.

Paṭikkhepo paññāyatīti ettha vācāya abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi, kāyena abhihaṭaṃ pana yena kenaci ākārena kāyena vā vācāya vā paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hotīti veditabbo. Tatra kāyena paṭikkhepo nāma aṅguliṃ vā hatthaṃ vā makkhikābījaniṃ vā cīvarakaṇṇaṃ vā cāleti, bhamukāya vā ākāraṃ karoti, kuddho vā oloketi. Vācāya paṭikkhepo nāma “ala”nti vā “na gaṇhāmī”ti vā “mā ākirā”ti vā “apagacchā”ti vā vadati. Evaṃ yena kenaci ākārena kāyena vā vācāya vā paṭikkhitte pavāraṇā hoti.

Refusal is evident means refusing by speech what is offered by speech does not constitute an invitation; but refusing what is offered by body, in any manner by body or speech, constitutes an invitation. Bodily refusal means moving a finger, hand, fly whisk, or robe corner, making a facial gesture, or looking angrily. Verbal refusal means saying, “Enough,” “I won’t take,” “Don’t pour,” or “Go away.” In any manner, by body or speech, refusal constitutes an invitation.

In ‘refusal is known,’ there is no invitation for one who refuses what is offered by word; it is to be understood that it produces an invitation for the one who refuses what is offered by action, through any action of body or word. Here, refusal by body means one moves a finger, a hand, a fly-whisk, the corner of a robe, makes a facial expression with the eyebrows, or gives an angry look. Refusal by word means saying ‘Enough,’ ‘I will not take it,’ ‘Do not pour it,’ or ‘Go away.’ Thus, when refused in any way by body or speech, it creates an invitation.

Refusal is evident: Here, refusing an offered food verbally does not generate an invitation, but refusing it physically in any way, whether by body or speech, generates an invitation. Physical refusal means moving a finger, hand, fly whisk, robe edge, or making a facial expression, or looking angrily. Verbal refusal means saying, “Enough,” “I will not take,” “Do not pour,” or “Go away.” Thus, refusing in any way by body or speech generates an invitation.

119. Eko abhihaṭe bhatte pavāraṇāya bhīto hatthe apanetvā punappunaṃ patte odanaṃ ākirantaṃ “ākira ākira, koṭṭetvā koṭṭetvā pūrehī”ti vadati, ettha kathanti? Mahāsumatthero tāva “anākiraṇatthāya vuttattā pavāraṇā hotī”ti āha. Mahāpadumatthero pana “ākira pūrehīti vadantassa nāma kassaci pavāraṇā atthī”ti vatvā “na pavāretī”ti āha.

119. One, fearing an invitation when rice is offered, removes it from hand and says to one repeatedly pouring rice into the bowl, “Pour, pour, fill it by pounding and pounding”—what of this? Elder Mahāsuma says, “Since it is said to prevent pouring, it constitutes an invitation.” Elder Mahāpaduma says, “Who incurs an invitation saying, ‘Pour, fill’?” and says, “He does not incur an invitation.”

119. One, being afraid of invitation regarding the offered solid food, removes his hands and says to someone repeatedly pouring solid food into his bowl, ‘Pour, pour, fill it up by mashing it in, mashing it in.’ What about this case? Mahāsummatthera indeed says, ‘Because it is said with the intention of not having it poured, it creates an invitation.’ Mahāpadumatthera, however, says, ‘Whoever says “Pour, fill it up,” does that person have any invitation?’ and he says, ‘It does not create an invitation.’

119. One who is afraid of an invitation for offered food repeatedly moves his hand away and says, “Pour, pour, fill it up,” what is the ruling here? First, Mahāsumatthera says, “Since it is said to prevent pouring, the invitation is valid.” However, Mahāpadumatthera says, “Saying ‘pour, fill it up’ does not constitute an invitation for anyone,” and thus, “No invitation is generated.”

Aparo bhattaṃ abhiharantaṃ bhikkhuṃ sallakkhetvā “kiṃ, āvuso, itopi kiñci gaṇhissasi, dammi te kiñcī”ti āha, tatrāpi “evaṃ nāgamissatīti vuttattā pavāraṇā hotī”ti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero pana “gaṇhissasīti vadantassa nāma kassaci pavāraṇā atthī”ti vatvā “na pavāretī”ti āha.

Another, seeing a monk offering rice, says, “Friend, will you take something from here too? I’ll give you something”—here too, Elder Mahāsuma says, “Since it implies he won’t come, it constitutes an invitation.” Elder Mahāpaduma says, “Who incurs an invitation saying, ‘You’ll take’?” and says, “He does not incur an invitation.”

Another, noticing a bhikkhu offering solid food, says, ‘What, friend, will you take anything more? I will give you something.’ In that case also, Mahāsummatthera says, ‘Because it is said so that he will not come again, it creates an invitation.’ Mahāpadumatthera, however, says, ‘Whoever says, “Will you take?” does that person have any invitation?’ and he says, ‘It does not create an invitation.’

Another, observing a monk offering food, says, “What, friend, will you take something from here? I will give you something.” Here too, Mahāsumatthera says, “Since it is said to prevent acceptance, the invitation is valid.” However, Mahāpadumatthera says, “Saying ‘you will take’ does not constitute an invitation for anyone,” and thus, “No invitation is generated.”

Eko samaṃsakaṃ rasaṃ abhiharitvā “rasaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, taṃ sutvā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi. “Macchamaṃsarasa”nti vutte paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti, “idaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttepi hotiyeva. Maṃsaṃ visuṃ katvā “maṃsarasaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, “tattha ce sāsapamattampi maṃsakhaṇḍaṃ atthi, taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Sace pana parissāvito hoti, vaṭṭatī”ti abhayatthero āha.

One brings meat juice and says, “Take juice”—refusing it does not constitute an invitation. Saying, “Fish or meat juice,” refusing it constitutes an invitation; saying, “Take this,” it does too. Separating meat and saying, “Take meat juice”—if even a mustard seed-sized piece of meat is present, refusing it constitutes an invitation; if filtered, it is allowable, says Elder Abhaya.

One offers broth with meat and says, ‘Take the broth.’ Hearing that, there is no invitation for one who refuses. If it is said ‘Fish and meat broth’, there is an invitation for one who refuses. It also occurs, if “take this” is stated. If one prepares meat separately and says, ‘Take the meat broth,’ and if there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece of meat in it, there is an invitation for one who refuses it. However, if it has been strained, Abhayatthera says, ‘it is allowable.’

One who offers a meat broth and says, “Take the broth,” if refused, no invitation is generated. If it is said, “Fish or meat broth,” and one refuses, the invitation is valid. If it is said, “Take this,” it is also valid. If meat is separated and said, “Take the meat broth,” and if even a mustard-seed-sized piece of meat is present, refusing it generates an invitation. However, if it is strained, it is permissible, says Abhayatthera.

Maṃsarasena āpucchantaṃ mahāthero “muhuttaṃ āgamehī”ti vatvā “thālakaṃ, āvuso, āharā”ti āha, ettha kathanti? Mahāsumatthero tāva “abhihārakassa gamanaṃ upacchinnaṃ, tasmā pavāretī”ti āha. Mahāpadumatthero pana “ayaṃ kuhiṃ gacchati, kīdisaṃ etassa gamanaṃ, gaṇhantassapi nāma kassaci pavāraṇā atthī”ti vatvā “na pavāretī”ti āha.

A great elder, asked with meat juice, says, “Wait a moment,” then, “Friend, bring a dish”—what of this? Elder Mahāsuma says, “The offerer’s movement is interrupted, so it constitutes an invitation.” Elder Mahāpaduma says, “Where is he going? What is his movement? Who incurs an invitation while taking?” and says, “He does not incur an invitation.”

A senior monk, having asked for meat broth, says, ‘Wait a moment,’ and then says, ‘Bring the plate, friend.’ What about this case? Mahāsummatthera indeed says, ‘The approach of the offerer has been interrupted, therefore it creates an invitation.’ Mahāpadumatthera, however, says, ‘Where is this person going? What kind of going is this for him? Whoever says, ’taking’, does that person have any invitation?’ and he says, ‘It does not create an invitation.’

A senior monk, when asked about meat broth, says, “Wait a moment,” and then says, “Bring a bowl, friend,” what is the ruling here? Mahāsumatthera says, “Since the offering is interrupted, the invitation is valid.” However, Mahāpadumatthera says, “Where is he going? What is his going like? Even for one who is taking, there is no invitation for anyone,” and thus, “No invitation is generated.”

Kaḷīrapanasādīhi missetvā maṃsaṃ pacanti, taṃ gahetvā “kaḷīrasūpaṃ gaṇhatha, panasabyañjanaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadanti, evampi na pavāreti. Kasmā? Apavāraṇārahassa nāmena vuttattā. Sace pana “macchasūpaṃ maṃsasūpa”nti vā “idaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vā vadanti, pavāreti, maṃsakarambako nāma hoti. Taṃ dātukāmopi “karambakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, vaṭṭati, na pavāreti, “maṃsakarambaka”nti vā “ida”nti vā vutte pana pavāreti. Esa nayo sabbesu macchamaṃsamissakesu.

They cook meat mixed with shoots or jackfruit and say, “Take shoot soup, take jackfruit curry”—this too does not constitute an invitation—why? Because it is named as unworthy of invitation. But saying, “Fish soup, meat soup,” or “Take this,” constitutes an invitation—it becomes a meat mixture. Even intending to give it, saying, “Take mixture,” is allowable and does not constitute an invitation; but saying, “Meat mixture” or “This,” constitutes an invitation. This applies to all fish and meat mixtures.

They cook meat mixed with shoots, plantains, etc. Taking that, they say, ‘Take the shoot soup, take the plantain curry.’ Even in this case, it does not create an invitation. Why? Because it is said by the name of something that does not create an invitation. However, if they say ‘fish soup, meat soup,’ or ‘Take this,’ it creates an invitation; it is called meat curry. Even if one intends to give it, if one says, ‘Take the curry,’ it is allowable; it does not create an invitation. But if it is said ‘meat curry’ or ‘this,’ then it creates an invitation. This principle applies to all mixtures with fish and meat.

Meat cooked with sugarcane juice, etc., and offered as “Take the sugarcane broth, take the sugarcane sauce,” does not generate an invitation. Why? Because it is named as unsuitable for invitation. However, if it is said, “Take the fish broth, meat broth,” or “Take this,” the invitation is valid. A meat curry is also permissible. Even if one wishes to give it and says, “Take the curry,” it is permissible, but no invitation is generated. If it is said, “Take the meat curry,” or “Take this,” the invitation is valid. This principle applies to all mixtures of fish and meat.

120. “Yo pana nimantane bhuñjamāno maṃsaṃ abhihaṭaṃ ’uddissakata’nti maññamāno paṭikkhipati, pavāritova hotī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Missakakathā pana kurundiyaṃ suṭṭhu vuttā. Evañhi tattha vuttaṃ – piṇḍacāriko bhikkhu bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, na pavāreti, “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte pavāreti. Kasmā? Yenāpucchito, tassa atthitāya. Ayamettha adhippāyo – “yāgumissakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, tatra ce yāgu bahutarā vā hoti samasamā vā, na pavāreti. Yāgu mandā, bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ, pavāreti. Idañca sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu vuttattā na sakkā paṭikkhipituṃ, kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasaṃ. “Bhattamissakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ vā samaṃ vā appataraṃ vā hoti, pavāretiyeva . Bhattaṃ vā yāguṃ vā anāmasitvā “missakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, tatra ce bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ vā samakaṃ vā hoti, pavāreti, appataraṃ na pavāreti, idañca karambakena na samānetabbaṃ. Karambako hi maṃsamissakopi hoti amaṃsamissakopi, tasmā karambakanti vutte pavāraṇā natthi, idaṃ pana bhattamissakameva. Ettha vuttanayeneva pavāraṇā hoti. Bahurase bhatte rasaṃ, bahukhīre khīraṃ, bahusappimhi ca pāyāse sappiṃ gaṇhathāti visuṃ katvā deti, taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi.

120. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “One eating at an invitation, refusing meat offered thinking it is ‘specially prepared,’ is considered invited.” Mixed cases are well explained in the Kurundiyaṃ. It says there: an alms-going monk brings mixed rice gruel and says, “Take gruel”—it does not constitute an invitation; saying, “Take rice,” it does—why? Due to the presence of what he asks for. The intent here is: saying, “Take mixed gruel,” if gruel is more or equal, it does not constitute an invitation. If gruel is scant and rice more, it constitutes an invitation. This, stated in all commentaries, cannot be refuted, though the reason is hard to see. Saying, “Take mixed rice,” whether rice is more, equal, or less, it constitutes an invitation. Saying, “Take mixture,” without naming rice or gruel, if rice is more or equal, it constitutes an invitation; if less, it does not—this should not be equated with a mixture. A mixture may be with or without meat, so saying “mixture” does not constitute an invitation; this is mixed rice. Invitation occurs as stated. In rice with much juice, juice; with much milk, milk; with much ghee in porridge, ghee—given separately, refusing it does not constitute an invitation.

120. “One who, while eating at an invitation, refuses meat that has been brought, thinking ‘It was specifically prepared,’ is considered to have refused,” it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. But the discussion of mixtures is well stated in the Kurundi. For it is said there thus: A piṇḍapāta (piṇḍapāta) monk brings rice gruel mixed with solid food and says, “Take the gruel,” he does not refuse. If he says, “Take the solid food,” he refuses. Why? Because of the existence of that by which he was asked. This is the meaning here: He says, “Take the gruel mixture.” There, if the gruel is more or equal, he does not refuse. If the gruel is less, the solid food more, he refuses. And this, because it is said in all the commentaries, cannot be refuted, the reason here is difficult to see. He says, “Take the solid food mixture,” whether the solid food is more, equal, or less, he refuses. Without mentioning either solid food or gruel, he says, “Take the mixture,” there, if the solid food is more or equal, he refuses, if less, he does not refuse, and this should not be equated with gruel. For gruel can be both mixed with meat and not mixed with meat, therefore when “gruel” is said, there is no refusal, but this is only a solid food mixture. Refusal is according to the method stated here. If he gives separately saying, “Take the juice,” in solid food with much juice, “Take the milk,” in milk, “Take the ghee,” in ghee-rice pudding, there is no refusal for one who refuses that.

120. “If one, while eating at an invitation, refuses meat that has been brought, thinking it was specially prepared for him, he is considered to have declined.” This is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. The discussion on mixed food is well explained in the Kurundiya. There it is said: A monk who goes for alms brings back rice mixed with gruel and says, “Take the gruel,” but does not decline. However, if he says, “Take the rice,” he declines. Why? Because he was asked, and it exists. The meaning here is: If he says, “Take the mixed gruel,” and the gruel is more or equal, he does not decline. If the gruel is less and the rice is more, he declines. 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 mixed rice,” and the rice is more, equal, or less, he still declines. If he says, “Take the mixed,” without touching the rice or gruel, and the rice is more or equal, he declines; if less, he does not decline. This should not be equated with the karambaka. The karambaka may be mixed with meat or without meat; therefore, when the karambaka is mentioned, there is no decline. This, however, refers only to mixed rice. Here, the decline is to be understood in the manner stated. In a meal with many flavors, one may separately take the flavor, in milk, the milk, and in a dish with much ghee, the ghee. If one refuses, there is no decline.

Yo pana gacchanto pavāreti, so gacchantova bhuñjituṃ labhati. Kaddamaṃ vā udakaṃ vā patvā ṭhitena atirittaṃ kāretabbaṃ. Sace antarā nadī pūrā hoti, nadītīre gumbaṃ anupariyāyantena bhuñjitabbaṃ. Atha nāvā vā setu vā atthi, taṃ abhiruhitvāpi caṅkamanteneva bhuñjitabbaṃ, gamanaṃ na upacchinditabbaṃ. Yāne vā hatthiassapiṭṭhe vā candamaṇḍale vā sūriyamaṇḍale vā nisīditvā pavāritena yāva majjhanhikaṃ, tāva tesu gacchantesupi nisinneneva bhuñjitabbaṃ. Yo ṭhito pavāreti, ṭhiteneva, yo nisinno pavāreti, nisinneneva paribhuñjitabbaṃ, taṃ taṃ iriyāpathaṃ vikopentena atirittaṃ kāretabbaṃ. Yo ukkuṭiko nisīditvā pavāreti, tena ukkuṭikeneva bhuñjitabbaṃ. Tassa pana heṭṭhā palālapīṭhaṃ vā kiñci vā nisīdanakaṃ dātabbaṃ. Pīṭhake nisīditvā pavāritena āsanaṃ acāletvāva catasso disā parivattantena bhuñjituṃ labbhati. Mañce nisīditvā pavāritena ito vā etto vā sañcarituṃ na labbhati. Sace pana naṃ saha mañcena ukkhipitvā aññatra nenti, vaṭṭati. Nipajjitvā pavāritena nipanneneva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Parivattantena yena passena nipanno, tassa ṭhānaṃ nātikkametabbaṃ.

One who incurs an invitation while walking may eat while walking. Reaching mud or water, he should have the remainder made allowable while standing. If a river is full en route, eat while circling a bush on the bank. If there is a boat or bridge, eat while crossing or pacing on it—walking must not be interrupted. Riding a cart, elephant, horse, moon, or sun, one who incurs an invitation must eat seated in them until noon while they move. One incurring an invitation standing must eat standing; one seated, seated—changing posture requires making the remainder allowable. One incurring an invitation squatting must eat squatting; a straw seat or something to sit on may be given. One incurring an invitation on a stool may eat turning to the four directions without moving the seat. One on a bed incurring an invitation cannot move here or there. If carried with the bed elsewhere, it is allowable. One incurring an invitation lying must eat lying; turning, he must not exceed the space of the side he lay on.

But one who refuses while walking can eat while walking. Having reached mud or water, he should stop and make it extra. If in the meantime the river is full, he should eat while walking around a thicket on the riverbank. But if there is a boat or a bridge, he should eat even while walking on it, the journey should not be interrupted. Sitting in a vehicle, or on the back of an elephant, or in the circle of the moon, or in the circle of the sun, one who has refused should eat only while seated, even while they are moving, until midday. One who refuses while standing should eat only while standing; one who refuses while sitting should eat only while sitting; breaking that posture, he should make it extra. One who refuses while sitting on his heels should eat only while sitting on his heels. But a palmyra leaf seat or something to sit on should be given below him. One who has refused while sitting on a seat can eat while turning in the four directions without moving the seat. One who has refused while sitting on a couch cannot move here or there. But if they lift him together with the couch and take him elsewhere, it is permissible. One who has refused while lying down should eat only while lying down. While turning, he should not go beyond the place of the side on which he was lying.

If one declines while walking, he is allowed to eat while walking. If he reaches mud or water, he should stop and make it allowable. If a river is full on the way, he should eat while walking along the riverbank. If there is a boat or bridge, he should eat while walking on it, without interrupting the journey. If one declines while sitting on a vehicle, elephant, horse, or in a carriage, he should eat while sitting until midday, even if the vehicle is moving. If one declines while standing, he should eat while standing; if sitting, he should eat while sitting. If he changes his posture, he should make it allowable. If one declines while sitting in a crouched position, he should eat while crouched. However, a straw seat or some other sitting material should be provided below. If one declines while sitting on a bench, he should eat without moving the seat, turning in the four directions. If one declines while sitting on a bed, he cannot move here or there. If, however, the bed is lifted and moved elsewhere, it is allowable. If one declines while lying down, he should eat while lying down. While turning, he should not go beyond the side he is lying on.

121. Pavāritena pana kiṃkātabbanti? Yena iriyāpathena pavārito hoti, taṃ vikopetvā aññena iriyāpathena ce bhuñjati, atirittaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Anatirittaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikasaṅgahitaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādati vā bhuñjati vā, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

121. What should one who has incurred an invitation do? If he eats changing the posture in which he incurred it, he must make the remainder allowable and eat. Eating any unallowable time-limited edible or food without making it allowable incurs a pācittiya offense with each swallow.

121. But what should be done by one who has refused? If he breaks the posture in which he refused and eats in another posture, he should eat after making it extra. But if he eats or consumes any unconverted allowable or edible food included in the timely category, with each swallow, there is a pācittiya offense.

121. What should be done by one who has declined? If one eats in a posture different from the one in which he declined, he should make it allowable before eating. However, if one eats any allowable food or drink without making it allowable, he commits a pācittiya offense with each mouthful.

Tattha anatirittaṃ nāma nātirittaṃ, na adhikanti attho. Taṃ pana yasmā kappiyakatādīhi sattahi vinayakammākārehi akataṃ vā gilānassa anadhikaṃ vā hoti, tasmā padabhājane vuttaṃ –

Here, unallowable means not made allowable, not exceeding—its meaning. Since it is either not made allowable by the seven Vinaya acts or not exceeding for the sick, the analysis says:

Here, unconverted means not extra, not additional. But since it is either not made by the seven acts of discipline, such as making it allowable, etc., or is not additional for a sick person, it is said in the section-commentary:

Here, anatirittaṃ means not made allowable, not excessive. Since it is not made allowable by the seven Vinaya procedures such as making it allowable, or it is not excessive for the sick, therefore it is said in the word analysis:

“Anatirittaṃ nāma akappiyakataṃ hoti, appaṭiggahitakataṃ hoti, anuccāritakataṃ hoti, ahatthapāse kataṃ hoti, abhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti, bhuttāvinā ca pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kataṃ hoti, ’alametaṃ sabba’nti avuttaṃ hoti, na gilānātirittaṃ hoti, etaṃ anatirittaṃ nāmā”ti (pāci. 239).

“Unallowable means made unallowable, made unreceived, made unuttered, made outside the hatthapāsa, made by one who has not eaten, made by one who has eaten and incurred an invitation rising from the seat, not said as ‘Enough, all this,’ and not exceeding for the sick—this is called unallowable” (pāci. 239).

“Unconverted means that it is not made allowable, it is not made accepted, it is not made lifted, it is not made within hand-reach, it is not made without having eaten, it is made by one who has eaten and refused and has risen from the seat, it is not said ‘All this is enough,’ it is not the remainder of a sick person, this is called unconverted.” (pāci. 239).

“Anatirittaṃ means not made allowable, not received, not announced, not done within arm’s reach, not done by one who has finished eating, not done by one who has declined and risen from the seat, not said ‘enough,’ and not made allowable for the sick. This is called anatirittaṃ” (pāci. 239).

Tattha akappiyakatanti yaṃ tattha phalaṃ vā kandamūlādiṃ vā pañcahi samaṇakappehi kappiyaṃ akataṃ, yañca akappiyamaṃsaṃ vā akappiyabhojanaṃ vā, etaṃ akappiyaṃ nāma. Taṃ akappiyaṃ “alametaṃ sabba”nti evaṃ atirittaṃ katampi “akappiyakata”nti veditabbaṃ. Appaṭiggahitakatanti bhikkhunā appaṭiggahitaṃyeva purimanayena atirittaṃ kataṃ. Anuccāritakatanti kappiyaṃ kāretuṃ āgatena bhikkhunā īsakampi anukkhittaṃ vā anapanāmitaṃ vā kataṃ. Ahatthapāse katanti kappiyaṃ kāretuṃ āgatassa hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitena kataṃ. Abhuttāvinā katanti yo “alametaṃ sabba”nti atirittaṃ karoti, tena pavāraṇappahonakabhojanaṃ abhuttena kataṃ. Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena katanti idaṃ uttānameva. “Alametaṃ sabba”nti avuttanti vacībhedaṃ katvā evaṃ avuttaṃ hoti. Iti imehi sattahi vinayakammākārehi yaṃ atirittaṃ kappiyaṃ akataṃ, yañca na gilānātirittaṃ, tadubhayampi “anatiritta”nti veditabbaṃ.

Here, made unallowable means fruit, roots, or similar not made allowable by the five monastic methods, or unallowable meat or food—this is unallowable. Even made allowable saying, “Enough, all this,” it is understood as “made unallowable.” Made unreceived means made allowable by a monk without receiving as before. Made unuttered means made by a monk coming to make it allowable without slightly lifting or moving it. Made outside the hatthapāsa means made by one standing beyond the hatthapāsa of the one coming to make it allowable. Made by one who has not eaten means made by one who has not eaten invitation-worthy food saying, “Enough, all this.” Made by one who has eaten and incurred an invitation rising from the seat is clear. Not said as ‘Enough, all this’ means not said with a break in speech. Thus, what is made allowable by these seven Vinaya acts as unallowable and not exceeding for the sick—both are understood as “unallowable.”

Here, not made allowable means that fruit, tuber, root, etc., there is not made allowable by the five monk-allowables, and unallowable meat or unallowable food, this is called unallowable. That unallowable, even if made extra saying, “All this is enough,” should be understood as “not made allowable.” Not made accepted means not accepted by a monk, made extra according to the previous method. Not made lifted means not slightly lifted or removed by a monk who has come to make it allowable. Not made within hand-reach means made by one standing outside the hand-reach of one who has come to make it allowable. Not made without having eaten means that by one who makes it extra saying, “All this is enough,” it is made without having eaten the refusal-sufficient food. Made by one who has eaten and refused and has risen from the seat, this is self-explanatory. Not said ‘All this is enough’ means, having made a verbal distinction, it is not said thus. Thus, what is not made extra and allowable by these seven acts of discipline, and what is not the remainder of a sick person, both should be understood as “unconverted.”

Here, akappiyakataṃ means any fruit or root, etc., not made allowable by the five ascetic practices, or any meat or food not made allowable. This is called akappiyaṃ. Even if it is made allowable by saying “enough,” it should be understood as akappiyakataṃ. Appaṭiggahitakataṃ means not received by a monk, but made allowable in the previous manner. Anuccāritakataṃ means not announced by a monk who has come to make it allowable, even slightly. Ahatthapāse kataṃ means done outside the arm’s reach of one who has come to make it allowable. Abhuttāvinā kataṃ means done by one who has not finished eating but has made it allowable by saying “enough.” Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kataṃ means done by one who has finished eating, declined, and risen from the seat. “Alametaṃ sabba”nti avuttaṃ means not said with verbal expression. Thus, anything made allowable by these seven Vinaya procedures but not made allowable, or not made allowable for the sick, should be understood as anatirittaṃ.

122. Atirittaṃ pana tasseva paṭipakkhanayena veditabbaṃ. Teneva vuttaṃ padabhājane –

122. The allowable is understood by the opposite method. Thus, the analysis says:

122. But the converted should be understood by the opposite method of that. Therefore, it is said in the section-commentary:

122. Atirittaṃ should be understood in the opposite manner. Therefore, it is said in the word analysis:

“Atirittaṃ nāma kappiyakataṃ hoti, paṭiggahitakataṃ hoti, uccāritakataṃ hoti, hatthapāse kataṃ hoti, bhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti, bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā avuṭṭhitena kataṃ hoti, ’alametaṃ sabba’nti vuttaṃ hoti, gilānātirittaṃ hoti, etaṃ atirittaṃ nāmā”ti (pāci. 239).

“Allowable means made allowable, made received, made uttered, made in the hatthapāsa, made by one who has eaten, made by one who has eaten and incurred an invitation without rising from the seat, said as ‘Enough, all this,’ and exceeding for the sick—this is called allowable” (pāci. 239).

“Converted means that it is made allowable, it is made accepted, it is made lifted, it is made within hand-reach, it is made without having eaten, it is made by one who has eaten and refused and has not risen from the seat, it is said ‘All this is enough,’ it is the remainder of a sick person, this is called converted.” (pāci. 239).

“Atirittaṃ means made allowable, received, announced, done within arm’s reach, done by one who has finished eating, done by one who has declined and not risen from the seat, said ‘enough,’ and made allowable for the sick. This is called atirittaṃ” (pāci. 239).

Apicettha bhuttāvinā kataṃ hotīti anantaranisinnassa sabhāgassa bhikkhuno pattato ekampi sitthaṃ vā maṃsahīraṃ vā khāditvā katampi “bhuttāvināva kataṃ hotī”ti veditabbaṃ. Āsanā avuṭṭhitenāti ettha pana asammohatthaṃ ayaṃ vinicchayo – dve bhikkhū pātoyeva bhuñjamānā pavāritā honti, ekena tattheva nisīditabbaṃ, itarena niccabhattaṃ vā salākabhattaṃ vā ānetvā upaḍḍhaṃ tassa bhikkhuno patte ākiritvā hatthaṃ dhovitvā sesaṃ tena bhikkhunā kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Yañhi tassa hatthe laggaṃ, taṃ akappiyaṃ hoti. Sace pana paṭhamaṃ nisinno bhikkhu sayameva tassa pattato hatthena gaṇhāti, hatthadhovanakiccaṃ natthi. Sace pana evaṃ ’kappiyaṃ kāretvā bhuñjantassa puna kiñci byañjanaṃ vā khādanīyaṃ vā patte ākira’nti yena paṭhamaṃ kappiyaṃ kataṃ hoti, so puna kātuṃ na labhati. Yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabbaṃ. Yena akatanti aññena bhikkhunā yena paṭhamaṃ na kataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ. Yañca akatanti yena paṭhamaṃ kappiyaṃ kataṃ, tenapi yaṃ akataṃ, taṃ kātabbaṃ. Paṭhamabhājane pana kātuṃ na labbhati. Tattha hi kariyamāne paṭhamaṃ katena saddhiṃ kataṃ hoti, tasmā aññasmiṃ bhājane kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ kataṃ pana tena bhikkhunā paṭhamaṃ katena saddhiṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

And here, made by one who has eaten means even eating one morsel or meat shred from the bowl of a nearby similar monk is understood as “made by one who has eaten.” Without rising from the seat—for clarity, this determination: two monks eating in the morning incur an invitation; one must sit there, the other brings regular or ticket rice, pours half into that monk’s bowl, washes hands, and the rest must be made allowable by that monk and eaten—why? What stuck to his hand is unallowable. If the first monk takes from that bowl by hand, no hand-washing is needed. If saying, “Pour some condiment or edible into the bowl of one eating after making it allowable,” the one who first made it allowable cannot do it again. One who did not make it must do it; what was not made must be made. By one who did not make means by another monk who did not first make it. What was not made means even by one who first made it allowable, what was not made must be made. It cannot be done in the first vessel, for if done there, it mixes with what was first made—so it must be done in another vessel. This is the intent. What is done thus may be eaten with what was first made by that monk.

But here, it is made without having eaten, even if one eats a single grain of rice or a drop of meat broth from the bowl of a fellow monk sitting next to him and makes it, it should be understood as “it is made without having eaten.” By one who has not risen from the seat, here, for removing confusion, this is the determination: Two monks, having eaten in the morning, have refused; one should sit there, the other should bring regular alms or ticket alms, pour half into the bowl of that monk, wash his hands, and have the remainder made allowable by that monk and eat it. Why? Because what is clinging to his hand is unallowable. But if the monk who sat first himself takes from his bowl with his hand, there is no need to wash his hands. But if, while eating after having it made allowable, he pours any condiment or edible food into the bowl, he who made it allowable first cannot make it again. It should be made by one who did not make it, and what was not made should be made. By one who did not make it means by another monk who did not make it first. And what was not made means, even by one who made it allowable first, what was not made should be made. But it cannot be made in the first container. For if it is made there, it is made together with what was made first, therefore it is permissible to make it in another container, this is the meaning. But having made it thus, it is permissible for that monk to eat together with the one who made it first.

Here, bhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti means even if a monk sitting nearby eats a single grain of rice or a piece of meat from the bowl, it should be understood as done by one who has finished eating. Āsanā avuṭṭhitena means here, for clarity, this decision: Two monks eating together have declined. One should sit there, while the other brings regular food or special food and pours half into the first monk’s bowl. After washing his hands, the remaining food should be made allowable by that monk and eaten. Why? Because what is on his hands is not allowable. If the first sitting monk takes it himself from the bowl, there is no need to wash hands. If, after making it allowable and eating, any curry or snack is poured into the bowl, he cannot make it allowable again. What was not made allowable should be made allowable, and what was not made allowable should be made allowable. Yena akataṃ means by another monk who did not make it allowable initially. Yañca akataṃ means what was not made allowable by the one who initially made it allowable. However, it cannot be made allowable in the first dish. There, if done, it is made allowable along with what was initially made allowable. Therefore, it is allowable to do so in another dish. Thus, what is made allowable by that monk can be eaten along with what was initially made allowable.

Kappiyaṃ karontena ca na kevalaṃ patteyeva, kuṇḍepi pacchiyampi yattha katthaci purato ṭhapetvā onāmitabhājane kātabbaṃ. Taṃ sace bhikkhusataṃ pavāritaṃ hoti, sabbesaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, appavāritānampi vaṭṭati. Yena pana kappiyaṃ kataṃ, tassa na vaṭṭati. Sacepi pavāretvā piṇḍāya paviṭṭhaṃ bhikkhuṃ pattaṃ gahetvā avassaṃ bhuñjanake maṅgalanimantane nisīdāpenti, atirittaṃ kārāpetvāva bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace tattha añño bhikkhu natthi, āsanasālaṃ vā vihāraṃ vā pattaṃ pesetvā kāretabbaṃ, kappiyaṃ karontena pana anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Sace āsanasālāyaṃ abyatto bhikkhu hoti, sayaṃ gantvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā ānetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ.

When making it allowable, not just in the bowl but in a pot, basket, or anywhere before him, it must be done in a tilted vessel. If a hundred monks have incurred an invitation, all may eat it; even those not invited may eat it. But the one who made it allowable cannot. If a monk who has incurred an invitation and entered for alms is made to sit at a celebratory invitation needing to eat, he must make it allowable and eat. If no other monk is there, send the bowl to the dining hall or monastery to have it made allowable. The one making it allowable must not do it while it is in an unordained person’s hand. If an unskilled monk is in the dining hall, go oneself, have it made allowable, bring it, and eat.

And in making it allowable, not only in the bowl, but also in a pot, a basket, or anywhere, it should be made in a lowered container placed in front. If a hundred monks have refused, it is permissible for all to eat, it is permissible even for those who have not refused. But it is not permissible for the one who made it allowable. Even if they seat a monk who has refused and entered for alms in an obligatory eating place or an auspicious invitation, taking his bowl, he should eat only after having it made extra. If there is no other monk there, he should send the bowl to the dining hall or the monastery and have it made; but in making it allowable, it should not be made while it is in the hand of a non-ordained person. If there is an unwise monk in the dining hall, he should go himself, have it made allowable, bring it, and eat it.

When making something allowable, it should not only be done in the bowl but also in a pot or any other vessel placed in front, with the vessel lowered. If a hundred monks have declined, it is allowable for all to eat, even for those who have not declined. However, it is not allowable for the one who made it allowable. Even if a monk who has declined and entered for alms is made to sit for a blessing ceremony, it should be made allowable before eating. If there is no other monk there, the bowl should be sent to the dining hall or monastery to be made allowable. When making something allowable, it should not be placed in the hands of a non-ordained person. If an incompetent monk is in the dining hall, one should go and make it allowable himself and then bring it back to eat.

Gilānātirittanti ettha na kevalaṃ yaṃ gilānassa bhuttāvasesaṃ hoti, taṃ gilānātirittaṃ, atha kho yaṃ kiñci gilānaṃ uddissa “ajja vā yadā vā icchati, tadā khādissatī”ti āhaṭaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ gilānātirittanti veditabbaṃ. Yāmakālikaṃ pana sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci anatirittaṃ āhāratthāya paribhuñjantassa ajjhohāre ajjhohāre dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana yāmakālikādīni āmisasaṃsaṭṭhāni honti, āhāratthāyapi anāhāratthāyapi paṭiggahetvā ajjhoharantassa pācittiyameva, asaṃsaṭṭhāni pana sati paccaye bhuñjantassa anāpatti.

Exceeding for the sick means not just what remains after the sick eat, but anything brought for the sick, saying, “He will eat today or whenever he wishes”—all is understood as exceeding for the sick. Eating any unallowable day-limited, seven-day-limited, or life-limited food for nourishment incurs a dukkaṭa offense with each swallow. If day-limited or similar are mixed with material goods, receiving and swallowing them for nourishment or not incurs a pācittiya offense; unmixed, eating them with a reason incurs no fault.

Remainder of a sick person, here, not only what is the remainder of what a sick person has eaten is the remainder of a sick person, but whatever is brought for a sick person, saying, “Today or whenever he desires, he will eat,” all that should be understood as the remainder of a sick person. But for one who uses any timely, seven-day, or lifelong medicine that is unconverted for the purpose of nourishment, with each swallow, there is a dukkaṭa offense. But if the timely, etc., are mixed with material things, whether for the purpose of nourishment or not for the purpose of nourishment, having accepted and swallowed them, there is a pācittiya offense; but if they are unmixed, for one eating with a reason, there is no offense.

Gilānātirittaṃ here does not only mean the leftovers of the sick but also anything brought for the sick with the thought, “Today or whenever he wishes, he will eat it.” All this is considered gilānātirittaṃ. However, if one consumes any unallowable food for the purpose of nourishment, whether for a night, seven days, or a lifetime, it is a dukkaṭa offense with each mouthful. If the night, seven-day, or lifetime allowances are mixed with meat, it is a pācittiya offense whether consumed for nourishment or not. If not mixed, there is no offense when consumed with a reason.

22. Pabbajjāvinicchayakathā

22. Discussion on the Determination of Going-Forth

22. Discussion of the Determination of Ordination

22. Discussion on Ordination

123. Pabbajjāti ettha pana pabbajjāpekkhaṃ kulaputtaṃ pabbājentena ye pāḷiyaṃ “na bhikkhave pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭho pabbājetabbo”tiādinā (mahāva. 89) paṭikkhittā puggalā, te vajjetvā pabbajjādosavirahito puggalo pabbājetabbo. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (mahāva. aṭṭha. 88) – kuṭṭhaṃ gaṇḍo kilāso soso apamāroti imehi pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭho na pabbājetabbo, pabbājento pana dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati “yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttattā. Tattha kuṭṭhanti rattakuṭṭhaṃ vā hotu kāḷakuṭṭhaṃ vā, yaṃ kiñci kiṭibhadaddaukacchuādippabhedampi sabbaṃ kuṭṭhamevāti vuttaṃ. Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabbo. Sace pana nivāsanapāvuraṇehi pakatipaṭicchannaṭṭhāne nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, vaṭṭati. “Mukhe pana hatthapādapiṭṭhīsu vā sacepi avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ, nakhapiṭṭhito ca khuddakatarampi na vaṭṭatiyevā”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tikicchāpetvā pabbājentenapi pakativaṇṇe jāteyeva pabbājetabbo, godhāpiṭṭhisadisacuṇṇaokiraṇasarīrampi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

123. Pabbajjā—here, when ordaining a clansman desiring to go forth, excluding those prohibited in the Pali by “Monks, one afflicted with the five diseases should not be ordained” and so forth (mahāva. 89), a person free of ordination flaws should be ordained. Here is the determination (mahāva. aṭṭha. 88): one afflicted with the five diseases—leprosy, boils, eczema, consumption, epilepsy—should not be ordained. Ordaining such incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense.” Here, leprosy means red or black leprosy—any type, including scabies or sores—all count as leprosy. If even fingernail-sized and growing, he should not be ordained. If fingernail-sized, not growing, and in a naturally covered place like under robes, it is allowable. The Kurundiyaṃ says, “Even if not growing, even smaller than a fingernail on the face, hands, or feet, it is not allowable.” When treated and ordained, he should be ordained only when the natural skin tone returns; even a body sprinkled with powder like a lizard’s back should not be ordained.

123. Ordination, here, in ordaining a young man seeking ordination, those individuals who are prohibited in the Pāḷi by “Monks, one afflicted with five diseases should not be ordained,” etc. (mahāva. 89), should be excluded, and an individual free from the faults of ordination should be ordained. Here is the determination (mahāva. aṭṭha. 88): One afflicted with these five diseases—leprosy, boils, dry leprosy, consumption, and epilepsy—should not be ordained; but one who ordains incurs a dukkaṭa offense, because it is said, “Whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” Here, leprosy, whether it is red leprosy or black leprosy, whatever is of the kind of skin diseases, ringworm, etc., all is said to be leprosy. And if even a fingernail-sized amount is in the stage of growth, he should not be ordained. But if a fingernail-sized amount is in a place normally covered by clothing and is in the stage of non-growth, it is permissible. “But on the face, hands, or feet, even if it is in the stage of non-growth, even smaller than a fingernail, it is certainly not permissible,” it is said in the Kurundi. Even one who ordains after having it treated should ordain only when the natural color has appeared; it is not permissible to ordain even one whose body is like that of a gecko sprinkled with powder.

123. Pabbajjā: Here, a householder seeking ordination should be ordained after avoiding individuals rejected in the Pāli texts, such as “One should not ordain a person afflicted with five diseases,” etc. (Mahāva. 89). The decision here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 88) is: One afflicted with leprosy, boils, eczema, consumption, or epilepsy should not be ordained. If one ordains such a person, it is a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense.” Here, kuṭṭha means red leprosy or black leprosy, or any type of leprosy such as ringworm, etc. If it is even the size of a fingernail and in the growing phase, he should not be ordained. If, however, it is in a concealed place and in the diminishing phase, it is allowable. “But if it is on the face, hands, or feet, even if in the diminishing phase, it is not allowable if smaller than a fingernail,” as stated in the Kurundiya. Even if treated and the natural color returns, he should be ordained. However, one with a body resembling a lizard’s back or covered with powder should not be ordained.

Gaṇḍoti medagaṇḍo vā hotu añño vā, yo koci kolaṭṭhimattakopi ce vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhito gaṇḍo hoti, na pabbājetabbo. Paṭicchannaṭṭhāne pana kolaṭṭhimatte avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhite vaṭṭati, mukhādike appaṭicchannaṭṭhāne avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepi na vaṭṭati. Tikicchāpetvā pabbājentenapi sarīraṃ sacchaviṃ kārāpetvā pabbājetabbo. Uṇṇigaṇḍā nāma honti gothanakā viya aṅgulikā viya ca tattha tattha lambanti, etepi gaṇḍāyeva, tesu sati pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Daharakāle khīrapīḷakā yobbannakāle ca mukhe kharapīḷakā nāma honti, mahallakakāle nassanti, na tā gaṇḍasaṅkhyaṃ gacchanti, tāsu sati pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Aññā pana sarīre kharapīḷakā nāma, aparā padumakaṇṇikā nāma honti, aññā sāsapabījakā nāma sāsapamattāyeva sakalasarīraṃ pharanti, sabbā kuṭṭhajātikāva, tāsu sati na pabbājetabbo.

Boils means fatty boils or others—if even plum-sized and growing, he should not be ordained. In a covered place, a plum-sized boil not growing is allowable; in uncovered places like the face, even not growing, it is not allowable. When treated and ordained, the body must be restored to intact skin. There are wool-like boils hanging like fingers here and there—these too are boils; with them, he should not be ordained. In youth, milk pimples, in maturity, rough pimples on the face, disappear in old age—these do not count as boils; with them, he may be ordained. Other rough pimples on the body or lotus-seed-like ones, or mustard-seed-sized ones covering the body, are all leprosy types—with them, he should not be ordained.

Boils, whether it is a fatty boil or another, whatever boil even of the size of a jujube seed, if it is in the stage of growth, he should not be ordained. But if it is in a covered place, of the size of a jujube seed, and in the stage of non-growth, it is permissible; in an uncovered place like the face, etc., even if it is in the stage of non-growth, it is not permissible. Even one who ordains after having it treated should ordain after having the body made smooth-skinned. There are boils called “uṇṇigaṇḍā,” they hang here and there like cow’s teats and like fingers, these are also boils; if they are present, it is not permissible to ordain. In childhood, there are milk-pimples, and in youth, there are rough pimples on the face, they disappear in old age, they do not go under the category of boils; if they are present, it is permissible to ordain. But there are other rough pimples on the body, others called “padumakaṇṇikā,” others “sāsapabījakā” of the size of mustard seeds, they spread all over the body, all are of the leprosy class; if they are present, he should not be ordained.

Gaṇḍa: Whether a tumor or any other swelling, if it is the size of a kola nut and in the growing phase, he should not be ordained. If it is in a concealed place and the size of a kola nut in the diminishing phase, it is allowable. If it is on the face or other exposed areas, even in the diminishing phase, it is not allowable. If treated and the body is made smooth, he should be ordained. Uṇṇigaṇḍas are tumors that hang like lumps or fingers; these are also tumors, and one should not be ordained with them. In youth, milk pimples and in adulthood, rough pimples on the face disappear in old age; these do not count as tumors, and one can be ordained with them. Other rough pimples on the body, lotus-like pimples, sesame-seed-like pimples covering the entire body, all are types of leprosy, and one should not be ordained with them.

Kilāsoti na bhijjanakaṃ na paggharaṇakaṃ padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇaṃ kuṭṭhaṃ. Yena gunnaṃ viya sabalaṃ sarīraṃ hoti, tasmiṃ kuṭṭhe vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo. Sosoti sosabyādhi. Tasmiṃ sati na pabbājetabbo. Apamāroti pittummādo vā yakkhummādo vā. Tattha pubbaverikena amanussena gahito duttikiccho hoti, appamattakepi pana apamāre sati na pabbājetabbo.

Eczema means non-breaking, non-oozing leprosy like lotus or water-lily petals. That which mottles the body like a cow’s should be determined as with leprosy. Consumption means the wasting disease—with it, he should not be ordained. Epilepsy means bile-madness or spirit-madness. One seized by a hostile spirit, hard to treat, or with even slight epilepsy should not be ordained.

Dry leprosy is a non-breaking, non-oozing leprosy of the color of a lotus or white lotus leaf. By which the body is variegated like that of a cow, in that leprosy, the determination should be understood according to the method stated. Consumption is the disease of consumption. If it is present, he should not be ordained. Epilepsy is either madness due to bile or madness due to a yakkha. Here, one seized by a non-human with a past enmity is difficult to treat; but even if there is a small amount of epilepsy, he should not be ordained.

Kilāsa: A non-ulcerating, non-oozing, lotus-leaf-colored leprosy. If the body is covered with spots like gunja seeds, the decision should be made as stated above. Sosa: Emaciation disease. One should not be ordained with this. Apamāra: Bile madness or demon madness. If possessed by a malevolent spirit, it is difficult to treat. Even with a slight madness, one should not be ordained.

124. “Na, bhikkhave, rājabhaṭo pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 90) vacanato rājabhaṭopi na pabbājetabbo. Ettha ca amacco vā hotu mahāmatto vā sevako vā kiñci ṭhānantaraṃ patto vā appatto vā, yo koci rañño bhattavetanabhaṭo, sabbo rājabhaṭoti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati, so na pabbājetabbo. Tassa pana puttanattabhātukā ye rājato bhattavetanaṃ na gaṇhanti, te pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yo pana rājato laddhaṃ nibaddhabhogaṃ vā māsasaṃvaccharaparibbayaṃ vā raññoyeva niyyādeti, puttabhātuke vā taṃ ṭhānaṃ sampaṭicchāpetvā rājānaṃ “na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo”ti āpucchati, yena vā yaṃkāraṇā vetanaṃ gahitaṃ, taṃ kammaṃ kataṃ hoti, yo vā “pabbajassū”ti raññā anuññāto hoti, tampi pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.

124. “Monks, a royal soldier should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 90)—thus, a royal soldier should not be ordained. Here, whether a minister, high official, servant, or one with or without rank—anyone on the king’s payroll counts as a royal soldier and should not be ordained. His sons, grandsons, or brothers not on the king’s payroll may be ordained. One who relinquishes fixed property or monthly or yearly allowance from the king to the king, assigns that role to sons or brothers, or asks the king, “I am no longer your soldier,” or completes the task for which the salary was taken, or is permitted by the king saying, “Go forth”—he may be ordained.

124. “Monks, a royal soldier should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa,” (mahāva. 90) because of this statement, a royal soldier should not be ordained. Here, whether he is a minister, a great minister, a servant, one who has attained some position or not, whoever is a soldier receiving food and wages from the king, all go under the category of royal soldier; he should not be ordained. But his sons, grandsons, and brothers who do not receive food and wages from the king, they may be ordained. But one who gives to the king the fixed enjoyment or monthly or yearly expenses received from the king, or has his sons or brothers accept that position, and asks the king, “I am no longer your soldier, O king,” or by whom the work for which wages were received has been done, or one who has been permitted by the king, “Go forth,” he may be ordained.

124. “A royal servant should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 90). Therefore, a royal servant should not be ordained. Here, whether a minister, high official, servant, or one who has attained a position or not, anyone who receives wages from the king is considered a royal servant and should not be ordained. However, his sons or brothers who do not receive wages from the king can be ordained. If one who has received a fixed income or monthly or annual allowance from the king returns it to the king, or if he arranges for his sons or brothers to take his position and informs the king, “I am no longer your servant,” or if the work for which he received wages is completed, or if the king permits him to ordain, he can be ordained.

125. Coropi dhajabandho na pabbājetabbo “na, bhikkhave, dhajabandho coro pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 91) vuttattā. Tattha dhajaṃ bandhitvā viya vicaratīti dhajabandho, mūladevādayo viya loke pākaṭoti vuttaṃ hoti. Tasmā yo gāmaghātaṃ vā panthaduhanaṃ vā nagare sandhicchedādikammaṃ vā karonto vicarati, paññāyati ca “asuko nāma idaṃ idaṃ karotī”ti, so na pabbājetabbo. Yo pana rājaputto rajjaṃ patthento gāmaghātādīni karoti, so pabbājetabbo. Rājāno hi tasmiṃ pabbajite tussanti, sace pana na tussanti, na pabbājetabbo. Pubbe mahājane pākaṭo coro pacchā corakammaṃ pahāya pañca sīlāni samādiyati, tañce manussā evaṃ jānanti, pabbājetabbo. Ye pana ambalabujādicorakā sandhicchedādicorā eva vā adissamānā theyyaṃ karonti, pacchāpi “iminā nāma idaṃ kata”nti na paññāyanti, tepi pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.

125. A flagged thief should not be ordained, as “Monks, a flagged thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 91). Here, moving about as if with a flag raised, like Mūladeva and others, known in the world, is a flagged thief. Thus, one who roams destroying villages, robbing travelers, or breaking into houses in towns and is known as “So-and-so does this and that” should not be ordained. A prince seeking kingship who destroys villages or similar may be ordained—kings rejoice when he goes forth; if they do not, he should not be ordained. A thief formerly known to the public who later abandons thievery and takes the five precepts, if people know this, may be ordained. Thieves like mango or bud thieves or housebreakers who steal unseen and are not later known as “This one did that” may be ordained.

125. Even a bandit, a notorious robber, should not be ordained, because it is said, “Monks, a notorious robber should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” (mahāva. 91) Here, notorious robber means one who roams about as if having tied a flag, like Mūladeva and others, notorious in the world, this is what is said. Therefore, one who roams about committing village robbery, highway robbery, or breaking into houses in the city, etc., and it is known, “So-and-so is doing this and this,” he should not be ordained. But if a royal prince, desiring the kingdom, commits village robbery, etc., he may be ordained. For kings are pleased when he is ordained; but if they are not pleased, he should not be ordained. If a previously notorious robber later abandons the work of a robber and undertakes the five precepts, and people know him thus, he may be ordained. But those who commit robbery unseen, like robbers of betel nuts, etc., or housebreakers, etc., and even later it is not known, “This was done by so-and-so,” they may be ordained.

125. A robber with a flag should not be ordained. “A robber with a flag should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 91). Here, dhajabandha means one who roams like a flag-bearer, known in the world like the root-deities, etc. Therefore, one who roams committing village raids, highway robbery, or city crimes, and is known as “so-and-so does this and that,” should not be ordained. However, a prince seeking the throne who commits village raids, etc., can be ordained. Kings are pleased if such a one ordains, but if not, he should not be ordained. If a robber known to the public later abandons robbery and undertakes the five precepts, and people know this, he can be ordained. Those who commit theft secretly, like ambush robbers or city thieves, and are not known to have committed theft, can also be ordained.

126. Kārabhedako pana coro na pabbājetabbo “na, bhikkhave, kārabhedako coro pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 92) vuttattā. Tattha kāro vuccati bandhanāgāraṃ. Idha pana andubandhanaṃ vā hotu saṅkhalikabandhanaṃ vā rajjubandhanaṃ vā gāmabandhanaṃ vā nigamabandhanaṃ vā nagarabandhanaṃ vā purisagutti vā janapadabandhanaṃ vā dīpabandhanaṃ vā, yo etesu yaṃ kiñci bandhanaṃ bhinditvā vā chinditvā vā muñcitvā vā vivaritvā vā apassamānānaṃ vā palāyati, so kārabhedakoti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Tasmā īdiso kārabhedako coro dīpabandhanaṃ bhinditvā dīpantaraṃ gatopi na pabbājetabbo. Yo pana na coro, kevalaṃ hatthakammaṃ akaronto “evaṃ no apalāyanto karissatī”ti rājayuttādīhi baddho, so kāraṃ bhinditvā palātopi pabbājetabbo. Yo pana gāmanigamapaṭṭanādīni keṇiyā gahetvā taṃ asampādento bandhanāgāraṃ pavesito hoti, sopi palāyitvā āgato na pabbājetabbo. Yopi kasikammādīhi dhanaṃ sampādetvā jīvanto “nidhānaṃ iminā laddha”nti pesuññaṃ upasaṃharitvā kenaci bandhāpito hoti, taṃ tattheva pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati, palāyitvā gataṃ pana gataṭṭhāne pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.

126. A prison-breaking thief should not be ordained, as “Monks, a prison-breaking thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 92). Here, a prison is called a confinement place. Whether fetters, chains, ropes, village, town, city confinement, guard, region, or island confinement—one who breaks, cuts, releases, opens, or escapes unseen from any of these counts as a prison-breaking thief. Thus, such a prison-breaking thief, even escaping one island confinement to another, should not be ordained. One not a thief, merely not doing manual work, bound by royal officers thinking, “Thus he won’t escape,” who breaks the prison and flees, may be ordained. One who takes a village, town, or port by trade and, unable to fulfill it, is put in prison, fleeing and coming, should not be ordained. One earning wealth by farming or similar, bound by slander saying, “He got a treasure,” should not be ordained there but may be ordained where he flees.

126. But a jail-breaking robber should not be ordained, because it is said, “Monks, a jail-breaking robber should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” (mahāva. 92) Here, a jail is called a place of confinement. But here, whether it is confinement with iron chains, confinement with shackles, confinement with ropes, confinement in a village, confinement in a town, confinement in a city, guarding by men, confinement in a region, or confinement on an island, one who escapes by breaking, cutting, freeing, or opening any of these confinements, or unseen, is called a jail-breaker. Therefore, such a jail-breaking robber, even if he has gone to another island after breaking the island confinement, should not be ordained. But one who is not a robber, merely not doing manual labor, bound by royal officials, etc., thinking, “Thus he will not escape,” even if he escapes after breaking the jail, he may be ordained. But one who, having taken a village, town, port, etc., as a pledge, and not fulfilling it, is put in a place of confinement, even if he escapes and comes, he should not be ordained. And one who, living by earning wealth through farming, etc., is bound by someone after slander has been brought, “He has obtained a treasure,” it is not permissible to ordain him there; but if he escapes and goes, it is permissible to ordain him in the place where he has gone.

126. A jailbreaker should not be ordained. “A jailbreaker should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 92). Here, kāra means a prison. This includes underground prisons, chain prisons, rope prisons, village prisons, town prisons, city prisons, or island prisons. Anyone who breaks, cuts, or escapes from any of these prisons without being seen is considered a kārabhedaka. Therefore, such a jailbreaker who breaks an island prison and goes to another island should not be ordained. However, one who is not a robber but merely a laborer, bound by royal orders, and escapes after breaking prison, can be ordained. If one who takes villages, towns, or cities by force and fails to deliver them is imprisoned and escapes, he should not be ordained. If one who earns a living by farming, etc., and is imprisoned for slander, he should not be ordained there, but if he escapes, he can be ordained in the place he escapes to.

127. “Na, bhikkhave, likhitako coro pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 93) vacanato pana likhitako coro na pabbājetabbo. Tattha likhitako nāma yo koci corikaṃ vā aññaṃ vā garuṃ rājāparādhaṃ katvā palāto, rājā ca naṃ paṇṇe vā potthake vā “itthannāmo yattha dissati, tattha gahetvā māretabbo”ti vā “hatthapādādīni assa chinditabbānī”ti vā “ettakaṃ nāma daṇḍaṃ āharāpetabbo”ti vā likhāpeti, ayaṃ likhitako nāma, so na pabbājetabbo.

128. “Monks, a marked thief should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 93)—thus, a marked thief should not be ordained. Here, marked means one who commits theft or another grave royal offense and flees; the king writes on a leaf or book, “So-and-so, wherever seen, should be caught and killed,” or “His hands, feet, or similar should be cut,” or “He should pay this fine”—this is a marked thief, and he should not be ordained.

127. “Monks, a robber in writing should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa,” (mahāva. 93) because of this statement, a robber in writing should not be ordained. Here, robber in writing means one who, having committed robbery or some other serious offense against the king, has escaped, and the king writes on a leaf or in a book, “So-and-so, wherever he is seen, should be seized and killed,” or “His hands, feet, etc., should be cut off,” or “He should be made to pay a fine of so much,” this is a robber in writing; he should not be ordained.

127. “A written-off criminal should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 93). Therefore, a written-off criminal should not be ordained. Here, likhitaka means anyone who commits a serious crime against the king and flees, and the king writes on leaves or books, “So-and-so, wherever seen, should be captured and killed,” or “His hands and feet should be cut off,” or “Such and such punishment should be inflicted.” This is called likhitaka, and he should not be ordained.

128. Kasāhato katadaṇḍakammopi na pabbājetabbo “na, bhikkhave, kasāhato katadaṇḍakammo pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 94) vacanato. Ettha pana yo vacanapesanādīni akaronto haññati, na so katadaṇḍakammo. Yo pana keṇiyā vā aññathā vā kiñci gahetvā khāditvā puna dātuṃ asakkonto “ayameva te daṇḍo hotū”ti kasāhi haññati, ayameva kasāhato katadaṇḍakammo. So ca kasāhi vā hato hotu aḍḍhadaṇḍakādīnaṃ vā aññatarena, yāva allavaṇo hoti, na tāva pabbājetabbo, vaṇe pana pākatike katvā pabbājetabbo. Sace pana jāṇūhi vā kapparehi vā nāḷikerapāsāṇādīhi vā ghātetvā mutto hoti, sarīre cassa gaṇṭhiyo paññāyanti, na pabbājetabbo, phāsukaṃ katvā eva gaṇṭhīsu sannisinnāsu pabbājetabbo.

129. One beaten with whips and punished should not be ordained, as “Monks, one beaten with whips and punished should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 94). Here, one beaten for not following orders or messages is not punished. But one who takes something by trade or otherwise, unable to repay, beaten with whips saying, “This is your punishment,” is beaten with whips and punished. Whether beaten with whips or a half-stick or similar, as long as the wound is fresh, he should not be ordained; when the wound heals naturally, he may be ordained. If beaten with knees, elbows, coconut shells, stones, or similar and released with lumps evident on the body, he should not be ordained; only when comfortable and lumps subside may he be ordained.

128. Even one who has been whipped, having undergone punishment, should not be ordained, because it is said, “Monks, one who has been whipped, having undergone punishment, should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” (mahāva. 94) Here, one who is beaten for not carrying out orders, etc., is not one who has undergone punishment. But one who, having taken something by pledge or otherwise, and being unable to give it back, is beaten with whips, saying, “Let this be your punishment,” he is one who has been whipped, having undergone punishment. And whether he has been beaten with whips or with half-sticks, etc., as long as the wound is fresh, he should not be ordained; but after making the wound natural, he should be ordained. But if he has been struck with knees, elbows, coconuts, stones, etc., and released, and knots appear on his body, he should not be ordained; only after making it healthy, when the knots have subsided, should he be ordained.

128. One punished with lashes should not be ordained. “One punished with lashes should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 94). Here, one who is beaten without being sent for or without any reason is not considered punished. However, one who takes something by force or otherwise and, being unable to return it, is beaten with lashes, saying, “This is your punishment,” is called kasāhato katadaṇḍakammo. Whether beaten with lashes or half-sticks, etc., as long as the wounds are fresh, he should not be ordained. When the wounds heal, he can be ordained. If he is beaten with knees, elbows, coconut shells, or stones, and knots appear on his body, he should not be ordained until the knots subside and become smooth.

129. Lakkhaṇāhato pana katadaṇḍakammo na pabbājetabbo “na, bhikkhave, lakkhaṇahato katadaṇḍakammo pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 95) vacanato. Etthapi katadaṇḍakammabhāvo purimanayeneva veditabbo. Yassa pana nalāṭe vā ūruādīsu vā tattena lohena lakkhaṇaṃ āhataṃ hoti, so sace bhujisso, yāva allavaṇo hoti , tāva na pabbājetabbo. Sacepissa vaṇā ruḷhā honti chaviyā samaparicchedā, lakkhaṇaṃ na paññāyati, timaṇḍalaṃ nivatthassa uttarāsaṅge kate paṭicchannokāse ce hoti, pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati, appaṭicchannokāse ce, na vaṭṭati.

129. One marked with signs and punished should not be ordained, as “Monks, one marked with signs and punished should not be ordained; whoever ordains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 95). Here too, the punished state is understood as before. One marked with a hot iron sign on the forehead, thighs, or similar, if a freeman, should not be ordained while the wound is fresh. If the wounds heal flush with the skin, the sign is not evident, and it is in a covered place when wearing the three robes with the upper robe, he may be ordained; if in an uncovered place, he may not.

129. But one who has been branded, having undergone punishment, should not be ordained, because it is said, “Monks, one who has been branded, having undergone punishment, should not be ordained; whoever should ordain, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” (mahāva. 95) Here too, the state of having undergone punishment should be understood according to the previous method. But one who has a mark branded with hot iron on his forehead or thighs, etc., if he is a free man, as long as the wound is fresh, he should not be ordained. But if his wounds have healed, the skin is evenly covered, the mark is not visible, and if it is in a place covered when wearing the triple robe and the upper robe is put on, it is permissible to ordain; if it is in an uncovered place, it is not permissible.

129. One branded with a mark should not be ordained. “One branded with a mark should not be ordained. Whoever ordains him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 95). Here, the nature of being punished should be understood as before. If one is branded with a hot iron on the forehead or thighs, etc., and if he is a servant, as long as the wound is fresh, he should not be ordained. If the wounds heal and the skin becomes even, and the mark is not visible, or if it is covered by the upper robe and concealed, he can be ordained. If it is not concealed, he should not be ordained.

130. “Na, bhikkhave, iṇāyiko pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 96) vacanato iṇāyikopi na pabbājetabbo. Tattha iṇāyiko nāma yassa pitipitāmahehi vā iṇaṃ gahitaṃ hoti , sayaṃ vā iṇaṃ gahitaṃ hoti, yaṃ vā āṭhapetvā mātāpitūhi kiñci gahitaṃ hoti, so taṃ iṇaṃ paresaṃ dhāretīti iṇāyiko. Yaṃ pana aññe ñātakā āṭhapetvā kiñci gaṇhanti, so na iṇāyiko. Na hi te taṃ āṭhapetuṃ issarā, tasmā taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati, itaraṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace panassa ñātisālohitā “mayaṃ dassāma, pabbājetha na”nti iṇaṃ attano bhāraṃ karonti, añño vā koci tassa ācārasampattiṃ disvā “pabbājetha naṃ, ahaṃ iṇaṃ dassāmī”ti vadati, pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tesu asati bhikkhunā tathārūpassa upaṭṭhākassapi ārocetabbaṃ “sahetuko satto iṇapalibodhena na pabbajatī”ti. Sace so paṭipajjati, pabbājetabbo. Sacepi attano kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ atthi, “etaṃ dassāmī”ti pabbājetabbo. Sace pana neva ñātakādayo paṭipajjanti, na attano dhanaṃ atthi, “pabbājetvā bhikkhāya caritvā mocessāmī”ti pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pabbājeti, dukkaṭaṃ. Palātopi ānetvā dātabbo. No ce deti, sabbaṃ iṇaṃ gīvā hoti. Ajānitvā pabbājayato anāpatti, passantena pana ānetvā iṇasāmikānaṃ dassetabbo, apassantassa gīvā na hoti.

130. “Monks, one who is a debtor should not be ordained. Whoever ordains such a one commits an offense of dukkaṭa,” as stated in (mahāva. 96). Thus, even a debtor should not be ordained. Here, a debtor (iṇāyiko) is defined as one whose debt was incurred by his father or grandfather, or by himself, or something taken by his parents through his pledging, and he bears that debt for others—this is a debtor. However, if others, such as relatives, take something by pledging him, he is not a debtor, for they have no authority to pledge him. Thus, it is permissible to ordain him, but not the former. If, however, his relatives or kin say, “We will settle it; ordain him,” taking the debt upon themselves, or if someone else, seeing his virtuous conduct, says, “Ordain him; I will settle the debt,” it is permissible to ordain him. In their absence, a monk should inform such a person’s supporter, “A being with a cause does not ordain due to the hindrance of debt.” If the supporter acts accordingly, he may be ordained. Even if he has lawful possessions and says, “I will give this,” he may be ordained. But if neither relatives nor anyone else acts, and he has no wealth of his own, it is not permissible to ordain him thinking, “After ordaining him, he will wander for alms and be freed.” If one ordains him, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Even a runaway must be brought back and given up. If he does not give him up, the entire debt falls on his neck. There is no offense for ordaining unknowingly, but if seen, he must be brought back and handed over to the debt-owners; if not seen, it does not fall on the neck.

130. “Monks, a debtor should not be ordained. Whoever should ordain [one], there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 96); from the statement, a debtor also should not be ordained. Here, a debtor is one who has taken a loan from his father or grandfather, or has taken a loan himself, or something has been taken by his parents after pledging him, he bears that debt to others, thus he is a debtor. But when other relatives take something after pledging him, he is not a debtor. Because they are not authorized to pledge him, therefore it is allowable to ordain him, but not the other. But if his relatives by blood say, “We will give [the debt], ordain him,” and take the debt as their own burden, or someone else, seeing his virtuous conduct, says, “Ordain him, I will give the debt,” it is allowable to ordain him. If there are no such people, a bhikkhu should inform a lay supporter of such a person, “A person with cause, bound by debt, does not get ordained.” If he agrees, he should be ordained. Even if one has one’s own allowable possessions, saying, “I will give this,” he should be ordained. But if neither the relatives nor others agree, and one does not have one’s own wealth, thinking, “After ordaining, I will beg and release him,” it is not allowable to ordain him. If one ordains him, there is a wrong-doing. Even if he has fled, he should be brought back and given [to the creditor]. If he does not give, the entire debt is a debt. For one ordaining without knowing, there is no offense, but one seeing should bring him and give him to the creditors; for one not seeing, there is no debt.

130. “Monks, one who is indebted should not be ordained. Whoever ordains such a person commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāvagga 96). Therefore, one who is indebted should not be ordained. Herein, iṇāyiko refers to someone who has a debt incurred by their ancestors or themselves, or a debt taken on behalf of their parents, and they are responsible for repaying that debt to others. However, if relatives take something on their behalf, they are not considered indebted, as those relatives have no authority to do so. Thus, it is permissible to ordain such a person, but not the former. If their relatives say, “We will repay the debt, ordain him,” and take on the burden of the debt themselves, or if someone else, seeing their good conduct, says, “Ordain him, I will repay the debt,” then it is permissible to ordain him. If no such person is available, the monk should inform a supporter of such a person, saying, “This being is hindered by debt and cannot be ordained.” If the supporter agrees, he may be ordained. If the candidate has his own allowable possessions, he may say, “I will give this,” and be ordained. However, if neither relatives nor others are willing to take responsibility, and the candidate has no wealth, it is not permissible to ordain him with the intention, “After ordination, I will live on alms and repay the debt.” If one ordains him, it is an offense of wrong conduct. The debt must be settled beforehand. If it is not settled, the entire debt remains. If one ordains him unknowingly, there is no offense, but if one knows, the debt must be settled with the creditors. If the creditors are not present, the debt is not cleared.

Sace iṇāyiko aññaṃ desaṃ gantvā pucchiyamānopi “nāhaṃ kassaci kiñci dhāremī”ti vatvā pabbajati, iṇasāmiko ca taṃ pariyesanto tattha gacchati, daharo taṃ disvā palāyati, so theraṃ upasaṅkamitvā “ayaṃ, bhante, kena pabbājito, mama ettakaṃ nāma dhanaṃ gahetvā palāto”ti vadati, therena vattabbaṃ “mayā, upāsaka, ’aṇaṇo aha’nti vadanto pabbājito, kiṃ dāni karomi, passa me pattacīvara”nti. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīci. Palāte pana gīvā na hoti. Sace pana naṃ therassa sammukhāva disvā “ayaṃ mama iṇāyiko”ti vadati, “tava iṇāyikaṃ tvameva jānāhī”ti vattabbo, evampi gīvā na hoti. Sacepi so “pabbajito ayaṃ dāni kuhiṃ gamissatī”ti vadati, therena “tvaṃyeva jānāhī”ti vattabbo. Evampissa palāte gīvā na hoti. Sace pana thero “kuhiṃ dāni ayaṃ gamissati, idheva acchatū”ti vadati, so ce palāyati, gīvā hoti. Sace so sahetuko satto hoti vattasampanno , therena “īdiso aya”nti vattabbaṃ. Iṇasāmiko ce “sādhū”ti vissajjeti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, “upaḍḍhupaḍḍhaṃ dethā”ti vadati, dātabbaṃ. Aparena samayena atiārādhako hoti, “sabbaṃ dethā”ti vuttepi dātabbameva. Sace pana uddesaparipucchādīsu kusalo hoti bahūpakāro bhikkhūnaṃ, bhikkhācāravattena pariyesitvāpi iṇaṃ dātabbameva.

If a debtor goes to another region and, when questioned, says, “I owe nothing to anyone,” and is ordained, and the debt-owner, searching for him, arrives there, and the young monk, seeing him, flees, the debt-owner approaches the elder and says, “Venerable sir, who ordained this one? He took such-and-such wealth of mine and fled,” the elder should say, “Lay follower, I ordained him when he said, ‘I am free of debt.’ What can I do now? Look at my bowl and robe.” This is the proper conduct there. The debt does not fall on the neck of a runaway. However, if the debt-owner sees him in the elder’s presence and says, “This is my debtor,” the elder should say, “You alone know your debtor.” Even so, it does not fall on the neck. Even if he says, “Now that he is ordained, where will he go?” the elder should say, “You alone know.” Thus, it does not fall on the neck if he flees. But if the elder says, “Where will he go now? Let him stay here,” and he flees, it falls on the neck. If he is a being with a cause and endowed with duty, the elder should say, “He is like this.” If the debt-owner says, “Good,” and releases him, that is wholesome. If he says, “Give half and half,” it should be given. If at a later time he becomes excessively pleasing and says, “Give it all,” it must still be given. Even if he is skilled in recitation and questioning, greatly helpful to the monks, the debt must still be sought through the duty of alms-round and given.

If a debtor, going to another region, even when asked, says, “I do not owe anything to anyone,” and gets ordained, and a creditor, searching for him, goes there, and a young [monk], seeing him, flees, and he approaches an elder and says, “Venerable sir, by whom was this one ordained? He fled after taking so much of my wealth,” the elder should say, “Lay supporter, he was ordained by me, saying, ‘I am debt-free.’ What can I do now? See my bowl and robes.” This is the proper conduct there. There is no debt for the one who fled. But if, seeing him in front of the elder, he says, “This is my debtor,” he should be told, “You yourself know your debtor,” even then, there is no debt. Even if he says, “He is ordained, where will he go now?” the elder should say, “You yourself know.” Even then, there is no debt for the one who fled. But if the elder says, “Where will he go now? Let him stay here,” and he flees, there is a debt. If he is a person with cause, endowed with proper conduct, the elder should say, “He is such.” If the creditor says, “Good,” and releases him, that is good; if he says, “Give half and half,” it should be given. If at another time he is very demanding, even if he says, “Give all,” it should be given. But if he is skilled in recitation, questioning, etc., very helpful to the bhikkhus, even begging with the conduct of begging, the debt should be given.

If an indebted person goes to another region and, when questioned, says, “I owe nothing to anyone,” and then ordains, and the creditor comes searching for him, and a young monk sees him and flees, the young monk should approach an elder and say, “Venerable, by whom was this person ordained? He owes me such and such an amount and has fled.” The elder should say, “Lay follower, he was ordained after declaring himself free of debt. What can I do now? See my bowl and robe.” This is the proper procedure. However, the debt is not cleared by fleeing. If the creditor sees the elder and says, “This is my debtor,” the elder should say, “You know your own debtor.” Even then, the debt is not cleared. If the creditor says, “Now that he is ordained, where will he go?” the elder should say, “You know.” Even then, the debt is not cleared. If the elder says, “Where will he go now? Let him stay here,” and the debtor flees, the debt is cleared. If the debtor is a reasonable and well-conducted person, the elder should explain, “This is the situation.” If the creditor responds, “Very well,” that is good. If the creditor says, “Give half,” it should be given. If, after some time, the creditor is pleased and says, “Give all,” it should still be given. If the debtor is skilled in recitation and questioning and is beneficial to the monks, the debt should still be settled even if he lives by the monastic duties and alms-seeking.

131. Dāsopi na pabbājetabbo “na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 97) vacanato. Tattha cattāro dāsā antojāto dhanakkīto karamarānīto sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagatoti. Tattha antojāto nāma jātiyā dāso gharadāsiyā putto. Dhanakkīto nāma mātāpitūnaṃ santikā putto vā sāmikānaṃ santikā dāso vā dhanaṃ datvā dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kīto. Ete dvepi na pabbājetabbā. Pabbājentena tattha tattha cārittavasena adāse katvā pabbājetabbā. Karamarānīto nāma tiroraṭṭhaṃ vilopaṃ vā katvā upalāpetvā vā tiroraṭṭhato bhujissamānusakāni āharanti, antoraṭṭheyeva vā katāparādhaṃ kiñci gāmaṃ rājā “vilumpathā”ti ca āṇāpeti, tato mānusakānipi āharanti, tattha sabbe purisā dāsā, itthiyo dāsiyo. Evarūpo karamarānīto dāso yehi ānīto, tesaṃ santike vasanto vā bandhanāgāre baddho vā purisehi rakkhiyamāno vā na pabbājetabbo, palāyitvā pana gato gataṭṭhāne pabbājetabbo. Raññā tuṭṭhena “karamarānītake muñcathā”ti vatvā vā sabbasādhāraṇena vā nayena bandhanamokkhe kate pabbājetabbova.

131. A slave should not be ordained either, as stated in, “Monks, a slave should not be ordained. Whoever ordains such a one commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 97). Here, there are four types of slaves: one born in the house, one bought with wealth, one brought from captivity, and one who voluntarily enters slavery. Among them, an one born in the house (antojāto) is a slave by birth, the son of a house-slave. A one bought with wealth (dhanakkīto) is a son from the parents’ side or a slave from the masters’ side, bought with wealth and placed in the state of slavery. These two should not be ordained. If ordaining, they must first be freed from slavery in their respective conditions and then ordained. A one brought from captivity (karamarānīto) is one brought from another country after plundering or oppression, or brought as a slave from within the country itself when the king orders, “Plunder this village” for some offense, and they bring people from there—there, all the men are slaves, and the women are slave-women. Such a captive slave, living with those who brought him, or bound in a prison, or guarded by men, should not be ordained. But if he escapes and goes elsewhere, he may be ordained in that place. If the king, pleased, says, “Release the captives,” or if release from bondage is made in a general manner, he must indeed be ordained.

131. A slave also should not be ordained, because of the statement, “Monks, a slave should not be ordained. Whoever should ordain [one], there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 97). Here, there are four slaves: born in the house, bought with wealth, captured in war, and one who has voluntarily become a slave. Here, born in the house is a slave by birth, the son of a house slave woman. Bought with wealth is a son bought from his parents or a slave bought from his owners, making him a slave by giving wealth. These two also should not be ordained. One ordaining should make them non-slaves according to the custom in each place and ordain them. Captured in war: they bring people from a foreign country after plundering or enticing them, or the king orders, “Plunder” some village in the kingdom itself that has committed some offense, and they bring people from there; among them, all the men are slaves, the women are slave women. Such a slave captured in war, residing with those who brought him, or bound in a prison, or guarded by men, should not be ordained; but one who has fled and gone, should be ordained in the place where he has gone. But if the king, pleased, says, “Release those captured in war,” or if they are released by a general release, they should be ordained.

131. A slave should not be ordained. “Monks, a slave should not be ordained. Whoever ordains a slave commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāvagga 97). Herein, there are four types of slaves: one born into slavery, one bought with money, one captured in war, and one who voluntarily enters slavery. Among these, antojāto refers to a slave born to a household slave. Dhanakkīto refers to a son or slave bought with money from parents or owners. These two should not be ordained. To ordain them, they must first be freed from slavery. Karamarānīto refers to one captured in war or brought from another country after committing a crime. Such a slave, while living under the custody of those who captured him or imprisoned, should not be ordained. However, if he escapes and goes elsewhere, he may be ordained there. If the king is pleased and says, “Release the war captives,” or if they are freed by common consent, they may be ordained.

Sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagato nāma jīvitahetu vā ārakkhahetu vā “ahaṃ te dāso”ti sayameva dāsabhāvaṃ upagato rājūnaṃ hatthiassagomahiṃsagopakādayo viya. Tādiso dāso na pabbājetabbo. Rañño vaṇṇadāsīnaṃ puttā honti amaccaputtasadisā, tepi na pabbājetabbā. Bhujissitthiyo asaññatā vaṇṇadāsīhi saddhiṃ vicaranti, tāsaṃ putte pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace sayameva paṇṇaṃ āropenti, na vaṭṭati. Bhaṭiputtagaṇādīnaṃ dāsāpi tehi adinnā na pabbājetabbā. Vihāresu rājūhi ārāmikadāsā nāma dinnā honti, tepi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati, bhujisse katvā pana pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ “antojātadhanakkītake ānetvā bhikkhusaṅghassa ’ārāmike demā’ti denti, takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva honti, te pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kurundiyaṃ pana “ārāmikaṃ demāti kappiyavohārena denti, yena kenaci vohārena dinno hotu, neva pabbājetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Duggatamanussā “saṅghaṃ nissāya jīvissāmā”ti vihāre kappiyakārakā honti, ete pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yassa mātāpitaro dāsā , mātā eva vā dāsī, pitā adāso, taṃ pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yassa pana mātā adāsī, pitā dāso, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhussa ñātakā vā upaṭṭhākā vā dāsaṃ denti “imaṃ pabbājetha, tumhākaṃ veyyāvaccaṃ karissatī”ti, attano vāssa dāso atthi, bhujisso katova pabbājetabbo. Sāmikā dāsaṃ denti “imaṃ pabbājetha, sace abhiramissati, adāso. Vibbhamissati ce, amhākaṃ dāsova bhavissatī”ti, ayaṃ tāvakāliko nāma, taṃ pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Nissāmikadāso hoti, sopi bhujisso katova pabbājetabbo. Ajānanto pabbājetvā upasampādetvā vā pacchā jānanti, bhujissaṃ kātumeva vaṭṭati.

One who voluntarily enters slavery (sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagato) is one who, for the sake of life or protection, says, “I am your slave,” voluntarily entering slavery, like those who tend the king’s elephants, horses, cattle, or buffaloes. Such a slave should not be ordained. The sons of the king’s courtesans are like the sons of ministers; they too should not be ordained. Freed women, unrestrained, roam with courtesans; their sons may be ordained. If they themselves impose a bond, it is not permissible. Even the slaves of soldiers or accountants, if not given by them, should not be ordained. In monasteries, slaves called garden-slaves are given by kings; they too should not be ordained, but they may be ordained after being freed. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Those born in the house or bought with wealth, when brought and given to the Sangha saying, ‘We give them as garden-slaves,’ are like oil poured on the head; they may be ordained.” But in the Kurundiya, it is said, “Even if given with the lawful expression, ‘We give them as garden-slaves,’ or given in any manner, they should not be ordained.” Poor people who say, “We will live depending on the Sangha,” and become lawful workers in the monastery, may be ordained. If one’s parents are slaves, or only the mother is a slave and the father is not, he should not be ordained. But if the mother is not a slave and the father is, he may be ordained. If relatives or supporters of a monk give a slave, saying, “Ordain him; he will serve you,” or if he has his own slave, he must be freed and then ordained. If masters give a slave, saying, “Ordain him; if he delights in it, he is free; if he disrobes, he remains our slave,” this is called a temporary one, and it is not permissible to ordain him, as stated in the Kurundiya. Even a masterless slave must be freed and then ordained. If one ordains unknowingly and later learns after ordination or higher ordination, it is permissible to free him.

One who has voluntarily become a slave is one who, for the sake of livelihood or protection, has voluntarily become a slave, saying, “I am your slave,” like the king’s elephant, horse, cattle, and buffalo keepers, etc. Such a slave should not be ordained. There are sons of the king’s concubines who are like the sons of ministers; they also should not be ordained. Unrestrained free women associate with concubines; it is allowable to ordain their sons. If they themselves submit a written request, it is not allowable. Slaves of soldiers, groups of sons, etc., also, not given by them, should not be ordained. In vihāras, monastery slaves are given by kings; they also should not be ordained; but after making them free, it is allowable to ordain them. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Bringing those born in the house and bought with wealth, they give them to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus, saying, ‘We give monastery attendants,’ they are like milk poured on the head; it is allowable to ordain them.” But in the Kurundi, it is said, “They give saying, ‘We give a monastery attendant,’ with allowable words; whatever words are used to give, he should not be ordained.” Poor people become workers in vihāras, thinking, “We will live relying on the Saṅgha”; it is allowable to ordain these. One whose parents are slaves, or only the mother is a slave, the father is not a slave, he should not be ordained. But one whose mother is not a slave, the father is a slave, it is allowable to ordain him. A bhikkhu’s relatives or supporters give a slave, saying, “Ordain this one, he will do service for you,” or he has his own slave; he should be ordained only after being made free. Owners give a slave, saying, “Ordain this one; if he is content, he is not a slave. If he leaves, he will be our slave,” this is called temporary; it is said in the Kurundi that he should not be ordained. There is a slave without an owner; he also should be ordained only after being made free. Ordaining or conferring higher ordination without knowing, and knowing later, it is only allowable to make him free.

Sāmaṃ dāsabyaṃ upagato refers to one who voluntarily enters slavery for the sake of livelihood or protection, such as royal elephant keepers, horse keepers, or cowherds. Such a slave should not be ordained. The sons of royal concubines, who are like ministers’ sons, should also not be ordained. Women who are free but associate with royal concubines may have their sons ordained. If they themselves claim to be slaves, they should not be ordained. Slaves belonging to groups like soldiers or servants should not be ordained unless given by their owners. Slaves given to monasteries by kings should not be ordained unless they are first freed. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Slaves born into slavery or bought with money, when brought and given to the Sangha as monastery workers, are like water poured on the head; they may be ordained.” However, in the Kurundiya, it is said, “If they are given as monastery workers through proper means, they should not be ordained, regardless of how they are given.” Poor people who say, “We will live depending on the Sangha,” and become monastery workers may be ordained. If one’s parents are slaves, or the mother is a slave and the father is not, the child should not be ordained. If the mother is not a slave but the father is, the child may be ordained. If a monk’s relatives or supporters give a slave, saying, “Ordain him, he will serve you,” or if the monk himself owns a slave, the slave must first be freed before ordination. If owners give a slave, saying, “Ordain him; if he is content, he is free; if he disrobes, he remains our slave,” this is called a temporary slave, and he should not be ordained. A slave without an owner may be ordained after being freed. If one ordains or fully ordains someone unknowingly and later finds out, the person must still be freed.

Imassa ca atthassa pakāsanatthaṃ idaṃ vatthuṃ vadanti – ekā kira kuladāsī ekena saddhiṃ anurādhapurā palāyitvā rohaṇe vasamānā puttaṃ paṭilabhi, so pabbajitvā upasampannakāle lajjī kukkuccako ahosi. Athekadivasaṃ mātaraṃ pucchi “kiṃ upāsike tumhākaṃ bhātā vā bhaginī vā natthi, na kiñci ñātakaṃ passāmī”ti. Tāta, ahaṃ anurādhapure kuladāsī, tava pitarā saddhiṃ palāyitvā idha vasāmīti. Sīlavā bhikkhu “asuddhā kira me pabbajjā”ti saṃvegaṃ labhitvā mātaraṃ tassa kulassa nāmagottaṃ pucchitvā anurādhapuraṃ āgamma tassa kulassa gharadvāre aṭṭhāsi, “aticchatha, bhante”ti vuttepi nātikkami. Te āgantvā “kiṃ, bhante”ti pucchiṃsu. “Tumhākaṃ itthannāmā dāsī palātā atthī”ti? “Atthi, bhante”. Ahaṃ tassā putto, sace maṃ tumhe anujānātha, pabbajjaṃ labhāmi, tumhe mayhaṃ sāmikāti. Te haṭṭhatuṭṭhā hutvā “suddhā, bhante, tumhākaṃ pabbajjā”ti taṃ bhujissaṃ katvā mahāvihāre vasāpesuṃ catūhi paccayehi paṭijaggantā. Thero taṃ kulaṃ nissāya vasamānoyeva arahattaṃ pāpuṇīti.

To illustrate this meaning, they relate this story: It is said that a certain house-slave woman fled from Anurādhapura with a man and, living in Rohana, bore a son. He was ordained and, at the time of higher ordination, became conscientious and scrupulous. One day, he asked his mother, “Laywoman, don’t you have a brother or sister? I see no relatives.” “Dear, I was a house-slave in Anurādhapura; I fled here with your father,” she said. The virtuous monk, thinking, “It seems my ordination is impure,” became remorseful. Asking his mother the name and clan of that family, he went to Anurādhapura and stood at the door of that family’s house. Though they said, “Pass by, venerable sir,” he did not move. They came and asked, “What is it, venerable sir?” “Did you have a slave woman named so-and-so who fled?” he asked. “Yes, venerable sir.” “I am her son. If you permit me, I receive ordination; you are my masters.” Overjoyed, they said, “Venerable sir, your ordination is pure,” freed him, and had him dwell in the Great Monastery, supporting him with the four requisites. Relying on that family, the elder attained arahantship.

And to explain this matter, this story is told: a certain house slave woman, it is said, fled from Anurādhapura with someone, and residing in Rohaṇa, she conceived a son; he, after ordaining, at the time of higher ordination, was scrupulous with shame. Then one day he asked his mother, “Laywoman, do you not have a brother or sister? I do not see any relatives.” “Son, I was a house slave in Anurādhapura; I fled with your father and reside here.” The virtuous bhikkhu, realizing, “My ordination is impure,” asked his mother the name and clan of that family, and coming to Anurādhapura, he stood at the door of that family’s house; even when told, “Pass by, venerable sir,” he did not pass by. They came and asked, “What, venerable sir?” “Is there a slave woman of yours named so-and-so who fled?” “There is, venerable sir.” “I am her son; if you permit me, I will obtain ordination; you are my owners.” They, delighted, said, “Pure, venerable sir, is your ordination,” and making him free, they placed him in the Mahāvihāra, attending to him with the four requisites. The elder, residing relying on that family, attained arahantship.

To illustrate this point, they tell the following story: A household slave woman once fled from Anurādhapura with a man and settled in Rohaṇa, where she gave birth to a son. When he was ordained and about to receive full ordination, he became ashamed and hesitant. One day, he asked his mother, “Mother, do you have no brothers or sisters? I see no relatives.” “My son, I was a household slave in Anurādhapura. I fled with your father and settled here.” The virtuous monk, realizing, “My ordination is impure,” felt a sense of urgency. He asked his mother for the name and clan of her former household and went to Anurādhapura. Standing at the door of that household, he did not leave even when told, “Please go, venerable.” When they came and asked, “What is it, venerable?” he replied, “Do you have a slave woman named so-and-so who fled?” “Yes, venerable.” “I am her son. If you permit me, I will receive ordination, and you will be my owners.” Delighted, they said, “Your ordination is pure,” freed him, and had him reside in the Mahāvihāra, providing him with the four requisites. The elder, living dependent on that family, eventually attained Arahantship.

132. “Na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo. Na pādacchinno, na hatthapādacchinno, na kaṇṇacchinno, na kaṇṇanāsacchinno, na aṅgulicchinno, na aḷacchinno, na kaṇḍaracchinno, na phaṇahatthako, na khujjo, na vāmano na galagaṇḍī, na lakkhaṇāhato, na kasāhato, na likhitako, na sīpadī, na pāparogī, na parisadūsako, na kāṇo, na kuṇī, na khañjo, na pakkhahato, na chinniriyāpatho, na jarādubbalo, na andho, na mūgo, na badhiro, na andhamūgo, na andhabadhiro, na mūgabadhiro, na andhamūgabadhiro pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 119) vacanato pana hatthacchinnādayopi na pabbājetabbā.

132. “Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained. Nor one whose foot is cut off, nor one whose hand and foot are cut off, nor one whose ear is cut off, nor one whose ear and nose are cut off, nor one whose finger is cut off, nor one whose thumb is cut off, nor one whose tendon is cut, nor one with webbed hands, nor a hunchback, nor a dwarf, nor one with a goiter, nor one marked by signs, nor one struck by a whip, nor one branded, nor one with elephantiasis, nor one with a chronic disease, nor one who defiles assemblies, nor one who is blind, nor one with a deformed hand, nor one who limps, nor one paralyzed, nor one with impaired faculties, nor one weakened by old age, nor one blind, nor one mute, nor one deaf, nor one blind and mute, nor one blind and deaf, nor one mute and deaf, nor one blind, mute, and deaf should be ordained. Whoever ordains such a one commits an offense of dukkaṭa,” as stated in (mahāva. 119). Thus, those with a cut-off hand and so forth should not be ordained.

132. “Monks, one with a cut hand should not be ordained. One with a cut foot, one with a cut hand and foot, one with a cut ear, one with a cut ear and nose, one with a cut finger, one with a cut thumb, one with a cut tendon, one with a hand like a hood, one who is hunchbacked, one who is dwarfish, one with a goiter, one marked with a brand, one marked with a whip, one marked with writing, one with elephantiasis, one with a bad disease, one who is a corrupter of the assembly, one who is one-eyed, one who is crippled, one who is lame, one who is paralyzed, one with a broken gait, one weakened by old age, one who is blind, one who is mute, one who is deaf, one who is blind and mute, one who is blind and deaf, one who is mute and deaf, one who is blind, mute, and deaf should not be ordained. Whoever should ordain [one], there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 119); from the statement, those with cut hands, etc., also should not be ordained.

132. “Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained. Nor should one whose foot is cut off, nor one whose hand and foot are cut off, nor one whose ear is cut off, nor one whose ear and nose are cut off, nor one whose finger is cut off, nor one whose thumb is cut off, nor one whose tendon is cut off, nor one with webbed fingers, nor a hunchback, nor a dwarf, nor one with a goiter, nor one marked with a brand, nor one whipped, nor one tattooed, nor one with elephantiasis, nor one with a severe disease, nor one who disgraces an assembly, nor a one-eyed person, nor a lame person, nor a cripple, nor one with a paralyzed limb, nor one with broken movement, nor one weakened by age, nor a blind person, nor a mute, nor a deaf person, nor a blind and mute person, nor a blind and deaf person, nor a mute and deaf person, nor a blind, mute, and deaf person should be ordained. Whoever ordains such a person commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāvagga 119). Therefore, those with hands cut off, etc., should not be ordained.

Tattha hatthacchinnoti yassa hatthatale vā maṇibandhe vā kappare vā yattha katthaci eko vā dve vā hatthā chinnā honti. Pādacchinnoti yassa aggapāde vā gopphakesu vā jaṅghāya vā yattha katthaci eko vā dve vā pādā chinnā honti. Hatthapādacchinnoti yassa vuttappakāreneva catūsu hatthapādesu dve vā tayo vā sabbe vā hatthapādā chinnā honti. Kaṇṇacchinnoti yassa kaṇṇamūle vā kaṇṇasakkhalikāya vā eko vā dve vā kaṇṇā chinnā honti. Yassa pana kaṇṇāvaṭṭe chijjanti, sakkā ca hoti saṅghāṭetuṃ, so kaṇṇaṃ saṅghāṭetvā pabbājetabbo. Nāsacchinnoti yassa ajapadake vā agge vā ekapuṭe vā yattha katthaci nāsā chinnā hoti. Yassa pana nāsikā sakkā hoti sandhetuṃ, so taṃ phāsukaṃ katvā pabbājetabbo. Kaṇṇanāsacchinno ubhayavasena veditabbo. Aṅgulicchinnoti yassa nakhasesaṃ adassetvā ekā vā bahū vā aṅguliyo chinnā honti. Yassa pana suttatantumattampi nakhasesaṃ paññāyati, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Aḷacchinnoti yassa catūsu aṅguṭṭhakesu aṅguliyaṃ vuttanayeneva eko vā bahū vā aṅguṭṭhakā chinnā honti. Kaṇḍaracchinnoti yassa kaṇḍaranāmakā mahānhārū purato vā pacchato vā chinnā honti, yesu ekassapi chinnattā aggapādena vā caṅkamati, mūlena vā caṅkamati, na pādaṃ patiṭṭhāpetuṃ sakkoti.

Here, one whose hand is cut off (hatthacchinno) is one whose hand is severed at the palm, wrist, elbow, or anywhere, whether one hand or both. One whose foot is cut off (pādacchinno) is one whose foot is severed at the toes, ankle, shin, or anywhere, whether one foot or both. One whose hand and foot are cut off (hatthapādacchinno) is one whose hands and feet, as described, are severed—two, three, or all four. One whose ear is cut off (kaṇṇacchinno) is one whose ear is severed at the base or the lobe, whether one ear or both. But if the ear’s edge is cut and it can be stitched, he may be ordained after stitching the ear. One whose nose is cut off (nāsacchinno) is one whose nose is severed at the bridge, tip, or one nostril, or anywhere. But if the nose can be joined, he may be ordained after making it comfortable. One whose ear and nose are cut off (kaṇṇanāsacchinno) is to be understood as both. One whose finger is cut off (aṅgulicchinno) is one whose finger, or fingers, are severed without leaving even the nail’s remnant. But if even a thread-like remnant of the nail is visible, he may be ordained. One whose thumb is cut off (aḷacchinno) is one whose thumb, or thumbs, among the four thumbs, are severed as described for fingers. One whose tendon is cut (kaṇḍaracchinno) is one whose great tendons, called kaṇḍara, are severed in front or behind, so that even if one is cut, he walks with the toes or the root, unable to plant the foot.

Here, one with a cut hand is one whose hand is cut at the palm, or at the wrist, or at the elbow, or anywhere, one or both hands. One with a cut foot is one whose foot is cut at the front of the foot, or at the ankles, or at the shin, or anywhere, one or both feet. One with a cut hand and foot is one whose two or three or all hands and feet are cut in the stated manner among the four hands and feet. One with a cut ear is one whose ear is cut at the root of the ear, or at the earlobe, one or both ears. But if the ear is cut at the ear-rim, and it is possible to join it, he should join the ear and be ordained. One with a cut nose is one whose nose is cut at the bridge of the nose, or at the tip, or at one nostril, or anywhere. But if the nose can be joined, he should make it well and be ordained. One with a cut ear and nose should be understood in both ways. One with a cut finger is one whose one or many fingers are cut, not showing the remainder of the nail. But if even a thread-sized remainder of the nail is visible, it is allowable to ordain him. One with a cut thumb is one whose one or many thumbs are cut among the four thumbs, in the same way as stated for the finger. One with a cut tendon is one whose large tendons called kaṇḍara are cut in front or behind, because of which, even one being cut, he walks with the front of the foot, or walks with the heel, he is not able to place the foot.

Herein, hatthacchinno refers to one whose hand is cut off at the palm, wrist, or elbow, whether one or both hands. Pādacchinno refers to one whose foot is cut off at the toes, ankle, or shin, whether one or both feet. Hatthapādacchinno refers to one whose hands and feet are cut off in the manner described, whether two, three, or all four limbs. Kaṇṇacchinno refers to one whose ear is cut off at the base or lobe, whether one or both ears. If the ear can be reattached, it should be done before ordination. Nāsacchinno refers to one whose nose is cut off at the bridge, tip, or septum. If the nose can be repaired, it should be done before ordination. Kaṇṇanāsacchinno is understood in both ways. Aṅgulicchinno refers to one whose fingers are cut off, whether one or many, with no nail remaining. If even a thread-like nail remains, ordination is permissible. Aḷacchinno refers to one whose thumbs are cut off at the joints, whether one or many. Kaṇḍaracchinno refers to one whose large tendons in the front or back are cut, making it impossible to walk normally.

Phaṇahatthakoti yassa vaggulipakkhakā viya aṅguliyo sambaddhā honti, etaṃ pabbājetukāmena aṅgulantarikāyo phāletvā sabbaṃ antaracammaṃ apanetvā phāsukaṃ katvā pabbājetabbo. Yassapi cha aṅguliyo honti, taṃ pabbājetukāmena adhikaṃ aṅguliṃ chinditvā phāsukaṃ katvā pabbājetabbo. Khujjoti yo urassa vā piṭṭhiyā vā passassa vā nikkhantattā khujjasarīro. Yassa pana kiñci kiñci aṅgapaccaṅgaṃ īsakaṃ vaṅkaṃ, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Mahāpuriso eva hi brahmujugatto, avaseso satto akhujjo nāma natthi. Vāmanoti jaṅghavāmano vā kaṭivāmano vā ubhayavāmano vā. Jaṅghavāmanassa kaṭito paṭṭhāya heṭṭhimakāyo rasso hoti, uparimakāyo paripuṇṇo. Kaṭivāmanassa kaṭito paṭṭhāya uparimakāyo rasso hoti, heṭṭhimakāyo paripuṇṇo. Ubhayavāmanassa ubhopi kāyā rassā honti, yesaṃ rassattā bhūtānaṃ viya parivaṭumo mahākucchighaṭasadiso attabhāvo hoti, taṃ tividhampi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

One with webbed hands (phaṇahatthako) is one whose fingers are joined like the wings of a bat. One wishing to ordain him must split the finger spaces, remove all the inner skin, make it comfortable, and then ordain him. If someone has six fingers, one wishing to ordain him must cut off the extra finger, make it comfortable, and then ordain him. A hunchback (khujjo) is one whose body is hunched due to a protrusion at the chest, back, or side. But if some limb or part is slightly crooked, he may be ordained. Only a great being has a perfectly straight body like Brahma; no other being is free from some hunch. A dwarf (vāmano) is one short in the legs, short in the waist, or short in both. One short in the legs has a lower body that is short from the waist down, while the upper body is full. One short in the waist has an upper body that is short from the waist up, while the lower body is full. One short in both has both parts short, so his form is round like an elemental being or a large pot with a big belly. None of these three types may be ordained.

One with a hand like a hood is one whose fingers are joined like the wings of a bat; one desiring to ordain him should split the spaces between the fingers, remove all the inner skin, make it well, and ordain him. Even if one has six fingers, one desiring to ordain him should cut off the extra finger, make it well, and ordain him. One who is hunchbacked is one whose body is hunchbacked due to the chest or back or side protruding. But if some limb is slightly bent, it is allowable to ordain him. Only the Great Man is straight like a brahma; the rest of the beings, there is none who is not hunchbacked. One who is dwarfish is one who is dwarfish in the shins, or dwarfish in the waist, or dwarfish in both. For one dwarfish in the shins, the lower body from the waist down is short, the upper body is complete. For one dwarfish in the waist, the upper body from the waist up is short, the lower body is complete. For one dwarfish in both, both bodies are short, whose body, due to shortness, is like a pot with a large belly, like that of spirits; all three types should not be ordained.

Phaṇahatthako refers to one whose fingers are webbed like a duck’s. To ordain such a person, the webbing must be separated, and the inner skin removed to make it functional. If someone has six fingers, the extra finger should be removed before ordination. Khujjo refers to one with a hunched back due to a protruding chest, spine, or side. If a limb is slightly bent, ordination is permissible. After all, a great person is perfectly upright, but ordinary beings are not entirely straight. Vāmano refers to one with a bent shin, hip, or both. A shin-bent person has a short lower body and a full upper body. A hip-bent person has a short upper body and a full lower body. A person bent in both ways has both bodies short, making their appearance like a large pot-bellied being. All three types should not be ordained.

Galagaṇḍīti yassa kumbhaṇḍaṃ viya gale gaṇḍo hoti. Desanāmattameva cetaṃ, yasmiṃ kismiñci pana padese gaṇḍe sati na pabbājetabbo. Tattha vinicchayo “na, bhikkhave, pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭho pabbājetabbo”ti (mahāva. 89) ettha vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Lakkhaṇāhatakasāhatalikhitakesu yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva. Sīpadīti bhārapādo vuccati. Yassa pādo thūlo hoti sañjātapīḷako kharo, so na pabbājetabbo. Yassa pana na tāva kharabhāvaṃ gaṇhāti, sakkā hoti upanāhaṃ bandhitvā udakaāvāṭe pavesetvā udakavālikāya pūretvā yathā sirā paññāyanti, jaṅghā ca telanāḷikā viya hoti, evaṃ milāpetuṃ, tassa pādaṃ īdisaṃ katvā taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace puna vaḍḍhati, upasampādentenapi tathā katvāva upasampādetabbo. Pāparogīti arisabhagandarapittasemhakāsasosādīsu yena kenaci rogena niccāturo atekiccharogo jeguccho amanāpo, ayaṃ na pabbājetabbo.

One with a goiter (galagaṇḍī) is one who has a swelling in the throat like a pot. This is merely an example; if there is a swelling in any part, he should not be ordained. The judgment here is to be understood as stated in, “Monks, one afflicted with the five diseases should not be ordained” (mahāva. 89). Regarding one marked by signs, struck by a whip, or branded (lakkhaṇāhato, kasāhato, likhitako), what needs to be said has been stated below. One with elephantiasis (sīpadī) is called one with a heavy foot. One whose foot is thick, swollen, and rough should not be ordained. But if it has not yet become rough and can be treated by binding it with a poultice, soaking it in a water basin, filling it with sand and water until the veins are visible and the shin resembles an oil tube, making it soft, then he may be ordained after treating the foot thus. If it swells again, even one performing higher ordination must treat it similarly before ordaining. One with a chronic disease (pāparogī) is one constantly afflicted with any disease such as piles, fistulas, bile, phlegm, cough, or asthma—incurable, repulsive, and unpleasant. He should not be ordained.

One with a goiter is one whose goiter on the neck is like a water pot. But this is only a designation; if there is a goiter in any place, he should not be ordained. Here, the determination should be understood as stated in “Monks, one afflicted with five diseases should not be ordained” (mahāva. 89). What should be said about one marked with a brand, one marked with a whip, one marked with writing, has been stated above. One with elephantiasis is called one with a heavy foot. One whose foot is thick, with a painful swelling, rough, he should not be ordained. But if it does not yet take on roughness, and it is possible to tie a bandage, place it in a water pit, fill it with water and sand so that the veins are visible, and the shin is like an oil tube, to make it wither, making the foot like this, it is allowable to ordain him. If it grows again, even one conferring higher ordination should do the same and confer higher ordination. One with a bad disease is one who is constantly sick with any disease among leprosy, boils, bile, phlegm, cough, consumption, etc., an incurable disease, disgusting, unpleasant; this one should not be ordained.

Galagaṇḍī refers to one with a goiter-like swelling in the neck. This is merely a name; any swelling in any part of the body disqualifies one from ordination. The ruling is as stated in the Vinaya: “Monks, one afflicted with five diseases should not be ordained” (Mahāvagga 89). Lakkhaṇāhatakasāhatalikhitakesu refers to what has already been explained above. Sīpadī refers to one with elephantiasis, a swollen foot with painful sores. Such a person should not be ordained. If the foot is not yet severely affected, it may be treated by bandaging, soaking in water, and filling with sand until the veins are visible and the shin becomes smooth like an oil tube. After such treatment, ordination is permissible. If the condition worsens, full ordination should also be given after similar treatment. Pāparogī refers to one chronically afflicted with diseases like fistula, bile, phlegm, cough, or consumption, making them repulsive and unfit for ordination.

133. Parisadūsakoti yo attano virūpatāya parisaṃ dūseti, atidīgho vā hoti aññesaṃ sīsappamāṇanābhippadeso, atirasso vā ubhayavāmanabhūtarūpaṃ viya, atikāḷo vā jhāpitakkhette khāṇuko viya, accodāto vā dadhitakkādīhi pamajjitatambalohavaṇṇo, atikiso vā mandamaṃsalohito aṭṭhisirācammasarīro viya, atithūlo vā bhāriyamaṃso mahodaro mahābhūtasadiso, abhimahantasīso vā pacchiṃ sīse katvā ṭhito viya, atikhuddakasīso vā sarīrassa ananurūpena atikhuddakena sīsena samannāgato, kūṭakūṭasīso vā tālaphalapiṇḍisadisena sīsena samannāgato, sikharasīso vā uddhaṃ anupubbatanukena sīsena samannāgato, nāḷisīso vā mahāveṇupabbasadisena sīsena samannāgato, kappasīso vā pabbhārasīso vā catūsu passesu yena kenaci passena onatena sīsena samannāgato, vaṇasīso vā pūtisīso vā kaṇṇikakeso vā pāṇakehi khāyitakedāre sassasadisehi tahiṃ tahiṃ uṭṭhitehi kesehi samannāgato, nillomasīso vā thūlathaddhakeso vā tālahīrasadisehi kesehi samannāgato, jātipalitehi paṇḍarakeso vā pakatitambakeso vā ādittehi viya kesehi samannāgato, āvaṭṭasīso vā gunnaṃ sarīre āvaṭṭasadisehi uddhaggehi kesāvaṭṭehi samannāgato, sīsalomehi saddhiṃ ekābaddhabhamukalomo vā jālabaddhena viya nalāṭena samannāgato.

133. One who defiles assemblies (parisadūsako) is one who, due to his deformity, defiles an assembly: either excessively tall, reaching others’ heads at his navel; or excessively short, like a dwarf or elemental being; or excessively black, like a stump in a burned field; or excessively pale, like copper smeared with curds or buttermilk; or excessively thin, with little flesh and blood, like a skeleton with skin and veins; or excessively fat, with heavy flesh, a big belly, like a great elemental being; or with an overly large head, like one standing with a basket on his head; or with an overly small head, disproportionate to the body; or with a pointed head, like a lump of palm fruit; or with a peaked head, tapering upward; or with a tubular head, like a large bamboo joint; or with a slanted head, tilting to one side; or with a scarred head, a festering head, or a head with patchy hair, like a field eaten by pests with hair sprouting here and there; or with a hairless head, or with thick, stiff hair like palm fibers; or with gray hair from birth, or naturally reddish hair like it’s burning; or with a twisted head, with upward-curling hair like a cow’s twisted body; or with eyebrows fused with head hair, like a netted forehead.

133. One who is a corrupter of the assembly is one who corrupts the assembly by his deformity, either he is very tall, the region of the navel of others being the size of his head, or he is very short, like the form of one dwarfish in both ways, like a spirit, or he is very dark, like a stump in a burnt field, or he is very fair, the color of copper polished with curd, buttermilk, etc., or he is very thin, with little flesh and blood, like a body of bones, veins, and skin, or he is very fat, with heavy flesh, with a large belly, like a great spirit, or he has a very large head, as if a basket is placed on his head, or he has a very small head, endowed with a very small head disproportionate to his body, or he has a head like a lump, endowed with a head like a palm fruit cluster, or he has a peaked head, endowed with a head that is gradually thin upwards, or he has a head like a tube, endowed with a head like a large bamboo joint, or he has a sloping head or a head like a mountain slope, endowed with a head that is sloping on any of the four sides, or he has a head with a wound, or a head with pus, or hair like the ear of grain, endowed with hair that has sprung up here and there like grain in a field eaten by insects, or he has no hair on his head, or he has thick, coarse hair, endowed with hair like palm fibers, or he has gray hair from birth, or he has naturally copper-colored hair, endowed with hair as if it were burnt, or he has a head with swirls, endowed with hair swirls with the tips upwards like swirls on the body of cattle, or he has hair on the head joined with the eyebrows, endowed with a forehead as if bound with a net.

133. Parisadūsako refers to one whose ugliness disgraces an assembly, such as one excessively tall, short, dark, pale, thin, fat, with an oversized head, undersized head, a head like a palm fruit, a pointed head, a head like a bamboo, a head bent to one side, a head with sores, a foul-smelling head, a head with lice, a head with thick, stiff hair like palm fibers, a head with white or yellow hair, a head with hair like flames, a head with hair twisted like a rope, a head with hair tied in a knot, a head with hair like a net, a head with hairless brows, a head with brows like a monkey’s, excessively large or small eyes, eyes like a goat’s, uneven eyes, eyes like a deep well, protruding eyes, ears like an elephant’s, mouse’s, or bat’s, ears with holes, ears with pus, ears with tumors, ears like a cow’s udder, eyes with yellow discharge, eyes with excessive tears, eyes with protruding veins, or eyes with cataracts.

Sambaddhabhamuko vā nillomabhamuko vā makkaṭabhamuko vā atimahantakkhi vā atikhuddakakkhi vā mahiṃsacamme vāsikoṇena paharitvā katachiddasadisehi akkhīhi samannāgato, visamakkhi vā ekena mahantena, ekena khuddakena akkhinā samannāgato, visamacakkalo vā ekena uddhaṃ, ekena adhoti evaṃ visamajātehi akkhicakkehi samannāgato, kekaro vā gambhīrakkhi vā yassa gambhīre udapāne udakatārakā viya akkhitārakā paññāyanti, nikkhantakkhi vā yassa kakkaṭasseva akkhitārakā nikkhantā honti, hatthikaṇṇo vā mahantāhi kaṇṇasakkhalīhi samannāgato, mūsikakaṇṇo vā jatukakaṇṇo vā khuddakāhi kaṇṇasakkhalīhi samannāgato, chiddamattakaṇṇo vā yassa vinā kaṇṇasakkhalīhi kaṇṇacchiddamattameva hoti, aviddhakaṇṇo vā, yonakajātiko pana parisadūsako na hoti, sabhāvoyeva hi so tassa. Kaṇṇabhagandariko vā niccapūtinā kaṇṇena samannāgato, gaṇḍakaṇṇo vā sadā paggharitapubbena kaṇṇena samannāgato, ṭaṅkitakaṇṇo vā gobhattanāḷikāya aggasadisehi kaṇṇehi samannāgato, atipiṅgalakkhi vā, madhupiṅgalaṃ pana pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Nippakhumakkhi vā assupaggharaṇakkhi vā pupphitakkhi vā akkhipākena samannāgatakkhi vā.

One with fused eyebrows, or hairless eyebrows, or monkey-like eyebrows; or with overly large eyes, or overly small eyes, like holes made by striking buffalo hide with a chisel; or with uneven eyes, one large and one small; or with misaligned pupils, one upward and one downward; or with crooked eyes, or deep-set eyes, whose pupils appear like stars in a deep well; or with protruding eyes, like a crab’s; or with elephant ears, with large ear lobes; or with mouse-like ears, or bat-like ears, with small ear lobes; or with mere ear holes, without lobes; or with unpierced ears—though a Yonaka by birth is not one who defiles assemblies, for that is his natural state. Or one with oozing ear sores, with a constantly festering ear; or with swollen ears, always dripping pus; or with notched ears, like the tips of cow teats; or with overly yellowish eyes—though one with honey-yellow eyes may be ordained. Or with lashless eyes, or teary eyes, or blooming eyes, or eyes afflicted with eye-disease.

One with joined eyebrows, or one with no eyebrows, or one with eyebrows like a monkey, or one with very large eyes, or one with very small eyes, endowed with eyes like holes made with the corner of a knife in buffalo hide, or one with uneven eyes, endowed with one large and one small eye, or one with uneven eyeballs, endowed with eyeballs that are unevenly placed, one upwards, one downwards, or one who is cross-eyed, or one with deep-set eyes, whose pupils are visible like stars in a deep well, or one with protruding eyes, whose pupils protrude like those of a crab, or one with elephant ears, endowed with large earlobes, or one with mouse ears or bat ears, endowed with small earlobes, or one with only holes for ears, whose ears are only holes without earlobes, or one with unpierced ears; but one of Yavana birth is not a corrupter of the assembly, because it is his natural state. One with a chronic ear disease, endowed with a constantly pussy ear, or one with a suppurating ear, endowed with an ear constantly discharging pus, or one with ears like the tip of a cow’s feeding tube, or one with very pink eyes; but one with honey-colored eyes is allowable to ordain. One with no eyelashes, or one with eyes that constantly water, or one with eyes that are flowery, or one with eyes that are diseased with eye disease.

One with connected eyebrows, or hairless eyebrows, or monkey-like eyebrows, or with excessively large eyes, or with extremely small eyes, or with eyes resembling holes made by striking a buffalo hide with the edge of a knife, or with uneven eyes—one eye large and one small, or with uneven pupils—one positioned higher and one lower, thus having unequal eye formations, or with squinting eyes, or with deep-set eyes where the pupils appear like stars reflected in deep wells, or with protruding eyes like those of a crab with bulging pupils, or with elephant ears—having large ear lobes, or with mouse ears or bat ears—having small ear lobes, or with mere holes for ears—without ear lobes having only the ear holes, or with unpierced ears. A person of Greek origin, however, is not considered defective in an assembly, as this is their natural feature. One with ear fistulas—having constantly purulent ears, or with ear tumors—having ears that always discharge pus, or with funnel-shaped ears resembling the tip of a cattle-feeding tube, or with excessively tawny eyes. However, one with honey-colored eyes may be ordained. One with eyelids missing, or with constantly tearing eyes, or with inflamed eyes, or with eyes affected by ophthalmia.

Atimahantanāsiko vā atikhuddakanāsiko vā cipiṭanāsiko vā majjhe appatiṭṭhahitvā ekapasse ṭhitavaṅkanāsiko vā dīghanāsiko vā sukatuṇḍasadisāya jivhāya lehituṃ sakkuṇeyyāya nāsikāya samannāgato, niccaṃ paggharitasiṅghāṇikanāso vā, mahāmukho vā yassa paṭaṅgamaṇḍūkasseva mukhanimittaṃyeva mahantaṃ hoti, mukhaṃ pana lābusadisaṃ atikhuddakaṃ, bhinnamukho vā vaṅkamukho vā mahāoṭṭho vā ukkhalimukhavaṭṭisadisehi oṭṭhehi samannāgato, tanukaoṭṭho vā bhericammasadisehi dante pidahituṃ asamatthehi oṭṭhehi samannāgato, mahādharoṭṭho vā tanukauttaroṭṭho vā tanukaadharoṭṭho vā mahāuttaroṭṭho vā oṭṭhachinnako vā eḷamukho vā uppakkamukho vā saṅkhatuṇḍako vā bahi setehi anto atirattehi oṭṭhehi samannāgato, duggandhakuṇapamukho vā, mahādanto vā aṭṭhakadantasadisehi dantehi samannāgato, asuradanto vā heṭṭhā vā upari vā bahi nikkhantadanto, yassa pana sakkā hoti oṭṭhehi pidahituṃ, kathentasseva paññāyati, no akathentassa, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Pūtidanto vā niddanto vā atikhuddakadanto vā yassa pana dantantare kalandakadanto viya sukhumadanto hoti, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.

One with an overly large nose, or an overly small nose, or a flat nose, or a crooked nose tilted to one side without a central ridge; or with a long nose, like a parrot’s beak, able to be licked with the tongue; or with a constantly dripping nose; or with a large mouth, like a locust or frog, where only the mouth is prominent; or with a mouth like a gourd, overly small; or with a split mouth, or crooked mouth, or large lips, like the rim of a mortar; or with thin lips, like drum skin, unable to cover the teeth; or with a large lower lip, or thin upper lip, or thin lower lip, or large upper lip, or cut lips, or drooling mouth, or swollen mouth, or beak-like mouth, with white outer lips and overly red inner ones; or with a foul-smelling corpse-like mouth; or with large teeth, like those of a skeleton; or with demon-like teeth, protruding below or above or outward—though if they can be covered by the lips and are only visible when speaking, not otherwise, he may be ordained. Or with rotting teeth, or gapless teeth, or overly small teeth—though if fine teeth like a squirrel’s appear between gaps, he may be ordained.

One with a very large nose, or one with a very small nose, or one with a flat nose, or one with a bent nose placed on one side without being established in the middle, or one with a long nose, endowed with a nose that can be licked with a tongue like that of a sukatuṇḍa, or one with a nose that constantly drips with mucus, or one with a large mouth, whose mouth is very large, like that of a grasshopper or a frog, but the mouth is like a lābu, very small, or one with a broken mouth, or one with a bent mouth, or one with large lips, endowed with lips like the rim of a pot, or one with thin lips, endowed with lips that are unable to cover the teeth, like the hide of a drum, or one with a large lower lip, or one with a thin upper lip, or one with a thin lower lip, or one with a large upper lip, or one with a cut lip, or one with a mouth like a horse, or one with a protruding mouth, or one with a mouth like a conch shell, endowed with lips that are white outside and very red inside, or one with a foul-smelling, corpse-like mouth, or one with large teeth, endowed with teeth like bone teeth, or one with teeth like a demon, with teeth protruding outwards below or above; but if it is possible to cover them with the lips, and they are visible only when speaking, not when not speaking, it is allowable to ordain him. One with rotten teeth, or one with no teeth, or one with very small teeth; but if there is a fine tooth between the teeth like a kalandaka tooth, it is allowable to ordain him.

One with an excessively large nose, or with an extremely small nose, or with a flat nose, or with a crooked nose that doesn’t rest in the middle but is positioned to one side, or with a long nose that can be licked with a parrot-beak-like tongue, or with a nose that constantly discharges mucus, or with a large mouth like that of a grasshopper or frog where only the mouth appearance is large but the actual mouth is extremely small like a gourd, or with a split mouth, or with a crooked mouth, or with large lips resembling the rim of a cooking pot, or with thin lips incapable of covering the teeth like drum skin, or with a large lower lip but thin upper lip, or with a thin lower lip but large upper lip, or with cut lips, or with a drooling mouth, or with a festering mouth, or with conch-shell-shaped lips—white outside but extremely red inside, or with a mouth smelling like a putrid corpse, or with large teeth resembling a small saw’s teeth, or with demon-like teeth protruding outward either from below or above. However, if the teeth can be covered by the lips and are only visible when speaking, not when silent, such a person may be ordained. One with rotten teeth, or toothless, or with extremely small teeth. However, if one has fine teeth like a squirrel’s appearing between the normal teeth, such a person may be ordained.

Mahāhanuko vā gohanusadisena hanunā samannāgato, dīghahanuko vā cipiṭahanuko vā antopaviṭṭhena viya atirassena hanukena samannāgato, bhinnahanuko vā vaṅkahanuko vā nimmassudāṭhiko vā bhikkhunīsadisamukho, dīghagalo vā bakagalasadisena galena samannāgato, rassagalo vā antopaviṭṭhena viya galena samannāgato, bhinnagalo vā bhaṭṭhaaṃsakūṭo vā ahattho vā ekahattho vā atirassahattho vā atidīghahattho vā bhinnauro vā bhinnapiṭṭhi vā kacchugatto vā kaṇḍugatto vā daddugatto vā godhāgatto vā yassa godhāya viya gattato cuṇṇāni patanti. Sabbañcetaṃ virūpakaraṇaṃ sandhāya vitthāritavasena vuttaṃ, vinicchayo panettha pañcābādhesu vuttanayena veditabbo.

One with a large jaw, like a cow’s jaw; or with a long jaw, or flat jaw, or a recessed jaw appearing shrunken; or with a split jaw, or crooked jaw, or beardless; or with a nun-like face; or with a long neck, like a crane’s; or with a short neck, appearing recessed; or with a split neck; or with a fallen shoulder ridge; or with no hands, or one hand, or overly short hands, or overly long hands; or with a split chest, or split back, or scabby body, or itchy body, or scaly body, or lizard-like body, whose skin flakes off like a lizard’s. All this is elaborated with reference to deformity-causing conditions, but the judgment here is to be understood as stated in the five diseases.

One with a large jaw, endowed with a jaw like a cow’s jaw, or one with a long jaw, or one with a flat jaw, endowed with a very short jaw as if it were sunken inwards, or one with a broken jaw, or one with a bent jaw, or one with no beard or mustache, with a face like a bhikkhunī, or one with a long neck, endowed with a neck like a crane’s neck, or one with a short neck, endowed with a neck as if it were sunken inwards, or one with a broken neck, or one with a broken shoulder, or one with no hands, or one with one hand, or one with very short hands, or one with very long hands, or one with a broken chest, or one with a broken back, or one with a body covered in sores, or one with a body covered in itching, or one with a body covered in ringworm, or one with a body like a godhā, from whose body powder falls like from a godhā. All this is said in detail for the sake of explaining deformity; the determination here should be understood as stated in the five diseases.

One with a large jaw resembling a cow’s jaw, or with a long jaw, or with a flat jaw, or with an extremely short jaw that appears sunken inward, or with a broken jaw, or with a crooked jaw, or without a beard or mustache—having a face like a nun, or with a long neck resembling a crane’s neck, or with a short neck that appears sunken inward, or with a broken neck, or with fallen shoulder blades, or without hands, or with only one hand, or with extremely short hands, or with excessively long hands, or with a broken chest, or with a broken back, or with a body affected by scabies, or with a body affected by itching skin disease, or with a body affected by herpes, or with a body like a monitor lizard’s from which powder falls off as from a lizard. All these deformities have been explained in detail in terms of what causes disfigurement, but the decision in these cases should be understood according to the method stated regarding the five diseases.

Bhaṭṭhakaṭiko vā mahāānisado vā uddhanakūṭasadisehi ānisadamaṃsehi accuggatehi samannāgato, mahāūruko vā vātaṇḍiko vā mahājāṇuko vā saṅghaṭṭanajāṇuko vā dīghajaṅgho vā yaṭṭhisadisajaṅgho, vikaṭo vā saṅghaṭṭo vā ubbaddhapiṇḍiko vā, so duvidho heṭṭhā oruḷhāhi vā upari āruḷhāhi vā mahatīhi jaṅghapiṇḍikāhi samannāgato, mahājaṅgho vā thūlajaṅghapiṇḍiko vā mahāpādo vā mahāpaṇhi vā piṭṭhikapādo vā pādavemajjhato uṭṭhitajaṅgho, vaṅkapādo vā, so duvidho anto vā bahi vā parivattapādo, gaṇṭhikaṅguli vā siṅgiveraphaṇasadisāhi aṅgulīhi samannāgato, andhanakho vā kāḷavaṇṇehi pūtinakhehi samannāgato, sabbopi esa parisadūsako. Evarūpo parisadūsako na pabbājetabbo.

One who has a broad pelvis or large buttocks, endowed with prominent fleshy buttocks resembling the peak of a cooking hearth, or one who has large thighs, thick calves, large knees, knees that knock together, long shins, or shins resembling sticks, or one who is deformed, with knocking limbs or bulging masses of flesh, such a one being of two types—either with large calf muscles descending from the thighs or ascending from below—is endowed with large shins, thick calf muscles, large feet, large heels, flat feet, or shins rising from the middle of the feet, or crooked feet, again of two types—either turned inward or outward—or one with knotted toes or toes resembling ginger roots, or one with blind nails or black, putrid nails—all such persons corrupt the assembly. Such a one who corrupts the assembly should not be ordained.

One with excessively prominent calf muscles like a Bhaṭṭhaka calf or a Mahā-ānisa calf, resembling an excavated mound, or one with large thighs, or one with prominent tendons, or one with large knees, or one with knees that knock together, or one with long shins, or one with shins like sticks, or one who is deformed, or one who is emaciated, or one with hanging calf muscles, who is of two kinds: one with large calf muscles hanging down or rising up; or one with large shins, or one with thick calf muscles, or one with large feet, or one with large heels, or one with flat feet, or one whose shins rise from the middle of the foot, or one with crooked feet, who is of two kinds: one with feet turned inward or outward, or one with knotted toes, endowed with toes resembling ginger roots, or one with ingrown nails, endowed with blackish, putrid nails – all these are corrupters of the assembly. A corrupter of the assembly of such kind should not be given the Going-forth.

One who has a protruding belly like a pot or a large buttocks, or one whose flesh is raised like a cooking pot, or one who has large thighs, or one who is swollen in the thighs, or one who has large knees, or one whose knees knock together, or one who has long legs like a stick, or one who is deformed, or one whose legs are bent, or one whose calves are swollen either below or above, or one who has large legs, or one who has thick calves, or one who has large feet, or one who has large heels, or one whose feet are raised in the middle, or one whose legs are bent, or one whose feet turn inward or outward, or one whose fingers are knotted like ginger roots, or one whose nails are black and rotten—all such individuals are defilers of the assembly. Such defilers of the assembly should not be ordained.

134. Kāṇoti pasannandho vā hotu pupphādīhi vā upahatapasādo, dvīhi vā ekena vā akkhinā na passati, so na pabbājetabbo. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana ekakkhikāṇo “kāṇo”ti vutto, dviakkhikāṇo andhena saṅgahito. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ jaccandho “andho”ti vutto. Tasmā ubhayampi pariyāyena yujjati. Kuṇīti hatthakuṇī vā pādakuṇī vā aṅgulikuṇī vā, yassa etesu hatthādīsu yaṃ kiñci vaṅkaṃ paññāyati. Khañjoti natajāṇuko vā bhinnajaṅgho vā majjhe saṃkuṭitapādattā kuṇṭhapādako vā piṭṭhipādamajjhena caṅkamanto, agge saṃkuṭitapādattā kuṇṭhapādako vā piṭṭhipādaggena caṅkamanto, aggapādeneva caṅkamanakhañjo vā paṇhikāya caṅkamanakhañjo vā pādassa bāhirantena caṅkamanakhañjo vā pādassa abbhantarena caṅkamanakhañjo vā gopphakānaṃ upari bhaggattā sakalena piṭṭhipādena caṅkamanakhañjo vā. Sabbopesa khañjoyeva, na pabbājetabbo.

134. Kāṇo means one who is completely blind or whose vision is impaired by cataracts or the like, unable to see with either both eyes or one eye; such a one should not be ordained. However, in the Mahāpaccariyaṃ, a one-eyed blind person is called “kāṇo,” while a two-eyed blind person is included under “blind.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, one born blind is called “andho.” Thus, both terms can be applied interchangeably. Kuṇī refers to one with a crooked hand, foot, or finger, where any crookedness is evident in these limbs. Khañjo refers to one with bent knees, broken shins, or a contracted foot due to the middle being shriveled, walking on the middle of the flat foot; or one with a contracted foot due to the front being shriveled, walking on the front of the flat foot; or one lame in walking with only the front of the foot, or lame in walking with the heel, or lame in walking with the outer edge of the foot, or lame in walking with the inner edge of the foot, or lame in walking with the entire flat foot due to broken ankles. All such persons are indeed lame and should not be ordained.

134. Blind means either one who is completely blind or one whose faculty of sight is impaired by things like cataracts; he does not see with either one or both eyes; such a one should not be given the Going-forth. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, one blind in one eye is called “blind,” while one blind in both eyes is included under “the blind.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, one blind from birth is called “blind.” Therefore, both are appropriate by way of synonym. Crippled means crippled in the hand, crippled in the foot, or crippled in the fingers; in whichever of these hands, etc., any crookedness is apparent. Lame means one with bent knees, or one with broken shins, or one who walks on the back of the foot because the foot is contracted in the middle, or one who walks on the tip of the back of the foot because the foot is contracted at the front, or one who is lame, walking only on the toes, or one who is lame, walking on the heels, or one who is lame, walking on the outer side of the foot, or one who is lame, walking on the inner side of the foot, or one who is lame, walking with the entire back of the foot because the ankles are broken. All these are simply lame and should not be given the Going-forth.

134. Blind means either completely blind or one whose vision is impaired by flowers or other causes, or one who cannot see with one or both eyes. Such a person should not be ordained. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, a one-eyed blind person is called “blind,” and a two-eyed blind person is included with the blind. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, one who is blind from birth is called “blind.” Therefore, both interpretations are valid. Crippled means one whose hands, feet, or fingers are bent in any way. Lame means one whose knees are bent, or whose legs are broken, or whose feet are bent in the middle, or whose feet are bent at the top, or who walks on the heels, or who walks on the outer edge of the foot, or who walks on the inner edge of the foot, or whose legs are broken at the joints, or who walks with the entire sole of the foot. All such individuals are considered lame and should not be ordained.

Pakkhahatoti yassa eko hattho vā pādo vā addhasarīraṃ vā sukhaṃ na vahati. Chinniriyāpathoti pīṭhasappī vuccati. Jarādubbaloti jiṇṇabhāvena dubbalo attano cīvararajanādikammampi kātuṃ asamattho. Yo pana mahallakopi balavā hoti, attānaṃ paṭijaggituṃ sakkoti, so pabbājetabbo. Andhoti jaccandho vuccati. Mūgoti yassa vacībhedo na pavattati, yassapi pavattati, saraṇagamanaṃ pana paripuṇṇaṃ bhāsituṃ na sakkoti, tādisaṃ mammanampi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yo pana saraṇagamanamattaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ bhāsituṃ sakkoti, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Badhiroti yo sabbena sabbaṃ na suṇāti. Yo pana mahāsaddaṃ suṇāti, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Andhamūgādayo ubhayadosavasena vuttā. Yesañca pabbajjā paṭikkhittā, upasampadāpi tesaṃ paṭikkhittāva. Sace pana ne saṅgho upasampādeti, sabbepi sūpasampannā, kārakasaṅgho pana ācariyupajjhāyā ca āpattito na muccanti.

Pakkhahato refers to one whose one hand, foot, or half of the body does not function properly. Chinniriyāpatho refers to one called a cripple (pīṭhasappī). Jarādubbalo refers to one weakened by old age, unable due to decrepitude to perform even tasks like dyeing their own robes. However, an elderly person who is strong and able to take care of themselves may be ordained. Andho refers to one born blind. Mūgo refers to one whose speech does not function, or even if it does, who cannot fully recite the going for refuge; such a mumbling person should not be ordained. But one who can fully recite the going for refuge may be ordained. Badhiro refers to one who hears nothing at all. However, one who can hear loud sounds may be ordained. Andhamūgā and the like are stated in terms of dual defects. For those prohibited from ordination, higher ordination (upasampadā) is also prohibited. However, if the Sangha ordains them, they are all duly ordained, though the officiating Sangha, preceptor, and teacher do not escape the offense.

Paralyzed means one whose one hand or foot or half of the body does not function properly. Of interrupted deportment refers to a stool-pigeon. Debilitated by old age means one who is weakened by old age and unable to do even his own tasks such as dyeing robes. But one who, even though old, is strong and able to look after himself should be given the Going-forth. Blind refers to one blind from birth. Mute means one whose speech does not function; even if it does function, if he is unable to utter the Refuges completely, it is not proper to give the Going-forth even to such a simpleton. But one who is able to utter just the Refuges completely, it is proper to give him the Going-forth. Deaf means one who does not hear at all. But one who hears loud sounds, it is proper to give him the Going-forth. Blind and mute etc. are stated in terms of both defects. And for whom the Going-forth is prohibited, ordination is also prohibited for them. If the Saṅgha ordains them, all are well-ordained, but the ordaining Saṅgha and the teachers and preceptors are not freed from offense.

Paralyzed means one whose hand, foot, or half of the body cannot function properly. One whose movements are impaired refers to one who is like a bench. Weak with age means one who is feeble due to old age and is unable to perform tasks such as washing robes. However, if an elderly person is strong and capable of taking care of themselves, they may be ordained. Blind refers to one who is blind from birth. Mute means one who cannot speak, or if they can speak, they are unable to fully pronounce the refuge formula. Such a person should not be ordained. However, if they can fully pronounce the refuge formula, they may be ordained. Deaf means one who cannot hear at all. If they can hear loud sounds, they may be ordained. The blind, mute, and deaf are mentioned due to both defects. For those whose ordination is prohibited, their higher ordination is also prohibited. If the Sangha does not ordain them, they are fully ordained, but the Sangha and the preceptors are not free from offense.

135. Paṇḍako ubhatobyañjanako theyyasaṃvāsako titthiyapakkantako tiracchānagato mātughātako pitughātako arahantaghātako lohituppādako saṅghabhedako bhikkhunīdūsakoti ime pana ekādasa puggalā “paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo”ti (mahāva. 109) ādivacanato abhabbā, neva nesaṃ pabbajjā, na upasampadā ca ruhati, tasmā na pabbājetabbā na upasampādetabbā, jānitvā pabbājento upasampādento ca dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Ajānitvāpi pabbājitā upasampāditā ca jānitvā liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbā.

135. The eleven individuals—paṇḍaka, ubhatobyañjanaka, theyyasaṃvāsaka, titthiyapakkantaka, tiracchānagata, mātughātaka, pitughātaka, arahantaghātaka, lohituppādaka, saṅghabhedaka, and bhikkhunīdūsaka—are declared incapable by the statement, “Monks, a paṇḍaka who is not ordained should not be ordained; if ordained, they should be expelled” (mahāva. 109) and so forth. Thus, neither ordination nor higher ordination is valid for them. Therefore, they should neither be ordained nor given higher ordination. Knowingly ordaining or giving higher ordination to them incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Even if ordained or given higher ordination unknowingly, they must be expelled by removal of the insignia once it is known.

135. A paṇḍaka, one with both sets of sexual organs, one who steals association, one who has defected to a heretical sect, one who has gone to the animal realm, one who has killed his mother, one who has killed his father, one who has killed an arahant, one who has caused blood to flow from a Buddha, one who has caused a schism in the Saṅgha, and one who has violated a bhikkhunī: these eleven individuals are unfit according to statements beginning with “A paṇḍaka, monks, who is unordained, should not be ordained; one who is ordained should be expelled” (mahāva. 109); neither Going-forth nor ordination is suitable for them; therefore, they should not be given the Going-forth, nor should they be ordained; and one who, knowing, gives the Going-forth or ordains incurs a dukkata offense. Even if given the Going-forth or ordained unknowingly, they should be expelled after recognition by way of destroying the sign.

135. A eunuch, a hermaphrodite, one who associates with thieves, one who has left the heretics, one who has been an animal, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an arahant, one who causes a schism in the Sangha, and one who violates a bhikkhunī—these eleven types of individuals are incapable. As stated in the Mahāvagga (109), “A eunuch, O bhikkhus, should not be ordained. If ordained, they should be expelled.” For them, neither ordination nor higher ordination is valid. Therefore, they should not be ordained or given higher ordination. One who knowingly ordains or gives higher ordination to such individuals commits a wrongdoing. Even if done unknowingly, once discovered, they should be expelled after removing their status.

Tattha paṇḍakoti āsittapaṇḍako usūyapaṇḍako opakkamikapaṇḍako pakkhapaṇḍako napuṃsakapaṇḍakoti pañca paṇḍakā. Tesu yassa paresaṃ aṅgajātaṃ mukhena gahetvā asucinā āsittassa pariḷāho vūpasammati, ayaṃ āsittapaṇḍako. Yassa paresaṃ ajjhācāraṃ passato usūyāya uppannāya pariḷāho vūpasammati, ayaṃ usūyapaṇḍako. Yassa upakkamena bījāni apanītāni, ayaṃ opakkamikapaṇḍako. Ekacco pana akusalavipākānubhāvena kāḷapakkhe paṇḍako hoti, juṇhapakkhe panassa pariḷāho vūpasammati, ayaṃ pakkhapaṇḍako. Yo pana paṭisandhiyaṃyeva abhāvako uppanno, ayaṃ na puṃsakapaṇḍako. Tesu āsittapaṇḍakassa ca usūyapaṇḍakassa ca pabbajjā na vāritā, itaresaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vāritā. “Tesupi pakkhapaṇḍakassa yasmiṃ pakkhe paṇḍako hoti, tasmiṃyevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritā”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ.

Among these, paṇḍaka refers to five types: āsittapaṇḍaka, usūyapaṇḍaka, opakkamikapaṇḍaka, pakkhapaṇḍaka, and napuṃsakapaṇḍaka. Among them, one whose passion subsides by taking another’s genital organ in their mouth with semen is an āsittapaṇḍaka. One whose passion subsides by seeing others’ misconduct due to jealousy is an usūyapaṇḍaka. One whose seeds have been removed by intervention is an opakkamikapaṇḍaka. One who, due to the effects of unwholesome kamma, is a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight but whose passion subsides during the bright fortnight is a pakkhapaṇḍaka. One born without capacity at conception is a napuṃsakapaṇḍaka. Among these, ordination is not prohibited for the āsittapaṇḍaka and usūyapaṇḍaka, but it is prohibited for the other three. The Kurundī states, “Even for the pakkhapaṇḍaka, ordination is prohibited only during the fortnight when they are a paṇḍaka.”

Here, paṇḍaka means five kinds of paṇḍakas: the āsitta-paṇḍaka, the usūyā-paṇḍaka, the opakkamikapaṇḍaka, the pakkhapaṇḍaka, and the napuṃsaka-paṇḍaka. Among them, one whose burning sensation subsides when his organ is moistened with the impurity after taking the sexual organ of others into his mouth, this is an āsitta-paṇḍaka. One whose burning sensation subsides when he sees the misconduct of others arising from envy, this is an usūyā-paṇḍaka. One whose generative organs have been removed by means of an operation, this is an opakkamikapaṇḍaka. However, one who, due to the influence of unwholesome karma, is a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight, but whose burning sensation subsides during the bright fortnight, this is a pakkhapaṇḍaka. But one who is born without virility from the moment of conception, this is a napuṃsaka-paṇḍaka. Among them, the Going-forth is not prohibited for the āsitta-paṇḍaka and the usūyā-paṇḍaka, but it is prohibited for the other three. In the Kurundī, it is stated, “Even among these, the Going-forth is prohibited for the pakkhapaṇḍaka only during the fortnight in which he is a paṇḍaka.”

Here, eunuch refers to five types: the eunuch by contact, the eunuch by envy, the eunuch by assault, the eunuch by lunar phase, and the eunuch by birth. Among them, one whose burning desire is quenched by taking the genitals of another into their mouth is called the eunuch by contact. One whose burning desire is quenched by seeing the misconduct of others due to envy is called the eunuch by envy. One whose seeds are removed by assault is called the eunuch by assault. Some, due to the result of unwholesome karma, become eunuchs during the dark lunar phase, but their desire is quenched during the bright lunar phase—this is called the eunuch by lunar phase. One who is born without sexual characteristics is called the eunuch by birth. Among these, the eunuch by contact and the eunuch by envy are not prohibited from ordination, but the other three are. In the Kurundi, it is stated that for the eunuch by lunar phase, ordination is prohibited during the phase in which they become a eunuch.

136. Ubhatobyañjanakoti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 116) itthinimittuppādanakammato ca purisanimittuppādanakammato ca ubhatobyañjanamassa atthīti ubhatobyañjanako. So duvidho hoti itthiubhatobyañjanako purisaubhatobyañjanakoti. Tattha itthiubhatobyañjanakassa itthinimittaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, purisanimittaṃ paṭicchannaṃ. Purisaubhatobyañjanakassa purisanimittaṃ pākaṭaṃ, itthinimittaṃ paṭicchannaṃ. Itthiubhatobyañjanakassa itthīsu purisattaṃ karontassa itthinimittaṃ paṭicchannaṃ hoti, purisanimittaṃ pākaṭaṃ. Purisaubhatobyañjanakassa purisānaṃ itthibhāvaṃ upagacchantassa purisanimittaṃ paṭicchannaṃ hoti, itthinimittaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti. Itthiubhatobyañjanako sayañca gabbhaṃ gaṇhāti, parañca gaṇhāpeti, purisaubhatobyañjanako pana sayaṃ na gaṇhāti, paraṃ pana gaṇhāpetīti idametesaṃ nānākaraṇaṃ. Imassa pana duvidhassapi ubhatobyañjanakassa neva pabbajjā atthi, na upasampadā.

136. Ubhatobyañjanaka (mahāva. aṭṭha. 116) refers to one who has both female and male characteristics due to the actions producing female signs and male signs; hence, an ubhatobyañjanaka. This is of two types: itthi-ubhatobyañjanaka and purisa-ubhatobyañjanaka. For an itthi-ubhatobyañjanaka, the female characteristic is prominent, and the male characteristic is concealed. For a purisa-ubhatobyañjanaka, the male characteristic is prominent, and the female characteristic is concealed. When an itthi-ubhatobyañjanaka acts as a male with women, the female characteristic becomes concealed, and the male characteristic becomes prominent. When a purisa-ubhatobyañjanaka assumes a female state with men, the male characteristic becomes concealed, and the female characteristic becomes prominent. An itthi-ubhatobyañjanaka can both conceive and impregnate others, while a purisa-ubhatobyañjanaka cannot conceive but can impregnate others—this is their distinction. For both types of ubhatobyañjanaka, neither ordination nor higher ordination is permitted.

136. One with both sets of sexual organs (mahāva. aṭṭha. 116) means one who has both sets of sexual organs, because of the karma producing female characteristics and the karma producing male characteristics. He is of two kinds: one with female and both sets of sexual organs and one with male and both sets of sexual organs. Among them, in the one with female and both sets of sexual organs, the female characteristics are evident, while the male characteristics are concealed. In the one with male and both sets of sexual organs, the male characteristics are evident, while the female characteristics are concealed. In the one with female and both sets of sexual organs, when he performs the male role with females, the female characteristics are concealed, while the male characteristics are evident. In the one with male and both sets of sexual organs, when he assumes the female role with males, the male characteristics are concealed, while the female characteristics are evident. The one with female and both sets of sexual organs himself becomes pregnant and causes others to become pregnant, while the one with male and both sets of sexual organs does not himself become pregnant but causes others to become pregnant: this is the distinction between them. However, for both of these kinds of individuals with both sets of sexual organs, there is neither Going-forth nor ordination.

136. Hermaphrodite means one who possesses both male and female sexual characteristics due to engaging in sexual activities with both men and women. There are two types: the female hermaphrodite and the male hermaphrodite. For the female hermaphrodite, the female characteristics are evident, while the male characteristics are hidden. For the male hermaphrodite, the male characteristics are evident, while the female characteristics are hidden. When a female hermaphrodite engages in male activities, the female characteristics become hidden, and the male characteristics become evident. When a male hermaphrodite engages in female activities, the male characteristics become hidden, and the female characteristics become evident. The female hermaphrodite can both conceive and cause conception, while the male hermaphrodite cannot conceive but can cause conception. This is the distinction between them. For both types of hermaphrodites, neither ordination nor higher ordination is valid.

137. Theyyasaṃvāsakoti tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā liṅgatthenako saṃvāsatthenako ubhayatthenakoti . Tattha yo sayaṃ pabbajitvā vihāraṃ gantvā na bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati, na āsanena paṭibāhati, na uposathapavāraṇādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ liṅgamattasseva thenitattā liṅgatthenako nāma. Yo pana bhikkhūhi pabbājito sāmaṇero samāno videsaṃ gantvā “ahaṃ dasavasso vā vīsativasso vā”ti musā vatvā bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati, āsanena paṭibāhati, uposathapavaāraṇādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ saṃvāsamattasseva thenitattā saṃvāsatthenako nāma. Bhikkhuvassagaṇanādiko hi sabbopi kiriyabhedo imasmiṃ atthe “saṃvāso”ti veditabbo. Sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya “na maṃ koci jānātī”ti puna evaṃ paṭipajjantepi eseva nayo. Yo pana sayaṃ pabbajitvā vihāraṃ gantvā bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati, āsanena paṭibāhati, uposathapavāraṇādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ liṅgassa ceva saṃvāsassa ca thenitattā ubhayatthenako nāma. Ayaṃ tividhopi theyyasaṃvāsako anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo, puna pabbajjaṃ yācantopi na pabbājetabbo.

137. Theyyasaṃvāsaka refers to three types: liṅgatthenaka, saṃvāsatthenaka, and ubhayatthenaka. Among them, one who ordains themselves, goes to a monastery, but does not count the years as a monk, does not accept veneration according to seniority, does not refuse a seat, and does not appear at Uposatha or Pavāraṇā ceremonies is called a liṅgatthenaka because they steal merely the insignia. One who, having been ordained as a novice by monks, goes to another region and falsely claims, “I have ten or twenty years,” counts the years as a monk, accepts veneration according to seniority, refuses a seat, and appears at Uposatha or Pavāraṇā ceremonies is called a saṃvāsatthenaka because they steal merely association. All such distinctions as counting years and so forth are to be understood as “association” in this context. The same applies to one who, having renounced the training, acts thus again, thinking, “No one knows me.” One who ordains themselves, goes to a monastery, counts the years as a monk, accepts veneration according to seniority, refuses a seat, and appears at Uposatha or Pavāraṇā ceremonies is called an ubhayatthenaka because they steal both the insignia and association. All three types of theyyasaṃvāsaka, if not ordained, should not be given higher ordination; if ordained, they should be expelled. Even if they request ordination again, they should not be ordained.

137. One who steals association means three kinds of those who steal association: one who steals merely the appearance, one who steals merely the association, and one who steals both. Among them, one who, having gone forth himself and gone to a monastery, does not count the years of a bhikkhu, does not properly perform the customary salutations according to seniority, does not ward off others with his seat, and is not seen in the observance of the uposatha and pavāraṇā etc., this one, because he steals only the appearance, is called one who steals merely the appearance. But one who, ordained by bhikkhus, while being a sāmaṇera, goes to a foreign country and falsely claims, “I am ten years or twenty years,” counts the years of a bhikkhu, properly performs the customary salutations according to seniority, wards off others with his seat, and is seen in the observance of the uposatha and pavāraṇā etc., this one, because he steals only the association, is called one who steals merely the association. For all the different kinds of activities such as counting the years as a bhikkhu should be understood as “association” in this context. The same method applies to one who, having renounced the training, again behaves in this way thinking, “No one knows me.” But one who, having gone forth himself and gone to a monastery, counts the years of a bhikkhu, properly performs the customary salutations according to seniority, wards off others with his seat, and is seen in the observance of the uposatha and pavāraṇā etc., this one, because he steals both the appearance and the association, is called one who steals both. This threefold one who steals association, if unordained, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled; even if he requests the Going-forth again, he should not be given the Going-forth.

137. One who associates with thieves refers to three types: the thief by appearance, the thief by association, and the thief by both. Among them, one who ordains themselves and goes to a monastery but does not count the years as a bhikkhu, does not accept proper respect, does not refuse a seat, and does not participate in Uposatha and Pavāraṇa—this is called the thief by appearance because they only steal the appearance. One who is ordained as a novice by bhikkhus and goes to another region, falsely claiming to be ten or twenty years ordained, counts the years as a bhikkhu, accepts proper respect, refuses a seat, and participates in Uposatha and Pavāraṇa—this is called the thief by association because they only steal the association. All actions related to counting the years as a bhikkhu are considered “association” in this context. Even if one renounces the training and thinks, “No one knows me,” and continues in this way, the same applies. One who ordains themselves, goes to a monastery, counts the years as a bhikkhu, accepts proper respect, refuses a seat, and participates in Uposatha and Pavāraṇa—this is called the thief by both because they steal both the appearance and the association. These three types of thieves should not be given higher ordination if not yet ordained, and if already ordained, they should be expelled. Even if they request ordination again, they should not be ordained.

138. For the sake of clarity, this miscellaneous matter should be understood:

138. And here, for the sake of non-confusion, this miscellaneous information should be understood:

“One who takes on the appearance for fear of the king, famine, danger, disease, enemies, or for the sake of robes and alms,

Theyyasaṃvāsako nāma, tāva esa na vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110);

So long as this is the case, he is not called one who steals association.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110)

Tatrāyaṃ vitthāranayo – idhekaccassa rājā kuddho hoti, so “evaṃ me sotthi bhavissatī”ti sayameva liṅgaṃ gahetvā palāyati. Taṃ disvā rañño ārocenti, rājā “sace pabbajito, na taṃ labbhā kiñci kātu”nti tasmiṃ kodhaṃ paṭivineti. So “vūpasantaṃ me rājabhaya”nti saṅghamajjhaṃ anosaritvāva gihiliṅgaṃ gahetvā āgato pabbājetabbo. Athāpi “sāsanaṃ nissāya mayā jīvitaṃ laddhaṃ, handa dāni ahaṃ pabbajāmī”ti uppannasaṃvego teneva liṅgena āgantvā āgantukavattaṃ na sādiyati, bhikkhūhi puṭṭho vā apuṭṭho vā yathābhūtamattānaṃ āvikatvā pabbajjaṃ yācati, liṅgaṃ apanetvā pabbājetabbo. Sace pana so vattaṃ sādiyati, pabbajitālayaṃ dasseti, sabbaṃ pubbe vuttaṃ vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ paṭipajjati, ayaṃ na pabbājetabbo.

Here is the detailed explanation: Suppose a king is angry with someone, and that person, thinking, “This will ensure my safety,” takes the insignia themselves and flees. Seeing this, people inform the king, and the king, thinking, “If they are ordained, nothing can be done to them,” relinquishes anger toward them. That person, thinking, “The danger from the king has subsided,” takes lay insignia without returning to the Sangha and comes back; such a one may be ordained. Or, if they think, “I have gained life through the dispensation; now I will ordain,” and with aroused inspiration come with that insignia, do not accept the duties of a visitor, and—whether asked by monks or not—declare themselves as they are and request ordination, they may be ordained after removing the insignia. But if they accept the duties, show attachment to ordination, and follow all the previously mentioned procedures like counting years, they should not be ordained.

Here is the detailed method: here, a certain person is angry with the king, and he, thinking, “Thus will I be safe,” himself takes on the appearance and flees. Seeing him, they report it to the king, and the king, thinking, “If he is a renunciate, it is not possible to do anything to him,” dispels his anger towards him. He, thinking, “My fear of the king is allayed,” without returning to the midst of the Saṅgha, takes on the appearance of a layman and returns; he should be given the Going-forth. Or else, if, with arisen saṃvega, thinking, “Having relied on the Teaching, I have obtained life, now let me go forth,” he comes with that same appearance, does not properly perform the duties of a newcomer, and, whether asked or unasked by the bhikkhus, having revealed himself as he truly is, requests the Going-forth, he should be given the Going-forth after removing the appearance. But if he properly performs the duties, shows the conduct of one who has gone forth, and follows all the previously stated method of counting the years etc., he should not be given the Going-forth.

Here is the detailed explanation: In some cases, a king becomes angry, and thinking, “Thus I will be safe,” one takes on the appearance and flees. Seeing this, they inform the king, and the king, thinking, “If they are ordained, nothing can be done to them,” abandons his anger. Thinking, “The king’s anger has subsided,” they return without informing the Sangha, take on the lay appearance, and come to be ordained. Even then, thinking, “I have gained life through the Dhamma, now I will ordain,” they come with the same appearance, do not accept the duties of a newcomer, and when asked or unasked by the bhikkhus, they reveal their true situation and request ordination. They should be ordained after removing the appearance. However, if they accept the duties, show respect to the ordained, and follow all the previously mentioned procedures such as counting the years, they should not be ordained.

Idha panekacco dubbhikkhe jīvituṃ asakkonto sayameva liṅgaṃ gahetvā sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjanto dubbhikkhe vītivatte saṅghamajjhaṃ anosaritvāva gihiliṅgaṃ gahetvā āgatoti sabbaṃ purimasadisameva.

Suppose someone, unable to survive in a famine, takes the insignia themselves, eats the alms of all sectarians, and when the famine passes, takes lay insignia without returning to the Sangha and comes back; all is as in the previous case.

Here, however, a certain person, unable to live during a famine, himself takes on the appearance, eats all the food of the sectarians, and, when the famine has passed, without returning to the midst of the Saṅgha, takes on the appearance of a layman and returns; everything is just as before.

Here, another person, unable to live during a famine, takes on the appearance themselves and eats the food of all sects. When the famine ends, they return without informing the Sangha, take on the lay appearance, and come—this is entirely similar to the previous case.

Aparo mahākantāraṃ nittharitukāmo hoti, satthavāho ca pabbajite gahetvā gacchati. So “evaṃ maṃ satthavāho gahetvā gamissatī”ti sayameva liṅgaṃ gahetvā satthavāhena saddhiṃ kantāraṃ nittharitvā khemantaṃ patvā saṅghamajjhaṃ anosaritvāva gihiliṅgaṃ gahetvā āgatoti sabbaṃ purimasadisameva.

Another wishes to cross a great wilderness, and a caravan leader takes ordained persons along. Thinking, “This way the caravan leader will take me,” they take the insignia themselves, cross the wilderness with the caravan leader, reach safety, and take lay insignia without returning to the Sangha and come back; all is as in the previous case.

Another person wants to cross a great wilderness, and a caravan takes renunciates along. He, thinking, “Thus the caravan will take me along,” himself takes on the appearance and, together with the caravan, crosses the wilderness and, having reached a safe place, without returning to the midst of the Saṅgha, takes on the appearance of a layman and returns; everything is just as before.

Another person wishes to cross a great desert, and a caravan leader takes ordained ones with him. Thinking, “Thus the caravan leader will take me,” they take on the appearance themselves, cross the desert with the caravan leader, reach safety, return without informing the Sangha, take on the lay appearance, and come—this is entirely similar to the previous case.

Aparo rogabhaye uppanne jīvituṃ asakkonto sayameva liṅgaṃ gahetvā sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjanto rogabhaye vūpasante saṅghamajjhaṃ anosaritvāva gihiliṅgaṃ gahetvā āgatoti sabbaṃ purimasadisameva.

Another, unable to survive when fear of disease arises, takes the insignia themselves, eats the alms of all sectarians, and when the fear of disease subsides, takes lay insignia without returning to the Sangha and comes back; all is as in the previous case.

Another person, when fear of disease has arisen, unable to live, himself takes on the appearance, eats all the food of the sectarians, and, when the fear of disease has subsided, without returning to the midst of the Saṅgha, takes on the appearance of a layman and returns; everything is just as before.

Another person, unable to live due to the fear of disease, takes on the appearance themselves and eats the food of all sects. When the fear of disease subsides, they return without informing the Sangha, take on the lay appearance, and come—this is entirely similar to the previous case.

Aparassa eko veriko kuddho hoti, ghātetukāmo naṃ vicarati. So “evaṃ me sotthi bhavissatī”ti sayameva liṅgaṃ gahetvā palāyati. Veriko “kuhiṃ so”ti pariyesanto “pabbajitvā palāto”ti sutvā “sace pabbajito, na taṃ labbhā kiñci kātu”nti tasmiṃ kodhaṃ paṭivineti. So “vūpasantaṃ me veribhaya”nti saṅghamajjhaṃ anosaritvāva gihiliṅgaṃ gahetvā āgatoti sabbaṃ purimasadisameva.

Another has an angry enemy seeking to kill them and wandering about. Thinking, “This will ensure my safety,” they take the insignia themselves and flee. The enemy, searching and hearing, “They have ordained and fled,” thinks, “If they are ordained, nothing can be done to them,” and relinquishes anger toward them. That person, thinking, “The danger from the enemy has subsided,” takes lay insignia without returning to the Sangha and comes back; all is as in the previous case.

Another person has an enemy who is angry and goes about wanting to kill him. He, thinking, “Thus will I be safe,” himself takes on the appearance and flees. The enemy, searching, “Where is he?” hears, “Having gone forth, he has fled,” and, thinking, “If he is a renunciate, it is not possible to do anything to him,” dispels his anger towards him. He, thinking, “My fear of the enemy is allayed,” without returning to the midst of the Saṅgha, takes on the appearance of a layman and returns; everything is just as before.

Another person has an enemy who becomes angry and seeks to kill them. Thinking, “Thus I will be safe,” they take on the appearance and flee. The enemy, searching for them, hears, “They have fled after ordaining,” and thinking, “If they are ordained, nothing can be done to them,” abandons his anger. Thinking, “The enemy’s anger has subsided,” they return without informing the Sangha, take on the lay appearance, and come—this is entirely similar to the previous case.

Aparo ñātikulaṃ gantvā sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya gihī hutvā “imāni cīvarāni idha nassissanti, sacepi imāni gahetvā vihāraṃ gamissāmi, antarāmagge maṃ ’coro’ti gahessanti, yaṃnūnāhaṃ kāyaparihāriyāni katvā gaccheyya”nti cīvarāharaṇatthaṃ nivāsetvā ca pārupitvā ca vihāraṃ gacchati. Taṃ dūratova āgacchantaṃ disvā sāmaṇerā ca daharā ca abbhuggacchanti, vattaṃ dassenti. So na sādiyati, yathābhūtamattānaṃ āvikaroti. Sace bhikkhū “na dāni mayaṃ taṃ muñcissāmā”ti balakkārena pabbājetukāmā honti, kāsāyāni apanetvā puna pabbājetabbo. Sace pana “nayime maṃ hīnāyāvattabhāvaṃ jānantī”ti taṃyeva bhikkhubhāvaṃ paṭijānitvā sabbaṃ pubbe vuttaṃ vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ paṭipajjati, ayaṃ na pabbājetabbo.

Another goes to their relatives’ house, renounces the training, becomes a layperson, and thinks, “These robes will be ruined here; even if I take them to the monastery, I might be seized as a thief on the way. What if I wear them as bodily protection?” They wear and cover themselves with the robes to carry them and go to the monastery. Seeing them coming from afar, novices and young monks approach, showing duties. They do not accept them and declare themselves as they are. If the monks say, “We will not release you now,” and wish to ordain them by force, the robes should be removed, and they may be ordained again. But if they think, “These do not know I have returned to a lower state,” and claim monkhood, following all the previously mentioned procedures like counting years, they should not be ordained.

Another person goes to his relatives’ family, renounces the training, becomes a layman, and, thinking, “These robes will be lost here; even if I take these and go to the monastery, they will arrest me as a thief on the way, what if I were to make them into body-coverings and go?” for the sake of obtaining robes, puts them on as an undergarment and an upper garment and goes to the monastery. Seeing him coming from afar, the sāmaṇeras and young ones go out to meet him and show him respect. He does not accept it, but reveals himself as he truly is. If the bhikkhus, thinking, “Now we will not release you,” want to forcibly give him the Going-forth, he should be given the Going-forth again after removing the brown robes. But if, thinking, “These people do not know my previous state of having renounced,” he acknowledges that very state of being a bhikkhu and follows all the previously stated method of counting the years etc., he should not be given the Going-forth.

Another person goes to their relatives’ home, renounces the training, becomes a layperson, and thinks, “These robes will be lost here. If I take them and go to the monastery, on the way they will seize me as a thief. I should go wearing them.” They put on the robes and go to the monastery. Seeing them coming from afar, the novices and young bhikkhus come out and show them the duties. They do not accept them and reveal their true situation. If the bhikkhus, thinking, “We will not release them now,” wish to ordain them by force, they should be ordained after removing the robes. However, if they think, “They do not know my inferior state,” and claim the status of a bhikkhu, following all the previously mentioned procedures such as counting the years, they should not be ordained.

Aparo mahāsāmaṇero ñātikulaṃ gantvā uppabbajitvā kammantānuṭṭhānena ubbāḷho puna “dāni ahaṃ sāmaṇero bhavissāmi, theropi me uppabbajitabhāvaṃ na jānātī”ti tadeva pattacīvaraṃ ādāya vihāraṃ gacchati, tamatthaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ na āroceti, sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ paṭijānāti, ayaṃ theyyasaṃvāsakoyeva, pabbajjaṃ na labhati. Sacepissa liṅgaggahaṇakāle evaṃ hoti “nāhaṃ kassaci ārocessāmī”ti, vihārañca gato āroceti, gahaṇeneva theyyasaṃvāsako. Athāpissa gahaṇakāle “ācikkhissāmī”ti cittaṃ uppannaṃ hoti, vihārañca gantvā “kuhiṃ tvaṃ, āvuso, gato”ti vutto “na dāni maṃ ime jānantī”ti vañcetvā nācikkhati, “nācikkhissāmī”ti saha dhuranikkhepena ayampi theyyasaṃvāsakova. Sace panassa gahaṇakālepi “ācikkhissāmī”ti hoti, vihāraṃ gantvāpi ācikkhati, ayaṃ puna pabbajjaṃ labhati.

Another, a senior novice, goes to their relatives’ house, disrobes, and, troubled by lack of work, thinks, “Now I will be a novice again; even the elder does not know I disrobed.” Taking the same bowl and robes, they go to the monastery, do not inform the monks of this, and claim novice status; such a one is indeed a theyyasaṃvāsaka and does not receive ordination. If, at the time of taking the insignia, they think, “I will not tell anyone,” and after going to the monastery they do tell, they are a theyyasaṃvāsaka by the act of taking alone. Or if at the time of taking they think, “I will declare it,” but after going to the monastery, when asked, “Friend, where have you been?” they deceive by not declaring, thinking, “These do not know me now,” and with the abandonment of duty they are also a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if at the time of taking they think, “I will declare it,” and after going to the monastery they do declare it, such a one receives ordination again.

Another great sāmaṇera or one who is unproficient, having gone to his relatives’ family, becomes a former renunciate, being oppressed by the non-performance of duties, again, thinking, “Now I will become a sāmaṇera; even the elder does not know my state of having been a former renunciate,” taking that very bowl and robe, goes to the monastery, does not announce that matter to the bhikkhus, but acknowledges the state of being a sāmaṇera; this one is indeed one who steals association, he does not obtain the Going-forth. Even if, at the time of taking on the appearance, it occurs to him, “I will not announce it to anyone,” and he goes to the monastery and announces it, he is one who steals association from the moment of taking it on. Or else, if the thought, “I will announce it,” arises in him at the time of taking it on, and, having gone to the monastery, when asked, “Where did you go, friend?” deceives them by saying, “Now these people do not know me,” and does not announce it, he is also one who steals association from the moment of laying down the burden by saying, “I will not announce it.” But if, even at the time of taking it on, it occurs to him, “I will announce it,” and, having gone to the monastery, he announces it, this one obtains the Going-forth again.

Another senior novice goes to their relatives’ home, becomes overburdened with work, and thinks, “Now I will become a novice again, and the elder does not know my previous ordination.” They take the same bowl and robes and go to the monastery without informing the bhikkhus, claiming the status of a novice. This is a thief by association and does not receive ordination. If at the time of taking the appearance they think, “I will not inform anyone,” and go to the monastery and inform them, they are a thief by association at the time of taking. However, if at the time of taking they think, “I will inform,” and go to the monastery and inform them, they receive ordination again.

Aparo daharasāmaṇero mahanto vā pana abyatto. So purimanayeneva uppabbajitvā ghare vacchakagorakkhaṇādīni kammāni kātuṃ na icchati. Tamenaṃ ñātakā tāniyeva kāsāyāni acchādetvā thālakaṃ vā pattaṃ vā hatthe datvā “gaccha, samaṇova hohī”ti gharā nīharanti. So vihāraṃ gacchati, neva naṃ bhikkhū jānanti “ayaṃ uppabbajitvā puna sayameva pabbajito”ti, nāpi sayaṃ jānāti “yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotī”ti. Sace pana taṃ paripuṇṇavassaṃ upasampādenti, sūpasampanno. Sace pana anupasampannakāleyeva vinayavinicchaye vattamāne suṇāti “yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotī”ti, tena “mayā evaṃ kata”nti bhikkhūnaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Evaṃ puna pabbajjaṃ labhati. Sace pana “dāni na maṃ koci jānātī”ti nāroceti, dhuraṃ nikkhittamatteyeva theyyasaṃvāsako.

Another, a young novice or an inexperienced elder, disrobes in the same manner as before and does not wish to do household tasks like tending calves or cows. Their relatives, covering them with those same robes and giving them a bowl or plate, say, “Go, be a monk,” and send them out of the house. They go to the monastery, and neither do the monks know, “This one disrobed and ordained themselves again,” nor do they themselves know, “One who ordains thus is called a theyyasaṃvāsaka.” If they are given higher ordination with full years, they are duly ordained. But if, while still unordained, during a Vinaya discussion they hear, “One who ordains thus is called a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” they should declare to the monks, “I have done so.” Thus, they receive ordination again. But if they think, “Now no one knows me,” and do not declare, they become a theyyasaṃvāsaka as soon as they abandon duty.

Another young sāmaṇera or one who is great or one who is unproficient. In the same way as before, having become a former renunciate, he does not want to do tasks such as tending cows in the house. His relatives, covering him with those very brown robes and giving him a plate or a bowl in his hand, drive him out of the house, saying, “Go, be a renunciate!” He goes to the monastery; the bhikkhus do not know him, “This one, having been a former renunciate, has gone forth again himself,” nor does he himself know, “One who goes forth in this way is called one who steals association.” If they ordain him after a full year, he is well-ordained. But if, while still unordained, he hears, while a decision on the Vinaya is being made, “One who goes forth in this way is called one who steals association,” then he should announce to the bhikkhus, “I have done this.” Thus he obtains the Going-forth again. But if, thinking, “Now no one knows me,” he does not announce it, he is one who steals association from the moment of laying down the burden.

Another young novice, or one who is unskilled, ordains in the same way as before and does not wish to perform tasks such as tending calves at home. Their relatives dress them in the same robes, give them a bowl or plate, and say, “Go, become a monk,” and send them from the house. They go to the monastery, and the bhikkhus do not know, “This one has ordained again on their own,” nor do they know, “One who ordains in this way is called a thief by association.” If they are given full ordination after completing the rains, they are fully ordained. However, if before full ordination, while the Vinaya is being discussed, they hear, “One who ordains in this way is called a thief by association,” they should inform the bhikkhus, “I have done this.” Thus, they receive ordination again. However, if they think, “Now no one knows me,” and do not inform them, they are a thief by association as soon as they abandon the duty.

Bhikkhu sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya liṅgaṃ anapanetvā dussīlakammaṃ katvā vā akatvā vā puna sabbaṃ pubbe vuttaṃ vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ paṭipajjati, theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya saliṅge ṭhito methunaṃ paṭisevitvā vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ āpajjanto theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti, pabbajjāmattaṃ labhati. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “eso theyyasaṃvāsako”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ.

A monk who renounces the training, without removing the insignia, whether committing a corrupt act or not, and then follows all the previously mentioned procedures like counting years, becomes a theyyasaṃvāsaka. One who, without renouncing the training, while still bearing the insignia, engages in sexual intercourse and follows procedures like counting years is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka and receives only ordination. However, the Andhakaṭṭhakathā states, “This one is a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” which should not be accepted.

A bhikkhu, having renounced the training, without removing the appearance, whether having committed an immoral act or not, again follows all the previously stated method of counting the years etc., he is one who steals association. One who, without renouncing the training, while remaining in the appearance of a renunciate, engages in sexual intercourse and then follows the method of counting the years etc., is not one who steals association, he obtains only the Going-forth. However, in the Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, it is stated, “This one is one who steals association,” that should not be accepted.

A bhikkhu who renounces the training without removing the appearance, whether they commit immoral acts or not, and follows all the previously mentioned procedures such as counting the years, becomes a thief by association. One who does not renounce the training, remains in the appearance, engages in sexual intercourse, and follows the procedures such as counting the years, does not become a thief by association but receives ordination. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “This is a thief by association,” but this should not be taken.

Eko bhikkhu kāsāye saussāhova odātaṃ nivāsetvā methunaṃ paṭisevitvā puna kāsāyāni nivāsetvā vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ āpajjati, ayampi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti, pabbajjāmattaṃ labhati. Sace pana kāsāye dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā odātaṃ nivāsetvā methunaṃ paṭisevitvā puna kāsāyāni nivāsetvā vassagaṇanādibhedaṃ vidhiṃ āpajjati, theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Sāmaṇero saliṅge ṭhito methunādiassamaṇakaraṇadhammaṃ āpajjitvāpitheyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Sacepi kāsāye saussāhova kāsāyāni apanetvā methunaṃ paṭisevitvā puna kāsāyāni nivāseti, neva theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Sace pana kāsāye dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā naggo vā odātavattho vā methunasevanādīhi assamaṇo hutvā kāsāyaṃ nivāseti, theyyasaṃvāsako hoti.

A monk, eager in robes, wears white, engages in sexual intercourse, and then wears robes again, following procedures like counting years; this one is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka and receives only ordination. But if they abandon duty in robes, wear white, engage in sexual intercourse, and then wear robes again, following procedures like counting years, they are a theyyasaṃvāsaka. A novice, while bearing the insignia, committing an act like sexual intercourse that is unbecoming of a monk, is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Even if, eager in robes, they remove the robes, engage in sexual intercourse, and wear robes again, they are not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if they abandon duty in robes, become naked or wear white, engage in unmonastic acts like sexual intercourse, and then wear robes, they are a theyyasaṃvāsaka.

A certain bhikkhu, being very eager for the brown robe, having put on a white cloth, engages in sexual intercourse and then, having put on the brown robes again, follows the method of counting the years etc.; this one is also not one who steals association, he obtains only the Going-forth. But if, having laid down the burden of the brown robe, having put on a white cloth, engages in sexual intercourse and then, having put on the brown robes again, follows the method of counting the years etc., he is one who steals association. A sāmaṇera, while remaining in the appearance of a renunciate, even having committed an act that makes one not a renunciate, such as sexual intercourse, is not one who steals association. Even if, being very eager for the brown robe, having removed the brown robes, he engages in sexual intercourse and then puts on the brown robes again, he is not one who steals association. But if, having laid down the burden of the brown robe, having become naked or wearing a white cloth, becomes not a renunciate by engaging in sexual intercourse etc., and then puts on the brown robe, he is one who steals association.

A bhikkhu who, while wearing the robes, puts on white clothes and engages in sexual intercourse, then puts on the robes again and follows the procedures such as counting the years, does not become a thief by association but receives ordination. However, if they abandon the robes, put on white clothes, engage in sexual intercourse, then put on the robes again and follow the procedures, they become a thief by association. A novice who remains in the appearance and engages in sexual intercourse or other non-monastic acts does not become a thief by association. Even if they remove the robes, engage in sexual intercourse, and then put on the robes again, they do not become a thief by association. However, if they abandon the robes, become naked or wear white clothes, engage in sexual intercourse or other non-monastic acts, and then put on the robes, they become a thief by association.

Sace gihibhāvaṃ patthayamāno kāsāyaṃ ovaṭṭikaṃ katvā aññena vā ākārena gihinivāsanena nivāseti “sobhati nu kho me gihiliṅgaṃ, na sobhatī”ti vīmaṃsanatthaṃ, rakkhati tāva. “Sobhatī”ti sampaṭicchitvā pana puna liṅgaṃ sādiyanto theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Odātaṃ nivāsetvā vīmaṃsanasampaṭicchanesupi eseva nayo. Sace pana nivatthakāsāvassa upari odātaṃ nivāsetvā vīmaṃsati vā sampaṭicchati vā, rakkhatiyeva. Bhikkhuniyāpi eseva nayo. Sāpi gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānā sace kāsāyaṃ gihinivāsanaṃ nivāseti “sobhati nu kho me gihiliṅgaṃ, na sobhatī”ti vīmaṃsanatthaṃ, rakkhatiyeva. Sace “sobhatī”ti sampaṭicchati, na rakkhati. Odātaṃ nivāsetvā vīmaṃsanasampaṭicchanesupi eseva nayo. Nivatthakāsāyassa pana upari odātaṃ nivāsetvā vīmaṃsatu vā sampaṭicchatu vā, rakkhatiyeva.

If one desiring lay status twists the robe into a waistband or wears it in some other lay fashion to test, “Does lay insignia suit me or not?” they are still protected. But if they accept, “It suits me,” and continue to wear the insignia, they are a theyyasaṃvāsaka. The same applies to wearing white for testing or accepting. However, if they wear white over worn robes and test or accept, they remain protected. The same applies to a nun. If a nun desiring lay status wears the robe as lay attire to test, “Does lay insignia suit me or not?” she remains protected. If she accepts, “It suits me,” she is not protected. The same applies to wearing white for testing or accepting. But if she wears white over worn robes and tests or accepts, she remains protected.

If someone, desiring the state of a layman, having made the brown robe into a waistcloth or having put it on in some other way that laymen wear it, for the purpose of considering, “Does the appearance of a layman suit me, or does it not suit me?” he keeps it for a while. But if, having accepted, “It suits me,” he again approves of the appearance, he is one who steals association. The same method applies to considering and accepting after putting on a white cloth. But if, having put on a white cloth over the brown robe he is wearing, he considers or accepts, he is still protected. The same method applies to a bhikkhunī. She too, desiring the state of a laywoman, if she puts on the brown robe in the way laywomen wear it, for the purpose of considering, “Does the appearance of a laywoman suit me, or does it not suit me?” she is still protected. If she accepts, “It suits me,” she is not protected. The same method applies to considering and accepting after putting on a white cloth. But having put on a white cloth over the brown robe she is wearing, whether she considers or accepts, she is still protected.

If one who desires lay life folds the robes and wears them in another way or wears lay clothes, thinking, “Does the lay appearance suit me or not?” they are protected for the time being. However, if they accept it, thinking, “It suits me,” and continue to accept the appearance, they become a thief by association. The same applies if they wear white clothes for examination and acceptance. However, if they wear white clothes over the robes and examine or accept, they are still protected. The same applies to a bhikkhunī. She too, desiring lay life, if she wears lay clothes over the robes, thinking, “Does the lay appearance suit me or not?” is protected. If she accepts, thinking, “It suits me,” she is not protected. The same applies if she wears white clothes for examination and acceptance. However, if she wears white clothes over the robes and examines or accepts, she is still protected.

Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajito vassāni agaṇetvā pāḷiyampi aṭṭhatvā ekapassena gantvā mahāpeḷādīsu kaṭacchunā ukkhitte bhattapiṇḍe pattaṃ upanāmetvā seno viya maṃsapesiṃ gahetvā gacchati, theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti, bhikkhuvassāni pana gaṇetvā gaṇhanto theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Sayaṃ sāmaṇerova sāmaṇerapaṭipāṭiyā kūṭavassāni gaṇetvā gaṇhanto theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Bhikkhu bhikkhupaṭipāṭiyā kūṭavassāni gaṇetvā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo.

If an elderly ordained person, not counting years or standing in line, goes to one side and, at great almsgivings or the like, holds out their bowl for food scooped with a ladle, taking it like a hawk snatching a piece of meat and leaving, they are not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But if they count years as a monk and take it, they are a theyyasaṃvāsaka. A novice counting false years in the novice order and taking is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. A monk counting false years in the monk order and taking should be dealt with by the value of the goods.

If a certain old renunciate, without counting the years, not having memorized the Pāḷi, going to one side and, when a lump of food is lifted with a ladle in a large feeding place etc., extends his bowl and takes a piece of meat like a hawk, he is not one who steals association, but one who, counting the years of a bhikkhu, takes it, is one who steals association. A sāmaṇera himself, counting false years according to the order of sāmaṇeras, is not one who steals association. A bhikkhu, counting false years according to the order of bhikkhus, should be made to pay the cost of the bowl.

If an elderly ordained one, without counting the years, stays in a remote place, goes to a great hall, and with a ladle, offers alms to a bowl, takes meat with a spoon, and goes, they do not become a thief by association. However, if they count the years as a bhikkhu and take, they become a thief by association. A novice who counts false years according to the novice procedure does not become a thief by association. A bhikkhu who counts false years according to the bhikkhu procedure should be dealt with by the Sangha.

139. Titthiyapakkantakoti titthiyesu pakkanto paviṭṭhoti titthiyapakkantako, sopi na pabbājetabbo. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – upasampanno bhikkhu “titthiyo bhavissāmī”ti saliṅgeneva tesaṃ upassayaṃ gacchati, padavāre padavāre dukkaṭaṃ, tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte titthiyapakkantako hoti. Yopi sayameva “titthiyo bhavissa”nti kusacīrādīni nivāseti, titthiyapakkantako hotiyeva. Yo pana naggo nahāyanto attānaṃ oloketvā “sobhati me ājīvakabhāvo, ājīvako bhavissa”nti kāsāyāni anādāya naggo ājīvakānaṃ upassayaṃ gacchati, padavāre padavāre dukkaṭaṃ. Sace panassa antarāmagge hirottappaṃ uppajjati, dukkaṭāni desetvā muccati. Tesaṃ upassayaṃ gantvāpi tehi vā ovadito attanā vā “imesaṃ pabbajjā atidukkhā”ti disvā nivattantopi muccatiyeva. Sace pana “kiṃ tumhākaṃ pabbajjāya ukkaṭṭha”nti pucchitvā “kesamassuluñcanādīnī”ti vutto ekakesampi luñcāpeti, ukkuṭikappadhānādīni vā vattāni ādiyati, morapiñchādīni vā nivāseti, tesaṃ liṅgaṃ gaṇhāti, “ayaṃ pabbajjā seṭṭhā”ti seṭṭhabhāvaṃ vā upagacchati, na muccati, titthiyapakkantako hoti. Sace pana “sobhati nu kho me titthiyapabbajjā, nanu kho sobhatī”ti vīmaṃsanatthaṃ kusacīrādīni vā nivāseti, jaṭaṃ vā bandhati, khārikājaṃ vā ādiyati, yāva na sampaṭicchati laddhiṃ, tāva rakkhati, sampaṭicchitamatte titthiyapakkantako hoti. Acchinnacīvaro pana kusacīrādīni nivāsento rājabhayādīhi vā titthiyaliṅgaṃ gaṇhanto laddhiyā abhāvena neva titthiyapakkantako hoti. “Ayañca titthiyapakkantako nāma upasampannabhikkhunā kathito, tasmā sāmaṇero saliṅgena titthiyāyatanaṃ gatopi puna pabbajjañca upasampadañca labhatī”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Purimo pana theyyasaṃvāsako anupasampannena kathito, tasmā upasampanno kūṭavassaṃ gaṇentopi assamaṇo na hoti. Liṅge saussāho pārājikaṃ āpajjitvā bhikkhuvassādīni gaṇhantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti.

139. A one who has gone over to sectarians (titthiyapakkantako) is one who has gone and entered among sectarians—he should not be ordained. Here is the judgment: An ordained monk thinking, “I will be a sectarian,” goes to their dwelling with the mark still on—at each step, a dukkaṭa offense; upon taking their mark, he becomes one who has gone over to sectarians. One who, on his own, thinking, “I will be a sectarian,” wears grass robes or the like also becomes one who has gone over to sectarians. One who, bathing naked and looking at himself, thinks, “The Ājīvaka state suits me; I will be an Ājīvaka,” and goes naked to the Ājīvakas’ dwelling without taking the robes—at each step, a dukkaṭa offense. If shame arises on the way, he is freed by confessing the offenses. Even if he reaches their dwelling and, instructed by them or seeing for himself, “Their ordination is too painful,” turns back, he is freed. But if he asks, “What is excellent in your ordination?” and is told, “Plucking hair and beard and such,” and plucks even one hair, or undertakes practices like squatting, or wears peacock feathers or the like, taking their mark, or regards their ordination as supreme, he is not freed and becomes one who has gone over to sectarians. If, to test, “Does sectarian ordination suit me or not?” he wears grass robes or the like, ties matted hair, or takes ash-powder, he remains safe as long as he does not accept their doctrine; upon acceptance, he becomes one who has gone over to sectarians. One with uncut robes wearing grass robes or taking a sectarian mark due to fear of the king or the like is not one who has gone over to sectarians due to lack of doctrine. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “This one who has gone over to sectarians is spoken of regarding an ordained monk; thus, a novice going to a sectarian place with the mark still gains both ordination and higher ordination.” But the former fraudulent ascetic is spoken of regarding one not yet ordained; thus, an ordained one counting false years is not unascetic. One eager in the mark who commits a pārājika offense and takes monks’ years or the like is not a fraudulent ascetic.

139. Titthiyapakkantako means one who has gone over to, entered among, the sectarians (titthiya); such a one should not be ordained. Herein is the determination: a fully ordained bhikkhu goes to their dwelling place with his own monastic paraphernalia, thinking, “I will become a sectarian,” incurs a dukkata offense with each step. As soon as he adopts their paraphernalia, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka. Even one who, on his own, thinking, “I will become a sectarian,” wears garments of grass, bark, and so on, becomes a titthiyapakkantaka. But one who, while bathing naked, looks at himself and thinks, “The state of an Ajivaka is appealing to me; I will become an Ajivaka,” and goes naked to the dwelling place of the Ajivakas without taking up the ochre robes, incurs a dukkata offense with each step. If, however, shame and fear of wrongdoing arise in him on the way, he is freed after confessing the dukkata offenses. Even after going to their dwelling place, if he sees or is advised by them or by himself thinks, “The ascetic practices of these are extremely difficult,” and turns back, he is also freed. But if, having been asked, “What is the worst part of your ascetic practices?” and being told, “Plucking out the hair and beard, and so on,” he has even one hair plucked out, or adopts practices such as squatting on the heels, or wears things like peacock feathers, he takes up their paraphernalia. If he embraces the view that “this ascetic practice is best,” he does not escape; he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka. If, however, to test whether the sectarian ascetic practice is appealing to him, thinking, “Is the sectarian ascetic practice appealing to me? Indeed, it is appealing,” he wears garments of grass, bark, and so on, or ties up a topknot, or carries a carrying-pole, as long as he does not accept their doctrine, he is protected; as soon as he accepts it, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka. But one who wears garments of grass, bark, and so on, while his robes are uncut, or who takes up the sectarian paraphernalia due to fear of the king, and so on, is not a titthiyapakkantaka because of the absence of doctrine. And this titthiyapakkantaka is spoken of in relation to a fully ordained bhikkhu; therefore, a novice, even if he goes to a sectarian place with his own paraphernalia, can receive re-ordination and full ordination,” it is said in the Kurundi. But the former theyyasaṃvāsaka (one who lives in disguise) is spoken of in relation to one who is not fully ordained; therefore, even if a fully ordained one counts a false period of residence, he does not become a non-monk. Even one who, after committing a pārājika offense, with longing for the paraphernalia, takes up the years as a bhikkhu and so on, is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka.

139. Titthiyapakkantako means one who has gone over to the sectarians or joined them. Such a person should not be ordained. Here is the decision: If a fully ordained monk, thinking, “I will become a sectarian,” goes to their dwelling place wearing their insignia, he commits a minor offense at each step. As soon as he takes up their insignia, he becomes a sectarian apostate. Even if someone, thinking, “I will become a sectarian,” puts on their robes or other attire, he becomes a sectarian apostate. If someone, while bathing naked, looks at himself and thinks, “The life of an Ājīvaka suits me; I will become an Ājīvaka,” and goes to the Ājīvakas’ dwelling place without taking the ochre robes, he commits a minor offense at each step. If, however, a sense of shame and fear arises in him along the way, he is freed after confessing the offenses. Even if he goes to their dwelling place and, after being advised by them or realizing on his own, “Their way of life is too difficult,” and turns back, he is freed. But if he asks, “What is so excellent about your way of life?” and they reply, “The shaving of hair and beard, etc.,” and he has even a single hair shaved, or takes up their practices like squatting, or wears peacock feathers, or adopts their insignia, thinking, “This way of life is superior,” he does not escape and becomes a sectarian apostate. If someone, wondering, “Does the sectarian way of life suit me or not?” puts on their robes, ties his hair, or takes up their staff, as long as he does not accept their views, he remains protected. But as soon as he accepts their views, he becomes a sectarian apostate. However, if someone, without cutting off his robes, wears their robes due to fear of the king or other reasons, or takes up their insignia without accepting their views, he does not become a sectarian apostate. It is said in the Kurundī that this term “sectarian apostate” refers to a fully ordained monk. Therefore, a novice who goes to the sectarians’ place wearing their insignia can later receive ordination and full admission again. The former, however, refers to one who falsely associates with the Sangha without full admission. Therefore, even if a fully ordained monk falsely claims to have completed the rains retreat, he does not become a non-monk. Even if someone, after committing a serious offense like a pārājika, continues to count the years of his monkhood, he does not become a false associate.

140. Tiracchānagatoti nāgo vā hotu supaṇṇamāṇavakādīnaṃ vā aññataro antamaso sakkaṃ devarājānaṃ upādāya yo koci amanussajātiyo, sabbova imasmiṃ atthe “tiracchānagato”ti veditabbo. So ca neva upasampādetabbo na pabbājetabbo, upasampannopi nāsetabbo.

140. A one born as an animal (tiracchānagato) may be a nāga, or any other non-human birth such as a supaṇṇa, māṇavaka, or even up to Sakka, king of the devas—all such are to be understood as “born as an animal” in this context. He should neither be given higher ordination nor ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled.

140. Tiracchānagato means one who has gone to an animal state, whether it be a nāga, or one of the supaṇṇa youths, or any other non-human being, up to and including Sakka, the king of the gods, all are to be understood as “tiracchānagata” in this context. He should neither be fully ordained nor ordained; even if fully ordained, he should be expelled.

140. Tiracchānagato refers to any being of the animal realm, whether it be a nāga, a supaṇṇa, a young brahmin, or even Sakka, the king of the gods. All such beings are to be understood as “animal realm beings” in this context. Such a being should not be given full admission or ordination, and if already fully admitted, he should be expelled.

141. Mātughātakādīsu pana yena manussitthibhūtā janikā mātā sayampi manussajātikeneva sabhā sañcicca jīvitā voropitā, ayaṃ ānantariyena mātughātakakammena mātughātako. Etassa pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca paṭikkhittā. Yena pana manussitthibhūtāpi ajanikā posāvanikā mātā vā cūḷamātā vā janikāpi vā na manussitthibhūtā mātā ghātitā, tassa pabbajjā na vāritā, na ca ānantariko hoti. Yena sayaṃ tiracchānabhūtena manussitthibhūtā mātā ghātitā, sopi ānantariko na hoti, tiracchānagatattā panassa pabbajjā paṭikkhittā. Pitughātakepi eseva nayo. Sacepi hi vesiyā putto hoti, “ayaṃ me pitā”ti na jānāti, yassa sambhavena nibbatto, so ce anena ghātito, pitughātakotveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati, ānantariyañca phusati.

141. Among matricides (mātughātako) and the like— one who, being of human birth himself, intentionally deprives his human-birth mother, who bore him, of life is a matricide with the ānantariya act of matricide. His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. But one who kills a human-birth mother who did not bear him, such as a foster mother or aunt, or a mother not of human birth, his ordination is not prohibited, nor is he an ānantariya. If one, born as an animal, kills a human-birth mother, he is not an ānantariya, but his ordination is prohibited due to being an animal. The same applies to a patricide (pitughātako). Even if he is the son of a courtesan and does not know, “This is my father,” but kills the one from whose seed he was born, he is reckoned a patricide and incurs an ānantariya.

141. As for Mātughātakā and others, one who, with intention, has deprived of life his birth mother, who is a human female, himself also being of human birth, this one is a mātughātaka (matricide) by the immediately effective deed of matricide. Both ordination and full ordination are prohibited for him. But for one who has killed a foster mother or a stepmother, who, although human females, are not his birth mother, or a birth mother who is not a human female, ordination is not prohibited, nor is it an immediately effective deed. One who, himself being an animal, has killed his birth mother, who is a human female, is also not guilty of an immediately effective deed, but his ordination is prohibited because of his being an animal. The same principle applies to a pitughātake (patricide). Even if he is the son of a prostitute, he does not know, “This is my father,” but the one by whose seed he was conceived, if he is killed by him, he is considered a patricide, and he experiences the immediately effective deed.

141. In the case of mātughātakā (matricides), if a human woman who is one’s mother is intentionally deprived of life, this is called a matricide through an action leading to immediate retribution. Ordination and full admission are prohibited for such a person. However, if the mother is not a human woman, or if she is a stepmother, foster mother, or grandmother, and not one’s birth mother, ordination is not prohibited, nor does it lead to immediate retribution. If one kills a human mother while oneself being an animal, it does not lead to immediate retribution, but ordination is prohibited due to being an animal. The same applies to pitughātakā (patricides). Even if one is the son of a courtesan and does not know, “This is my father,” if he kills the man from whom he was born, he is considered a patricide and incurs immediate retribution.

Arahantaghātakopi manussaarahantavaseneva veditabbo. Manussajātiyañhi antamaso apabbajitampi khīṇāsavaṃ dārakaṃ vā dārikaṃ vā sañcicca jīvitā voropento arahantaghātakova hoti, ānantariyañca phusati, pabbajjā cassa vāritā. Amanussajātikaṃ pana arahantaṃ manussajātikaṃ vā avasesaṃ ariyapuggalaṃ ghātetvā ānantariko na hoti, pabbajjāpissa na vāritā, kammaṃ pana balavaṃ hoti. Tiracchāno manussaarahantampi ghātetvā ānantariko na hoti, kammaṃ pana bhāriyanti ayamettha vinicchayo.

A slayer of an arahant (arahantaghātako) is also to be understood only as one of human birth. Even an unordained arahant child, male or female, of human birth, if intentionally deprived of life, makes one a slayer of an arahant, incurring an ānantariya, and his ordination is prohibited. But killing a non-human arahant or a human noble one other than an arahant does not make one an ānantariya, nor is his ordination prohibited, though the kamma is strong. An animal killing a human arahant does not incur an ānantariya, but the kamma is heavy—this is the judgment here.

Arahantaghātako (slayer of an arahant) should also be understood as referring to a human arahant. For one of human birth, intentionally depriving of life even an unordained khīṇāsava (one whose āsavas are destroyed), whether a boy or a girl, is an arahant slayer, and he experiences the immediately effective deed, and his ordination is prohibited. But killing a non-human arahant, or a human ariyapuggala (noble person) other than an arahant, one does not commit an immediately effective deed, nor is his ordination prohibited, but the kamma is powerful. An animal, even by killing a human arahant, does not commit an immediately effective deed, but the kamma is heavy; this is the determination here.

An arahantaghātako (killer of an arahant) is understood to refer specifically to a human arahant. Even if one intentionally kills a human child who is an arahant, whether a boy or a girl, one becomes a killer of an arahant and incurs immediate retribution. Ordination is prohibited for such a person. However, killing a non-human arahant or a human who is not an arahant does not lead to immediate retribution, nor is ordination prohibited, though the kamma is still heavy. If an animal kills a human arahant, it does not incur immediate retribution, but the kamma is weighty. This is the decision here.

Yo pana devadatto viya duṭṭhacittena vadhakacittena tathāgatassa jīvamānakasarīre khuddakamakkhikāya pivanamattampi lohitaṃ uppādeti, ayaṃ lohituppādako nāma. Etassa pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca vāritā. Yo pana rogavūpasamatthaṃ jīvako viya satthena phāletvā pūtimaṃsalohitaṃ haritvā phāsukaṃ karoti, bahuṃ so puññaṃ pasavatīti.

One who, like Devadatta, with a corrupt mind and intent to kill, causes even a drop of blood the size of a fly’s drink to arise on the living body of a Tathāgata, is called a one who sheds a Tathāgata’s blood (lohituppādako). His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. But one who, like Jīvaka, for the sake of curing disease, cuts with a knife, removes putrid flesh and blood, and makes it comfortable, generates much merit.

One who, like Devadatta, with a corrupted mind, a mind of killing, causes even as much blood as a small fly would drink to be produced on the living body of the Tathāgata, this one is called a lohituppādako (one who draws blood). Both ordination and full ordination are prohibited for him. But one who, like Jīvaka, for the purpose of pacifying a disease, cuts with a knife, removes putrid flesh and blood, and makes it healthy, produces much merit.

One who, like Devadatta, with a malicious and murderous mind, causes even a drop of blood to flow from the living body of the Tathāgata, is called a lohituppādako (shedder of blood). Ordination and full admission are prohibited for such a person. However, one who, like a physician, cuts open a wound to remove rotten flesh and blood to heal the patient, earns much merit.

Yo devadatto viya sāsanaṃ uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ katvā catunnaṃ kammānaṃ aññataravasena saṅghaṃ bhindati, ayaṃ saṅghabhedako nāma. Etassa pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca vāritā.

One who, like Devadatta, making the teaching contrary to Dhamma and Vinaya, splits the Sangha by one of the four actions, is called a one who causes a schism (saṅghabhedako). His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited.

One who, like Devadatta, making the teaching non-Dhamma, non-Vinaya, splits the Saṅgha by means of one of the four types of kamma, this one is called a saṅghabhedako (one who splits the Saṅgha). Both ordination and full ordination are prohibited for him.

One who, like Devadatta, causes a schism in the Sangha by distorting the Dhamma and Vinaya, and by performing one of the four acts that cause schism, is called a saṅghabhedako (schismatic). Ordination and full admission are prohibited for such a person.

Yo pana pakatattaṃ bhikkhuniṃ tiṇṇaṃ maggānaṃ aññatarasmiṃ dūseti, ayaṃ bhikkhunīdūsako nāma. Etassa pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca vāritā. Yo pana kāyasaṃsaggena sīlavināsaṃ pāpeti, tassa pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca na vāritā. Balakkārena odātavatthavasanaṃ katvā anicchamānaṃyeva dūsentopi bhikkhunīdūsakoyeva, balakkārena pana odātavatthavasanaṃ katvā icchamānaṃ dūsento bhikkhunīdūsako na hoti. Kasmā? Yasmā gihibhāve sampaṭicchi tamatteyeva sā abhikkhunī hoti. Sakiṃsīlavipannaṃ pacchā dūsento sikkhamānasāmaṇerīsu ca vippaṭipajjanto neva bhikkhunīdūsako hoti, pabbajjampi upasampadampi labhati. Iti ime ekādasa abhabbapuggalā veditabbā.

One who violates a natural bhikkhuni in one of the three paths is called a violator of a bhikkhuni (bhikkhunīdūsako). His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. But one who causes a loss of virtue through physical contact—his ordination and higher ordination are not prohibited. Even one who forcibly makes her wear white and violates her against her will is a violator of a bhikkhuni. But forcibly making her wear white and violating her with her consent does not make him a violator of a bhikkhuni. Why? Because she became a non-bhikkhuni by accepting layhood at that moment. One who violates her after she has once lost virtue, or misbehaves with a sikkhamānā or sāmaṇerī, is not a violator of a bhikkhuni and gains both ordination and higher ordination. Thus, these eleven incapable persons are to be understood.

One who corrupts a bhikkhunī who is a pakatatta (of right standing) in one of the three paths, this one is called a bhikkhunīdūsako (one who corrupts a bhikkhunī). Both ordination and full ordination are prohibited for him. But for one who causes the destruction of virtue by physical contact, ordination and full ordination are not prohibited. Even one who forcibly makes her wear white clothes and corrupts her against her will is a bhikkhunīdūsako; but one who forcibly makes her wear white clothes and corrupts her with her consent is not a bhikkhunīdūsako. Why? Because as soon as she consents in the state of a laywoman, she becomes a non-bhikkhunī. One who corrupts one who has once lost her virtue, or who misbehaves with sikkhamānās (probationers) and sāmaṇerīs (female novices), is not a bhikkhunīdūsako; he can receive both ordination and full ordination. Thus, these eleven incapable persons should be known.

One who violates a fully ordained bhikkhunī in one of the three ways is called a bhikkhunīdūsako (defiler of a bhikkhunī). Ordination and full admission are prohibited for such a person. However, if one causes the loss of virtue through physical contact, ordination and full admission are not prohibited. If one, wearing white clothes by force, violates a bhikkhunī against her will, he is still a defiler of a bhikkhunī. But if he wears white clothes by force and violates her with her consent, he is not a defiler of a bhikkhunī. Why? Because at the moment of consent, she is no longer a bhikkhunī. If one violates a sikkhamānā or a novice nun after her virtue has been lost once, or if one misbehaves with them, he is not a defiler of a bhikkhunī and can still receive ordination and full admission. Thus, these eleven types of individuals are to be understood as unfit persons.

142. Ūnavīsativassassa pana upasampadāyeva paṭikkhittā, na pabbajjā, tasmā paṭisandhiggahaṇato paṭṭhāya paripuṇṇavīsativasso upasampādetabbo. Gabbhavīsopi hi paripuṇṇavīsativassotveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Yathāha bhagavā –

142. For one under twenty years (ūnavīsativassa), only higher ordination is prohibited, not ordination. Thus, one fully twenty years from conception should be given higher ordination. Even one twenty years in the womb is reckoned as fully twenty years. As the Blessed One said:

142. For one who is less than twenty years old, only full ordination is prohibited, not ordination; therefore, one who is fully twenty years old from the time of conception should be fully ordained. For even one who is twenty years in the womb is considered to be fully twenty years old. As the Blessed One said:

142. For one who is ūnavīsativassa (under twenty years of age), full admission is prohibited, but not ordination. Therefore, one should be given full admission only when twenty years have passed since conception. Even a fetus in the womb is considered to have completed twenty years. As the Blessed One said:

“Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mātukucchismiṃ paṭhamaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ, paṭhamaṃ viññāṇaṃ pātubhūtaṃ, tadupādāya sāvassa jāti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gabbhavīsaṃ upasampādetu”nti (mahāva. 124).

“Monks, that moment when the first mind arises, the first consciousness manifests in the mother’s womb—that is reckoned as his birth. I allow, monks, one twenty years in the womb to be given higher ordination” (mahāva. 124).

“That, bhikkhus, which is the first consciousness that arose in the mother’s womb, the first consciousness that appeared, from that is his birth. I allow, bhikkhus, one who is twenty years in the womb to be fully ordained” (Mahāva. 124).

“Monks, when the first thought arises in the mother’s womb, when the first consciousness appears, from that moment the being is born. I allow, monks, the ordination of one who has completed twenty years in the womb” (Mahāva. 124).

Tattha (pāci. aṭṭha. 404) yo dvādasa māse mātukucchismiṃ vasitvā mahāpavāraṇāya jāto, so tato paṭṭhāya yāva ekūnavīsatime vasse mahāpavāraṇā, taṃ atikkamitvā pāṭipade upasampādetabbo. Etenupāyena hāyanavaḍḍhanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Porāṇakattherā pana ekūnavīsativassaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipadadivase upasampādenti. Kasmā? Ekasmiṃ vasse cha cātuddasikauposathā honti, iti vīsatiyā vassesu cattāro māsā parihāyanti, rājāno tatiye tatiye gasse vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhanti, iti aṭṭhārasavassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhanti, tato uposathavasena parihīne cattāro māse apanetvā dve māsā avasesā honti, te dve māse gahetvā vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontīti nikkaṅkhā hutvā nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipade upasampādenti.

Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 404), one born after dwelling twelve months in the mother’s womb at the great Pavāraṇā, from then until the nineteenth year’s Pavāraṇā passes, should be given higher ordination on the following day. The increase of years should be understood by this method. Ancient elders, however, give higher ordination to a novice under twenty years after the departure full moon, on the next day. Why? In twenty years, with six fortnightly Uposathas per year, four months are lost; kings extend the rains every third year, adding six months in eighteen years. Removing the four months lost by Uposatha from that, two months remain. Taking those two months, twenty years are complete. Thus, without doubt, they give higher ordination after the departure full moon on the next day.

Here (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 404), one who has resided in the mother’s womb for twelve months and is born on the Mahāpavāraṇā day, from that day until the Mahāpavāraṇā of the nineteenth year, after passing that, he should be fully ordained on the first day of the waning moon. By this method, the increase of the year should be known. But the ancient elders fully ordain a novice who is nineteen years old on the first day of the waning moon after passing the full moon of the month of departure. Why? In one year, there are six fourteenth-day uposathas; thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings increase the year every third year; thus, in eighteen years, six months are gained. Then, removing the four months lost due to the uposatha, two months remain. Taking those two months, twenty years are complete. Thus, being free from doubt, they fully ordain on the first day of the waning moon after passing the full moon of the month of departure.

Here (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 404), if someone is born after spending twelve months in the womb and is born on the day of the Mahāpavāraṇā, he should be given full admission after completing nineteen years up to the Mahāpavāraṇā and passing into the twentieth year. In this way, the calculation of years should be understood. However, the ancient elders would ordain a novice who was under twenty years of age after the full moon of his departure and on the day of the fortnight. Why? Because in one year, there are six cātuddasika uposathas. Thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings add a month every three years, so in eighteen years, six months are added. After subtracting the lost uposatha months, two months remain. Taking these two months, the twenty years are completed. Therefore, they would ordain after the full moon of departure and on the day of the fortnight.

Ettha pana yo pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissati, taṃ sandhāya “ekūnavīsativassa”nti vuttaṃ. Tasmā yo mātukucchismiṃ dvādasa māse vasi, so ekavīsativasso hoti. Yo satta māse vasi, so sattamāsādhikavīsativasso. Chamāsajāto pana na jīvati, ūnavīsativassaṃ pana “paripuṇṇavīsativasso”ti saññāya upasampādentassa anāpatti, puggalo pana anupasampannova hoti. Sace pana so dasavassaccayena aññaṃ upasampādeti, tañce muñcitvā gaṇo pūrati, sūpasampanno. Sopi ca yāva na jānāti, tāvassa neva saggantarāyo na mokkhantarāyo, ñatvā pana puna upasampajjitabbaṃ.

Here, “under twenty years” refers to one who will be twenty after Pavāraṇā. Thus, one who dwelt twelve months in the womb is twenty-one years. One who dwelt seven months is twenty years plus seven months. One born at six months does not survive. There is no offense for giving higher ordination to one under twenty years thinking, “He is fully twenty,” but the person remains unordained. If he, after ten years, gives higher ordination to another, and the quorum is complete without him, that one is duly ordained. As long as he does not know, there is no hindrance to heaven or liberation; upon knowing, he must be ordained again.

Here, “less than twenty years old” is said with reference to one who will be twenty years old after the Pavāraṇā. Therefore, one who resided in the mother’s womb for twelve months is twenty-one years old. One who resided for seven months is twenty years and seven months old. But one born at six months does not live. For one who fully ordains one who is less than twenty years old, thinking, “He is fully twenty years old,” there is no offense, but the person is not fully ordained. But if he fully ordains another after ten years have passed, and the quorum is complete excluding him, he is well ordained. And as long as he does not know, there is neither an obstacle to heaven nor an obstacle to liberation for him, but having known, he should be fully ordained again.

Here, if someone will complete twenty years after the Pavāraṇā, he is referred to as “under twenty years of age.” Therefore, one who spends twelve months in the womb is twenty-one years old. One who spends seven months in the womb is twenty years and seven months old. One born after six months does not survive, but if one under twenty years of age is mistakenly considered to have completed twenty years and is given full admission, there is no offense, but the person is not fully admitted. If, after ten years, he ordains another, and if the group is completed by releasing him, he is fully admitted. However, until he knows, there is no danger of falling from heaven or liberation. Once he knows, he should be fully admitted again.

143. Iti imehi pabbajjādosehi virahitopi “na, bhikkhave, ananuññāto mātāpitūhi putto pabbājetabbo”ti (mahāva. 105) vacanato mātāpitūhi ananuññāto na pabbājetabbo. Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 105) mātāpitūhīti janake sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace dvepi atthi, dvepi āpucchitabbā. Sace pitā mato hoti mātā vā, yo jīvati, so āpucchi tabbo, pabbajitāpi āpucchitabbāva. Āpucchantena sayaṃ vā gantvā āpucchitabbaṃ, añño vā pesetabbo. So eva vā pesetabbo “gaccha mātāpitaro āpucchitvā ehī”ti. Sace “anuññātomhī”ti vadati, saddahantena pabbājetabbo. Pitā sayaṃ pabbajito puttampi pabbājetukāmo hoti, mātaraṃ āpucchitvā pabbājetu. Mātā vā dhītaraṃ pabbājetukāmā pitaraṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetu. Pitā puttadārena anatthiko palāyi, mātā “imaṃ pabbajethā”ti puttaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ deti, “pitāssa kuhi”nti vutte “cittakeḷiṃ kīḷituṃ palāto”ti vadati, taṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Mātā kenaci purisena saddhiṃ palātā hoti, pitā pana “pabbājethā”ti vadati, etthāpi eseva nayo. Pitā vippavuttho hoti, mātā puttaṃ “pabbājethā”ti anujānāti, “pitāssa kuhi”nti vutte “kiṃ tumhākaṃ pitarā, ahaṃ jānissāmī”ti vadati, pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatīti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ.

143. Thus, even one free from these faults of ordination should not be ordained without the permission of his parents, as stated in, “Monks, a son should not be ordained without the permission of his parents” (mahāva. 105). Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 105), parents refers to those who bore him. If both are alive, both must be asked. If the father is dead or the mother, the living one must be asked; even if ordained, they must be asked. One asking must go himself or send another, or say, “Go, ask my parents, and come back.” If he says, “I am permitted,” he may be ordained trusting him. If the father, himself ordained, wishes to ordain his son, he must ask the mother and ordain. If the mother wishes to ordain her daughter, she must ask the father and ordain. If the father, unconcerned with wife and son, has fled, and the mother says, “Ordain him,” giving her son to the monks, and when asked, “Where is his father?” says, “He fled to play mind-games,” he may be ordained. If the mother has fled with some man, and the father says, “Ordain him,” the same applies. If the father is absent, and the mother permits, saying, “Ordain him,” and when asked, “Where is his father?” says, “What’s it to you about his father? I’ll know,” he may be ordained, as stated in the Kurundiya.

143. Even one who is free from these faults of ordination, “Bhikkhus, a son should not be ordained without the permission of his parents” (Mahāva. 105), because of this statement, he should not be ordained without the permission of his parents. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 105), mātāpitūhi (by the parents) is said with reference to the birth parents. If both are present, both should be asked. If the father is dead or the mother, the one who is alive should be asked; even those who are ordained should be asked. The one asking should either go himself and ask, or send another. Or he should be sent, “Go, ask the parents and come.” If he says, “I am permitted,” the one believing should ordain him. A father who himself is ordained and wishes to ordain his son should ordain him after asking the mother. Or a mother wishing to ordain her daughter should ordain her after asking the father. The father, being uninterested in his son, has run away; the mother gives her son to the bhikkhus, saying, “Ordain him.” If asked, “Where is his father?” she says, “He has run away to play a game of dice.” It is permissible to ordain him. The mother has run away with some man; the father, however, says, “Ordain him.” Here also, the same principle applies. The father is absent; the mother permits her son, saying, “Ordain him.” If asked, “Where is his father?” she says, “What is it to you about the father? I will know.” It is permissible to ordain him, it is said in the Kurundi.

143. Even if one is free from these defects of ordination, “Monks, a son should not be ordained without the permission of his parents” (Mahāva. 105). Therefore, one should not be ordained without the permission of his parents. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 105), mātāpitūhi refers to the parents. If both are alive, both should be asked. If the father or mother is dead, the living one should be asked. Even if they are ordained, they should still be asked. One should go and ask them oneself or send someone else. One should send someone else, saying, “Go and ask my parents and then return.” If they say, “We give permission,” one should ordain him, trusting their word. If the father, being ordained himself, wishes to ordain his son, he should ask the mother and then ordain him. If the mother wishes to ordain her daughter, she should ask the father and then ordain her. If the father, being uninterested in his son, runs away, and the mother says, “Ordain this one,” and gives the son to the monks, and when asked, “Where is his father?” she replies, “He has run away to play games,” it is permissible to ordain him. If the mother has run away with another man, and the father says, “Ordain him,” the same applies. If the father is absent, and the mother gives permission to ordain the son, saying, “Where is his father?” and replies, “What is it to you? I will take care of it,” it is permissible to ordain him, as stated in the Kurundī.

Mātāpitaro matā, dārako cūḷamātādīnaṃ santike saṃvaddho, tasmiṃ pabbājiyamāne ñātakā kalahaṃ vā karonti khiyyanti vā, tasmā vivādupacchedanatthaṃ āpucchitvā pabbājetabbo, anāpucchitvā pabbājentassa pana āpatti natthi. Daharakāle gahetvā posakā mātāpitaro nāma honti, tesupi eseva nayo. Putto attānaṃ nissāya jīvati, na mātāpitaro. Sacepi rājā hoti, āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. Mātāpitūhi anuññāto pabbajitvā puna vibbhamati, sacepi satakkhattuṃ pabbajitvā vibbhamati, āgatāgatakāle punappunaṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. Sacepi evaṃ vadanti “ayaṃ vibbhamitvā gehaṃ āgato, amhākaṃ kammaṃ na karoti, pabbajitvā tumhākaṃ vattaṃ na pūreti, natthi imassa āpucchanakiccaṃ , āgatāgataṃ naṃ pabbājeyyāthā”ti, evaṃ nissaṭṭhaṃ puna anāpucchāpi pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.

If the parents are dead and the child was raised by an aunt or the like, and when he is to be ordained, relatives quarrel or complain, he should be ordained after asking to avoid dispute; but there is no offense for ordaining without asking. Those who took and raised him in childhood are called parents, and the same applies to them. If the son lives independently of his parents, even if he is a king, he must be ordained after asking. One permitted by his parents, ordained, and then disrobes—even if he ordains and disrobes a hundred times—must ask again each time he returns. If they say, “He disrobes and comes home, doesn’t work for us, ordains and doesn’t fulfill your duties—there’s no need to ask us; ordain him each time he comes,” such a relinquished one may be ordained without asking again.

The parents are dead; the child has been brought up in the care of stepmothers and others. When he is being ordained, the relatives may make a quarrel or complain; therefore, to cut off the dispute, he should be ordained after asking; but for one who ordains without asking, there is no offense. Those who take and raise from childhood are called parents; the same principle applies to them. The son lives dependent on himself, not on his parents. Even if he is a king, he should be ordained only after asking. Having been permitted by his parents, he ordains and then disrobes; even if he ordains and disrobes a hundred times, each time he comes, he should be ordained only after asking again and again. Even if they say thus, “This one, having disrobed, has come home; he does not do our work; having ordained, he does not fulfill your duties; there is no need to ask him; ordain him whenever he comes,” having been thus released, it is permissible to ordain him again even without asking.

If the parents are dead, and the child has been raised by relatives like a grandmother, and when he is being ordained, the relatives quarrel or complain, one should ask them to resolve the dispute and then ordain him. If one ordains him without asking, there is no offense. Those who take care of the child in his youth are considered parents, and the same applies to them. If the son lives independently, not relying on his parents, even if he is a king, he should be ordained only after asking. If one who has been ordained with the permission of his parents later disrobes, even if he ordains a hundred times and disrobes each time, he should be ordained again only after asking each time. If they say, “He has disrobed and returned home, does not do our work, and does not fulfill his duties as a monk, there is no need to ask us. Ordain him whenever he comes,” it is permissible to ordain him without asking again.

Yopi daharakāleyeva “ayaṃ tumhākaṃ dinno, yadā icchatha, tadā pabbājeyyāthā”ti evaṃ dinno hoti, sopi āgatāgato puna anāpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. Yaṃ pana daharakāleyeva “imaṃ, bhante, pabbājeyyāthā”ti anujānitvā pacchā vuḍḍhippattakāle nānujānanti, ayaṃ na anāpucchā pabbājetabbo. Eko mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ bhaṇḍitvā “pabbājetha ma”nti āgacchati, “āpucchitvā ehī”ti ca vutto “nāhaṃ gacchāmi, sace maṃ na pabbājetha, vihāraṃ vā jhāpemi, satthena vā tumhe paharāmi, tumhākaṃ ñātakānaṃ vā upaṭṭhākānaṃ vā ārāmacchedanādīhi anatthaṃ uppādemi, rukkhā vā patitvā marāmi, coramajjhaṃ vā pavisāmi, desantaraṃ vā gacchāmī”ti vadati, taṃ tasseva rakkhaṇatthāya pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace panassa mātāpitaro āgantvā “kasmā amhākaṃ puttaṃ pabbājayitthā”ti vadanti, tesaṃ tamatthaṃ ārocetvā “rakkhaṇatthāya naṃ pabbājayimha, paññāyatha tumhe puttenā”ti vattabbā. “Rukkhā patissāmī”ti abhiruhitvā pana hatthapāde muñcantaṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

One given in childhood, saying, “He is given to you; ordain him whenever you wish,” may also be ordained each time he comes without asking again. But one permitted in childhood, saying, “Venerable sirs, ordain him,” and later, when grown, they do not permit, should not be ordained without asking. One who quarrels with his parents and comes, saying, “Ordain me,” and when told, “Ask and come,” says, “I won’t go; if you don’t ordain me, I’ll burn the monastery, strike you with a weapon, harm your relatives or supporters by cutting groves or the like, fall from a tree and die, join thieves, or go to another land,” may be ordained for his own protection. If his parents come and say, “Why did you ordain our son?” the matter should be explained, saying, “We ordained him for his protection; consider your son.” Even one climbing a tree, saying, “I’ll fall,” and releasing his hands and feet may indeed be ordained.

And one who, even in childhood, was given thus, “This one is given to you; when you wish, ordain him,” he also, whenever he comes, should be ordained without asking again. But one who, in childhood, was permitted, saying, “Venerable Sir, ordain him,” but later, when he has grown up, they do not permit, he should not be ordained without asking. One quarrels with his parents and comes, saying, “Ordain me.” And being told, “Come after asking,” he says, “I will not go; if you do not ordain me, I will either burn the monastery, or strike you with a weapon, or cause harm to your relatives or supporters by cutting down the grove, and so on, or I will fall from a tree and die, or I will enter the midst of robbers, or I will go to another country.” It is permissible to ordain him for his own protection. But if his parents come and say, “Why did you ordain our son?” they should be told that matter, “We ordained him for his protection; you should know about your son.” It is permissible to ordain even one who, saying, “I will fall from a tree,” has climbed up and is releasing his hands and feet.

If, in his youth, he is given to the monks, saying, “This one is given to you. Ordain him whenever you wish,” he can be ordained again without asking. However, if in his youth they say, “Venerable, ordain this one,” and later, when he has grown up, they do not give permission, he should not be ordained without asking. If one quarrels with his parents and comes, saying, “Ordain me,” and when told, “Ask them and then come,” he says, “I will not go. If you do not ordain me, I will burn down the monastery, or attack you with a weapon, or harm your relatives or supporters by cutting down trees, or I will climb a tree and fall to my death, or enter a thieves’ den, or go to another country,” it is permissible to ordain him for his own protection. If his parents come later and say, “Why did you ordain our son?” one should explain to them, “We ordained him for his protection. You may take him back.” If he climbs a tree, saying, “I will fall,” and releases his hands and feet, it is permissible to ordain him.

Eko videsaṃ gantvā pabbajjaṃ yācati, āpucchitvā ce gato, pabbājetabbo. No ce, daharabhikkhuṃ pesetvā āpucchāpetvā pabbājetabbo. Atidūrañce hoti, pabbājetvāpi bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ pesetvā dassetuṃ vaṭṭati. Kurundiyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “sace dūraṃ hoti, maggo ca mahākantāro, ’gantvā āpucchissāmī’ti pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Sace pana mātāpitūnaṃ bahū puttā honti, evañca vadanti “bhante, etesaṃ dārakānaṃ yaṃ icchatha, taṃ pabbājeyyāthā”ti, dārake vīmaṃsitvā yaṃ icchati, so pabbājetabbo. Sacepi sakalena kulena vā gāmena vā anuññāto hoti “bhante, imasmiṃ kule vā gāme vā yaṃ icchatha, taṃ pabbājeyyāthā”ti, yaṃ icchati, so pabbājetabboti.

One who goes to another region and requests ordination—if he went after asking, he may be ordained. If not, a young monk should be sent to ask, and then he may be ordained. If it is very far, he may be ordained and sent with monks to be shown. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “If it is far and the road is a great wilderness, it is permissible to ordain thinking, ‘I’ll go and ask.’” If the parents have many sons and say, “Venerable sirs, ordain whichever of these children you wish,” the desired one may be examined and ordained. Even if an entire family or village permits, saying, “Venerable sirs, ordain whoever you wish from this family or village,” the desired one may be ordained.

One goes to a foreign country and asks for ordination; if he went after asking, he should be ordained. If not, a young bhikkhu should be sent to ask, and then he should be ordained. If it is too far, it is permissible to ordain him and send him with bhikkhus to show him. In the Kurundi, however, it is said, “If it is far, and the road is a great wilderness, it is permissible to ordain him, thinking, ‘I will go and ask.’” But if the parents have many sons, and they say thus, “Venerable Sir, ordain whichever of these children you wish,” having examined the children, the one he wishes should be ordained. Even if he is permitted by the whole family or village, “Venerable Sir, ordain whomever you wish in this family or village,” the one he wishes should be ordained.

If one goes to another country and requests ordination, and if he went after asking, he should be ordained. If not, a young monk should be sent to ask for permission, and then he should be ordained. If it is too far, it is permissible to ordain him and then send monks to inform them. However, the Kurundī states, “If it is far, and the road is dangerous, it is permissible to ordain him, saying, ‘I will go and ask later.’” If the parents have many children and say, “Venerable, ordain whichever of these children you wish,” one should examine the children and ordain the one he chooses. If the entire family or village gives permission, saying, “Venerable, ordain whoever you wish from this family or village,” one should ordain the one he chooses.

144. Evaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 34) pabbajjādosavirahitaṃ mātāpitūhi anuññātaṃ pabbājentenapi ca sace acchinnakeso hoti, ekasīmāyañca aññepi bhikkhū atthi, kesacchedanatthāya bhaṇḍukammaṃ āpucchitabbaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ āpucchanavidhi (mahāva. aṭṭha. 98) – sīmāpariyāpanne bhikkhū sannipātetvā pabbajjāpekkhaṃ tattha netvā “saṅghaṃ, bhante, imassa dārakassa bhaṇḍukammaṃ āpucchāmī”ti tikkhattuṃ vā dvikkhattuṃ vā sakiṃ vā vattabbaṃ. Ettha ca “imassa dārakassa bhaṇḍukammaṃ āpucchāmī”tipi “imassa samaṇakaraṇaṃ āpucchāmī”tipi “ayaṃ samaṇo hotukāmo”tipi “ayaṃ pabbajitukāmo”tipi vattuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace sabhāgaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, dasa vā vīsati vā tiṃsaṃ vā bhikkhū vasantīti paricchedo paññāyati, tesaṃ ṭhitokāsaṃ vā nisinnokāsaṃ vā gantvāpi purimanayeneva āpucchitabbaṃ. Pabbajjāpekkhaṃ vināva daharabhikkhū vā sāmaṇere vā pesetvāpi “eko, bhante, pabbajjāpekkho atthi, tassa bhaṇḍukammaṃ āpucchāmā”tiādinā nayena āpucchāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace keci bhikkhū senāsanaṃ vā gumbādīni vā pavisitvā niddāyanti vā samaṇadhammaṃ vā karonti, āpucchakā ca pariyesantāpi adisvā “sabbe āpucchitā amhehī”ti saññino honti, pabbajjā nāma lahukakammaṃ, tasmā pabbajito supabbajito, pabbājentassapi anāpatti.

144. Thus (mahāva. aṭṭha. 34), even one ordaining a person free from ordination faults and permitted by his parents—if he has uncut hair and there are other monks in the same boundary—must ask the Sangha for the shaving ritual. Here is the method of asking (mahāva. aṭṭha. 98): Gathering the monks within the boundary, bringing the ordination candidate there, one should say, “Venerable sirs, I ask the Sangha for the shaving ritual for this child,” three times, twice, or once. Here, saying, “I ask for the shaving ritual for this child,” or “I ask for his ascetic preparation,” or “He wishes to be an ascetic,” or “He wishes to ordain,” is all permissible. If it is a common place where ten, twenty, or thirty monks dwell—a known number—one may go to where they stand or sit and ask as before. Even without the candidate, sending young monks or novices, saying, “Venerable sirs, there is one seeking ordination; I ask for his shaving ritual,” or the like, is permissible. If some monks are sleeping or practicing in lodgings or thickets, and those asking, despite searching, think, “We have asked all,” since ordination is a light matter, he is well-ordained, and there is no offense for the one ordaining.

144. Thus (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 34), one who is free from the faults of ordination and permitted by his parents, even by the one ordaining, if his hair is uncut, and there are other bhikkhus in the same boundary, the bhaṇḍukamma (hair-cutting ceremony) should be asked for the purpose of cutting the hair. Herein is the method of asking (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 98) – having gathered the bhikkhus residing within the boundary, having brought the ordination candidate there, “Venerable Sir, I ask the Saṅgha for the bhaṇḍukamma of this child,” should be said three times, or two times, or one time. And here, it is permissible to say, “I ask for the bhaṇḍukamma of this child,” or “I ask for the making of this one a samaṇa,” or “This one desires to become a samaṇa,” or “This one desires to be ordained.” If it is a place of assembly, it is known that ten, or twenty, or thirty bhikkhus reside, having gone to their place of standing or sitting, the asking should be done in the same way as before. Without the ordination candidate, having sent young bhikkhus or novices, it is permissible to have them ask, saying, “Venerable Sir, there is one ordination candidate; we ask for his bhaṇḍukamma,” and so on. If some bhikkhus have entered the dwelling place, or groves, and so on, and are sleeping, or performing the duties of a samaṇa, and the ones asking, even searching, do not see them and think, “All have been asked by us,” ordination is a light matter; therefore, the one ordained is well ordained, and there is no offense for the one ordaining.

144. Even when ordaining one who is free from defects and has the permission of his parents, if he has uncut hair, and there are other monks within the same boundary, one should ask for permission to cut his hair. Here is the procedure for asking (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 98): The monks within the boundary should be assembled, and the candidate for ordination should be brought there. One should say three times, twice, or once, “Venerable Sangha, I ask for permission to cut this boy’s hair.” Here, one may also say, “I ask for permission to make this boy a novice,” or “This one wishes to become a novice,” or “This one wishes to be ordained.” If the place is shared by ten, twenty, or thirty monks, and their standing or sitting places are known, one should go to them and ask in the same way. Even without the candidate for ordination, one may send a young monk or a novice and say, “Venerable, there is a candidate for ordination. I ask for permission to cut his hair,” etc. If some monks have entered their dwellings or are sleeping or engaged in monastic duties, and those asking for permission do not see them, they may think, “All have been asked by us.” Ordination is a light matter, so the ordination is valid, and there is no offense for the one who ordains.

Sace pana vihāro mahā hoti anekabhikkhusahassāvāso, sabbe bhikkhū sannipātāpetumpi dukkaraṃ, pageva paṭipāṭiyā āpucchituṃ, khaṇḍasīmāya vā ṭhatvā nadīsamuddādīni vā gantvā pabbājetabbo. Yo pana navamuṇḍo vā hoti vibbhantako vā nigaṇṭhādīsu aññataro vā dvaṅgulakeso vā ūnadvaṅgulakeso vā, tassa kesacchedanakiccaṃ natthi, tasmā bhaṇḍukammaṃ anāpucchitvāpi tādisaṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Dvaṅgulātirittakeso pana yo hoti antamaso ekasikhāmattadharopi, so bhaṇḍukammaṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo.

If the monastery is large, housing thousands of monks, gathering all or asking in order is difficult, he may be ordained standing in a partial boundary or going to a river or sea. One newly shaved, a former disrober, a naked ascetic, or one with hair two fingers or less has no need for hair-cutting; thus, such a one may be ordained without asking for the shaving ritual. But one with hair exceeding two fingers—even if bearing just one topknot—must be ordained only after asking for the shaving ritual.

But if the monastery is large, the dwelling place of many thousands of bhikkhus, it is difficult even to gather all the bhikkhus, let alone ask them in order; having stood at a khaṇḍasīmā (sub-boundary), or having gone to a river, the ocean, and so on, he should be ordained. But one who is newly shaved, or one who has disrobed, or one of the Nigaṇṭhas and others, or one whose hair is two finger-breadths long or less than two finger-breadths long, there is no need for cutting his hair; therefore, it is permissible to ordain such a one even without asking for the bhaṇḍukamma. But one whose hair is longer than two finger-breadths, even one who wears only a single topknot, should be ordained only after asking for the bhaṇḍukamma.

If the monastery is large, with thousands of monks, it is difficult to assemble all of them, let alone ask them one by one. Therefore, one should ordain him while standing in a partial boundary or after going to a river or the sea. If one is newly shaven, or a wandering ascetic, or a Nigaṇṭha, or has hair less than two fingers long, there is no need to cut his hair, so it is permissible to ordain him without asking for permission to cut his hair. However, if one has hair longer than two fingers, even if it is only a tuft, one should ask for permission to cut his hair before ordaining him.

145. Evaṃ āpucchitvā pabbājentena ca paripuṇṇapattacīvarova pabbājetabbo. Sace tassa natthi, yācitakenapi pattacīvarena pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati, sabhāgaṭṭhāne vissāsena gahetvāpi pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace (mahāva. aṭṭha. 118) pana apakkaṃ pattaṃ cīvarūpagāni ca vatthāni gahetvā āgato hoti, yāva patto paccati, cīvarāni ca karīyanti, tāva vihāre vasantassa anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati, thālakesu bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Purebhattaṃ sāmaṇerabhāgasamako āmisabhāgo dātuṃ vaṭṭati, senāsanaggāho pana salākabhattauddesabhattanimantanādīni ca na vaṭṭanti. Pacchābhattampi sāmaṇerabhāgasamo telataṇḍulamadhuphāṇitādibhesajjabhāgo vaṭṭati. Sace gilāno hoti, bhesajjamassa kātuṃ vaṭṭati, sāmaṇerassa viya sabbaṃ paṭijagganakammaṃ. Upasampadāpekkhaṃ pana yācitakena pattacīvarena upasampādetuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Na, bhikkhave, yācitakena pattacīvarena upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 118) vuttaṃ. Tasmā so paripuṇṇapattacīvaroyeva upasampādetabbo. Sace tassa natthi, ācariyupajjhāyā cassa dātukāmā honti, aññe vā bhikkhū nirapekkhehi nissajjitvā adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ pattacīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ. Yācitakena pana pattena vā cīvarena vā upasampādentasseva āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati.

145. One ordaining after asking must ordain him with a complete bowl and robes. If he has none, it is permissible to ordain with a borrowed bowl and robes, or one taken in trust from a common place. If (mahāva. aṭṭha. 118) he comes with an uncooked bowl and robe-worthy cloth, until the bowl is cooked and the robes are made, he may be given unoffered alms while staying in the monastery and eat from plates. Before meals, he may be given a share of food equal to a novice’s; but taking a lodging, ticket-meals, designated meals, or invitations is not permissible. After meals, a share of medicine like oil, rice, honey, or molasses equal to a novice’s is permissible. If he is ill, medicine may be prepared for him, and all care is as for a novice. But one seeking higher ordination must not be given higher ordination with a borrowed bowl and robes. It is said, “Monks, one should not be given higher ordination with a borrowed bowl and robes. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 118). Thus, he must be given higher ordination only with a complete bowl and robes. If he has none, and the preceptor or teacher wishes to give, or other monks give a bowl and robes relinquished without attachment and suitable for determination, it should be given. But giving higher ordination with a borrowed bowl or robes incurs an offense for the one ordaining, though the act is not invalid.

145. Thus, having asked, by the one ordaining, he should be ordained only if he has a complete bowl and robes. If he does not have them, it is permissible to ordain him with a borrowed bowl and robes; in a place of assembly, it is permissible to ordain him even after taking them with trust. If (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 118) he has come with an unbaked bowl and cloths suitable for robes, as long as the bowl is being baked and the robes are being made, it is permissible to give him uninvited food while he is residing in the monastery; it is permissible to eat from plates. An equal share of the food for novices is permissible for the morning meal; but the acceptance of a dwelling place, and meals by ticket, invitation, and assignment are not permissible. For the afternoon meal, an equal share of the medicines for novices, such as oil, rice, honey, molasses, and so on, is permissible. If he is sick, it is permissible to make medicine for him, all the caretaking duties as for a novice. But it is not permissible to fully ordain an ordination candidate with a borrowed bowl and robes. “Bhikkhus, one should not be fully ordained with a borrowed bowl and robes; whoever fully ordains, there is an offense of dukkata” (Mahāva. 118) was said. Therefore, he should be fully ordained only if he has a complete bowl and robes. If he does not have them, the teachers and preceptors wish to give to him, or other bhikkhus, without attachment, having relinquished, a bowl and robes that are subject to adhiṭṭhāna (determination) should be given. But for one who fully ordains with a borrowed bowl or robes, there is an offense, but the kamma is not invalid.

145. After asking for permission, one should ordain him only when he has a complete set of robes and bowl. If he does not have them, it is permissible to ordain him with borrowed robes and bowl. If he has brought an unripe bowl or cloth for robes, and while staying in the monastery, the bowl is being cured and the robes are being made, it is permissible to give him almsfood without being touched, and he may eat from plates. Before the meal, he may be given a portion of food equal to that of a novice. He may be given a share of rice, oil, honey, and medicinal drinks after the meal. If he is sick, medicine may be prepared for him, and all care should be taken as for a novice. However, a candidate for full admission should not be given full admission with borrowed robes and bowl. “Monks, one should not be given full admission with borrowed robes and bowl. If one does so, he commits a minor offense” (Mahāva. 118). Therefore, he should be given full admission only when he has a complete set of robes and bowl. If he does not have them, his preceptor or teacher, or other monks who are willing, should give him robes and bowl that are suitable for use. If one gives full admission with borrowed robes or bowl, he commits an offense, but the act is not invalid.

146. Paripuṇṇapattacīvaraṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 34) pabbājentenapi sace okāso hoti, sayaṃ pabbājetabbo. Sace uddesaparipucchādīhi byāvaṭo hoti, okāsaṃ na labhati, eko daharabhikkhu vattabbo “etaṃ pabbājehī”ti. Avuttopi ce daharabhikkhu upajjhāyaṃ uddissa pabbājeti, vaṭṭati. Sace daharabhikkhu natthi, sāmaṇeropi vattabbo “etaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā pabbājetvā kāsāyāni acchādetvā ehī”ti. Saraṇāni pana sayaṃ dātabbāni. Evaṃ bhikkhunāva pabbājito hoti. Purisañhi bhikkhuto añño pabbājetuṃ na labhati, mātugāmaṃ bhikkhunīto añño, sāmaṇero pana sāmaṇerī vā āṇattiyā kāsāyāni dātuṃ labhanti, kesoropanaṃ yena kenaci kataṃ sukataṃ.

146. One ordaining with a complete bowl and robes (mahāva. aṭṭha. 34), if there is opportunity, should ordain him himself. If busy with recitation or questioning and lacking opportunity, he should tell a young monk, “Ordain him.” Even an unasked young monk ordaining on the preceptor’s behalf is permissible. If no young monk is available, a novice may be told, “Take him to the partial boundary, ordain him, dress him in robes, and come.” The refuges, however, must be given by oneself. Thus, he is ordained by a monk alone. No one other than a monk can ordain a man; no one other than a bhikkhuni can ordain a woman. But a novice or female novice, when instructed, can give robes; hair-shaving done by anyone is well-done.

146. Even by one who is ordaining one with a complete bowl and robes (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 34), if there is an opportunity, he should ordain him himself. If he is busy with teaching, questioning, and so on, and does not get an opportunity, a young bhikkhu should be told, “Ordain him.” Even if the young bhikkhu is not told, if he ordains for the sake of the preceptor, it is permissible. If there is no young bhikkhu, even a novice should be told, “Take him to the khaṇḍasīmā, ordain him, and come after clothing him in ochre robes.” But the refuges should be given by himself. Thus, he is ordained by a bhikkhu. For a man cannot be ordained by anyone other than a bhikkhu, a woman by anyone other than a bhikkhunī; but a novice, male or female, can give the ochre robes by command; the shaving of the hair, done by anyone, is well done.

146. Even when ordaining one who has a complete set of robes and bowl (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 34), if there is an opportunity, one should ordain him oneself. If one is busy with teaching or questioning, and does not get the opportunity, a young monk should be told, “Ordain him.” Even if not told, a young monk may ordain him on behalf of the preceptor, and it is valid. If there is no young monk, a novice may be told, “Take him to a partial boundary, ordain him, clothe him in ochre robes, and bring him back.” However, the refuges should be given by oneself. In this way, the ordination is done by a monk. For a man, no one other than a monk can ordain him. For a woman, no one other than a bhikkhunī can ordain her. However, a novice or a novice nun may, by command, give the ochre robes, and the shaving of the head may be done by anyone.

Sace pana bhabbarūpo hoti sahetuko ñāto yasassī kulaputto, okāsaṃ katvāpi sayameva pabbājetabbo, “mattikāmuṭṭhiṃ gahetvā nahāyitvā āgacchāhī”ti ca na pana vissajjetabbo . Pabbajitukāmānañhi paṭhamaṃ balavaussāho hoti, pacchā pana kāsāyāni ca kesaharaṇasatthakañca disvā utrasanti, ettoyeva palāyanti, tasmā sayameva nahānatitthaṃ netvā sace nātidaharo, “nahāhī”ti vattabbo, kesā panassa sayameva mattikaṃ gahetvā dhovitabbā . Daharakumārako pana sayaṃ udakaṃ otaritvā gomayamattikāhi ghaṃsitvā nahāpetabbo. Sacepissa kacchu vā piḷakā vā honti, yathā mātā puttaṃ na jigucchati, evamevaṃ ajigucchantena sādhukaṃ hatthapādato ca sīsato ca paṭṭhāya ghaṃsitvā ghaṃsitvā nahāpetabbo. Kasmā? Ettakena hi upakārena kulaputtā ācariyupajjhāyesu ca sāsane ca balavasinehā tibbagāravā anivattidhammā honti, uppannaṃ anabhiratiṃ vinodetvā therabhāvaṃ pāpuṇanti, kataññukatavedino honti.

If he is capable, rational, well-known, famous, and a son of a good family, even making time, he should be ordained himself and not dismissed with, “Take a handful of clay, bathe, and come back.” For those desiring ordination, enthusiasm is strong at first, but later, seeing the robes and razor, they become afraid and flee from there. Thus, he should be taken to the bathing place himself, and if not too young, told, “Bathe.” His hair should be washed with clay by oneself. A young boy, however, should go into the water himself, be rubbed with cow dung and clay, and bathed. If he has scabs or sores, without disgust, as a mother does not recoil from her son, he should be carefully rubbed from hands and feet to head and bathed. Why? With such help, sons of good families develop strong affection and deep respect for their preceptor and teacher and the teaching, do not turn back, overcome discontent, attain elderhood, and become grateful and appreciative.

If, however, he is capable, knowledgeable, well-known, and of good family, he should be ordained even after requesting permission, and he should not be dismissed with the words, “Take a handful of clay, bathe, and come back.” For those who wish to go forth have strong zeal at first, but later, seeing the ochre robes and the razor for shaving the hair, they become frightened and flee from that very place. Therefore, taking him to the bathing place, if he is not too young, one should say, “Bathe.” He should wash his own hair after taking the clay. A young boy, however, should be bathed after entering the water and rubbing himself with cow dung and clay. If he has scabies or boils, just as a mother is not disgusted by her son, in the same way, without being disgusted, one should bathe him thoroughly, rubbing him from hands and feet to the head. Why? Through such care, young men of good family develop strong affection and deep respect for their teachers, preceptors, and the teaching; they become steadfast in the Dhamma, dispel any arising discontent, attain the status of elders, and become grateful and appreciative.

If, however, the young man is capable, has a good reason, is well-known, famous, and from a good family, even after giving him the opportunity, he should be ordained by himself. He should not be sent away with the instruction, “Take a handful of clay, bathe, and then come back.” For those who desire to go forth, initially there is strong enthusiasm, but later, upon seeing the robes and the razor for shaving the head, they become frightened and flee. Therefore, he himself should be taken to the bathing spot, and if he is not too young, he should be told, “Bathe.” His hair should be washed by himself with clay. If he is a very young boy, he should enter the water himself, be scrubbed with cow-dung clay, and then bathed. If he has scabies or boils, he should be bathed thoroughly, scrubbing his hands, feet, and head repeatedly, without disgust, just as a mother would not be disgusted with her child. Why? For with such help, young men of good families develop strong affection and deep respect for their teachers and preceptors, as well as for the Dhamma. They become unwavering, dispel any dissatisfaction that arises, attain the state of an elder, and become grateful and appreciative.

Evaṃ nahāpanakāle pana kesamassuṃ oropanakāle vā “tvaṃ ñāto yasassī, idāni mayaṃ taṃ nissāya paccayehi na kilamissāmā”ti na vattabbo, aññāpi aniyyānikakathā na vattabbā, atha khvassa “āvuso, suṭṭhu upadhārehi, satiṃ upaṭṭhāpehī”ti vatvā tacapañcakakammaṭṭhānaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Ācikkhantena ca vaṇṇasaṇṭhānagandhāsayokāsavasena asucijegucchapaṭikkūlabhāvaṃ nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ vā pākaṭaṃ karontena ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace hi so pubbe madditasaṅkhāro hoti bhāvitabhāvano kaṇṭakavedhāpekkho viya paripakkagaṇḍo sūriyuggamanāpekkhaṃ viya ca pariṇatapadumaṃ, athassa āraddhamatte kammaṭṭhānaṃ manasikāre indāsani viya pabbate kilesapabbate cuṇṇayamānaṃyeva ñāṇaṃ pavattati, khuraggeyeva arahattaṃ pāpuṇāti. Ye hi keci khuragge arahattaṃ pattā, sabbe te evarūpaṃ savanaṃ labhitvā kalyāṇamittena ācariyena dinnanayaṃ nissāya, no anissāya. Tasmāssa āditova evarūpī kathā kathetabbāti.

At the time of bathing or shaving the hair and beard, one should not say, “You are well-known and famous; now we won’t struggle for requisites because of you,” nor engage in any unbeneficial talk. Rather, saying, “Friend, consider well, establish mindfulness,” the meditation subject of the fivefold skin should be taught. It should be taught by making evident the impurity, repulsiveness, and disagreeable nature—or the lifeless, non-being nature—through color, shape, smell, function, and location. If he was previously softened and developed, like a thorn awaiting piercing or a ripe abscess awaiting the sun, or a mature lotus awaiting sunrise, then as soon as the meditation subject is undertaken, insight operates like a thunderbolt shattering a mountain of defilements, and he attains arahantship at the razor’s edge. All who attained arahantship at the razor’s edge did so by receiving such teaching and relying on the method given by a good friend, a teacher, not without it. Thus, such talk should be given to him from the start.

At the time of bathing or shaving the hair and beard, one should not say, “You are knowledgeable and famous; now, relying on you, we will not suffer for requisites,” nor should any other improper speech be uttered. Instead, one should say, “Friend, pay close attention, establish mindfulness,” and then explain the fivefold meditation on the body (tavapañcaka-kammaṭṭhāna). While explaining, one should make clear the impurity, loathsomeness, repulsiveness, lifelessness, and insubstantiality based on color, shape, smell, location, and space. If he has previously cultivated the aggregates, with a mind cultivated in meditation, like a boil ripe for lancing or a lotus ready to bloom at sunrise, then, as soon as the meditation object is commenced, knowledge proceeds, cutting through the mountain of defilements like a thunderbolt, and he attains arahantship right there at the razor’s edge. All those who have attained arahantship at the razor’s edge have done so by receiving such instruction from a good friend and teacher, and not without it. Therefore, such a discourse should be given to him from the very beginning.

However, during the bathing or the shaving of the hair and beard, one should not say to him, “You are well-known and famous; now we will not be troubled in providing for you.” Nor should any other irrelevant talk be made. Instead, he should be told, “Friend, pay close attention, establish mindfulness,” and then instructed in the meditation subject of the fivefold repulsiveness. While instructing, the teacher should clearly explain the nature of impurity, its repulsiveness, and its lifelessness through its characteristics, appearance, smell, and location. If the young man has previously developed a tendency towards meditation, has cultivated his mind, and is like a ripe abscess waiting to be lanced or a fully bloomed lotus waiting for the sun, then as soon as he begins to apply himself to the meditation subject, his knowledge will arise like a stone-crushing hammer, crushing the mountain of defilements, and he will attain Arahantship on the spot. All those who have attained Arahantship on the spot have done so after hearing such a discourse and relying on the guidance given by a good friend and teacher, not without it. Therefore, from the very beginning, such a discourse should be given to him.

Kesesu pana oropitesu haliddicuṇṇena vā gandhacuṇṇena vā sīsañca sarīrañca ubbaṭṭetvā gihigandhaṃ apanetvā kāsāyāni tikkhattuṃ vā dvikkhattuṃ vā sakiṃ vā paṭiggāhāpetabbo. Athāpissa hatthe adatvā ācariyo vā upajjhāyo vā sayameva acchādeti, vaṭṭati. Sace aññaṃ daharaṃ vā sāmaṇeraṃ vā upāsakaṃ vā āṇāpeti “āvuso, etāni kāsāyāni gahetvā etaṃ acchādehī”ti, taññeva vā āṇāpeti “etāni gahetvā acchādehī”ti, sabbaṃ taṃ vaṭṭati, sabbaṃ tena bhikkhunāva dinnaṃ hoti. Yaṃ pana nivāsanaṃ vā pārupanaṃ vā anāṇattiyā nivāseti vā pārupati vā, taṃ apanetvā puna dātabbaṃ. Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāyaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭati. Sacepi tasseva santakaṃ hoti, ko pana vādo upajjhāyamūlake.

When the hair is shaved, the head and body should be rubbed with turmeric powder or fragrant powder to remove lay odors, and the robes should be handed over three times, twice, or once. Or, without placing them in his hands, the teacher or preceptor dresses him himself—this is permissible. If he instructs another, a young monk, novice, or layman, saying, “Friend, take these robes and dress him,” or instructs him, “Take these and dress him,” all this is permissible, and all is given by that monk. But if he wears or covers himself with a lower robe or upper robe without instruction, it must be removed and given again. Only robes given by a monk’s hand or instruction are permissible; ungiven ones are not. Even if they belong to him, how much more so if they belong to the preceptor.

After the hair has been shaved, the head and body should be rubbed with turmeric powder or fragrant powder to remove the smell of a householder, and the ochre robes should be accepted three times, twice, or once. If the teacher or preceptor himself dresses him without giving the robes into his hands, it is permissible. If he orders another junior monk, novice, or lay follower, “Friend, take these ochre robes and dress him,” or orders him, “Take these and dress yourself,” all that is permissible; all that is given by that monk himself. However, whatever lower or upper robe he puts on without being ordered, that should be removed and given again. Only the ochre robe given by a monk with his own hand or by his order is permissible; what is not given is not permissible. Even if it belongs to him, what to say of that which is from the preceptor’s resources?

After the hair has been shaved, the head and body should be rubbed with turmeric powder or fragrant powder to remove the householder’s scent, and the robes should be offered to him three times, twice, or once. Then, without placing them in his hands, the teacher or preceptor should personally robe him, and this is permissible. If he instructs another young boy, novice, or layperson, saying, “Friend, take these robes and robe him,” or simply instructs him, “Take these and robe him,” all this is permissible, and everything is considered given by the monk. However, if he wears or puts on the lower or upper robe without being instructed, they should be taken back and given again. For robes given by a monk either directly or through instruction are valid; those not given are invalid. Even if the robes belong to him, how much more so if they are given by the preceptor.

147. Evaṃ pana dinnāni kāsāyāni acchādāpetvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ kārāpetvā ye tattha sannipatitā bhikkhū, tesaṃ pāde vandāpetvā atha saraṇagahaṇatthaṃ ukkuṭikaṃ nisīdāpetvā añjaliṃ paggaṇhāpetvā “evaṃ vadehī”ti vattabbo, “yamahaṃ vadāmi, taṃ vadehī”ti vattabbo. Athassa upajjhāyena vā ācariyena vā “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”tiādinā nayena saraṇāni dātabbāni yathāvuttapaṭipāṭiyāva, na uppaṭipāṭiyā. Sace hi ekapadampi ekakkharampi uppaṭipāṭiyā deti, buddhaṃ saraṇaṃyeva vā tikkhattuṃ datvā puna itaresu ekekaṃ tikkhattuṃ deti, adinnāni honti saraṇāni.

147. Having given the robes and had them worn, with the upper robe arranged over one shoulder, he should be made to pay homage at the feet of the monks gathered there. Then, for taking the refuges, he should be seated in a squatting position, made to raise his hands in añjali, and told, “Say this,” or “Say what I say.” Then, the preceptor or teacher should give the refuges in the order, “I go to the Buddha for refuge,” and so forth, as stated, not in reverse order. If even one word or letter is given out of order, or if “I go to the Buddha for refuge” is given three times and then the others once each three times, the refuges are not given.

147. Having dressed him in the ochre robes thus given, having him arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, having him pay respects to the feet of the monks assembled there, then having him sit down on his heels for the purpose of taking refuge, having him raise his joined hands, one should say, “Say thus,” and “Say what I say.” Then, the preceptor or teacher should give him the refuges in the manner beginning with “Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,” following the prescribed order, not in reverse order. If he gives even one word or one syllable in reverse order, or if he gives only “Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ” three times and then each of the others three times, the refuges are not given.

147. After the robes have been given and he has been robed with the upper robe covering one shoulder, he should be made to pay respect to the feet of the monks present there. Then, he should be made to sit in the kneeling position, raise his hands in añjali, and be told, “Say thus,” and “What I say, you say.” Then, the preceptor or teacher should give him the refuges in the proper order, as previously described, not in reverse. If even a single word or syllable is given in reverse, such as giving the refuge in the Buddha three times and then giving the others one by one three times, the refuges are not properly given.

Imañca pana saraṇagamanupasampadaṃ paṭikkhipitvā anuññātaupasampadā ekatosuddhiyā vaṭṭati, sāmaṇerapabbajjā pana ubhatosuddhiyāva vaṭṭati, no ekatosuddhiyā. Tasmā upasampadāya sace ācariyo ñattidosañceva kammavācādosañca vajjetvā kammaṃ karoti, sukataṃ hoti. Pabbajjāya pana imāni tīṇi saraṇāni bu-kāra dha-kārādīnaṃ byañjanānaṃ ṭhānakaraṇasampadaṃ ahāpentena ācariyenapi antevāsikenapi vattabbāni. Sace ācariyo vattuṃ sakkoti, antevāsiko na sakkoti, antevāsiko vā sakkoti, ācariyo na sakkoti, ubhopi vā na sakkonti, na vaṭṭati. Sace pana ubhopi sakkonti, vaṭṭati. Imāni ca pana dadamānena “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti evaṃ ekasambandhāni anunāsikantāni vā katvā dātabbāni, “buddhama saraṇama gacchāmī”ti evaṃ vicchinditvā makārantāni vā katvā dātabbāni. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “nāmaṃ sāvetvā ’ahaṃ, bhante, buddharakkhito yāvajīvaṃ buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ ekaṭṭhakathāyampi natthi, pāḷiyampi na vuttaṃ, tesaṃ rucimattameva, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi tathā avadantassa saraṇaṃ kuppati. Ettāvatā ca sāmaṇerabhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhito hoti.

This going for refuge as ordination was rejected, and the permitted higher ordination is valid with one-sided purity. But novice ordination is valid only with two-sided purity, not one-sided. Thus, in higher ordination, if the teacher performs the act avoiding faults in the motion and proclamation, it is well-done. In ordination, however, these three refuges must be spoken by both the teacher and disciple without omitting the proper articulation and function of consonants like “bu” and “dha.” If the teacher can say them but the disciple cannot, or the disciple can but the teacher cannot, or neither can, it is not permissible. If both can, it is permissible. When giving them, they should be given as a single phrase, “I go to the Buddha for refuge,” with a nasal ending, or separated, “Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,” with an “m” ending. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “After announcing the name, ‘Venerable sir, I, Buddharakkhita, go to the Buddha for refuge for life,’” but this is not in any commentary or text, only their preference, and should not be accepted. Saying it otherwise does not invalidate the refuge. With this, he is established in the novice state.

This going for refuge and full ordination (upasampadā) has been rejected, and the permitted full ordination is valid only with complete purity on one side. Novice ordination (pabbajjā), however, is valid only with complete purity on both sides, not with complete purity on one side. Therefore, in full ordination, if the teacher performs the act avoiding the fault of the declaration and the fault of the ordination statement, it is well done. In novice ordination, however, these three refuges must be recited by both the teacher and the disciple, without omitting the proper articulation of the consonants such as ‘bu’ in ‘buddhaṃ’ and ‘dha’ in ‘dhammaṃ’. If the teacher is able to recite, but the disciple is not, or the disciple is able, but the teacher is not, or both are not able, it is not valid. If both are able, it is valid. When giving these, they should be given either connected as “Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,” ending in the nasal sound, or separated as “Buddham saraṇam gacchāmi,” ending in the ‘m’ sound. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Having uttered the name, ‘I, venerable sir, Buddharakkhito, go for refuge to the Buddha for life,’” but that is not found in any other commentary, nor is it stated in the Pāḷi; it is merely their preference, therefore it should not be adopted. The refuge of one who does not speak thus is not broken. With this, he is established in the status of a novice.

This going for refuge and higher ordination is rejected, and the authorized ordination is valid only when it is one-sided purity. However, the novice ordination is valid only with two-sided purity, not one-sided. Therefore, in the higher ordination, if the teacher avoids the faults in the motion and the proclamation and performs the ceremony, it is well done. In the going forth, these three refuges should be spoken by both the teacher and the pupil, ensuring the correct pronunciation of the syllables “bu” and “dha.” If the teacher is able to speak but the pupil is not, or if the pupil is able but the teacher is not, or if both are unable, it is invalid. If both are able, it is valid. When giving these, they should be given as connected, with the nasal sound, or as separate, with the “m” sound. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “After declaring the name, ‘I, venerable sir, am protected by the Buddha; for life, I go to the Buddha as my refuge,’” but this is not found in any commentary or in the Pali texts, so it should not be taken. For the refuge does not become invalid if not spoken in that way. Thus, one is established in the state of a novice.

148. Sace panesa gatimā hoti paṇḍitajātiko, athassa tasmiṃyeva ṭhāne sikkhāpadāni uddisitabbāni. Kathaṃ? Yathā bhagavatā uddiṭṭhāni. Vuttañhetaṃ –

148. If he is intelligent and wise by nature, the training rules should be recited to him right there. How? As recited by the Blessed One. It is said:

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

148. If he is intelligent and wise, the training rules should be recited to him right there. How? As taught by the Blessed One. For it is said:

“Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, sāmaṇerānaṃ dasa sikkhāpadāni, tesu ca sāmaṇerehi sikkhituṃ. Pāṇātipātā veramaṇi, adinnādānā veramaṇi, abrahmacariyā veramaṇi, musāvādā veramaṇi, surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇi, vikālabhojanā veramaṇi, naccagītavādita visūkadassanā veramaṇi, mālāgandha vilepana dhāraṇa maṇḍana vibhūsanaṭṭhānā veramaṇi, uccāsayanamahāsayanā veramaṇi, jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇā veramaṇī”ti (mahāva. 106).

“I allow, monks, ten training rules for novices and for novices to train in them: abstaining from killing living beings, abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from non-celibacy, abstaining from false speech, abstaining from intoxicants causing heedlessness, abstaining from eating at the wrong time, abstaining from dancing, singing, music, and shows, abstaining from wearing garlands, scents, ointments, adornments, and embellishments, abstaining from high and luxurious beds, abstaining from accepting gold and silver” (mahāva. 106).

“I allow, monks, ten precepts for novices, and in these novices should train. Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from unchastity, abstaining from false speech, abstaining from intoxicants that cause heedlessness, abstaining from eating at the wrong time, abstaining from dancing, singing, music, and watching shows, abstaining from wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying with cosmetics, abstaining from high and luxurious beds, abstaining from accepting gold and silver” (Mahāva. 106).

“I allow, monks, ten training rules for novices, which they should train in. Abstaining from killing living beings, abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from sexual activity, abstaining from false speech, abstaining from intoxicants that cause heedlessness, abstaining from eating at the wrong time, abstaining from dancing, singing, music, and watching shows, abstaining from wearing garlands, perfumes, and adornments, abstaining from high and luxurious beds, and abstaining from accepting gold and silver.” (Mahāvagga 106)

Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “ahaṃ, bhante, itthannāmo yāvajīvaṃ pāṇātipātā veramaṇisikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmī”ti evaṃ saraṇadānaṃ viya sikkhāpadadānampi vuttaṃ, taṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāsu atthi, tasmā yathāpāḷiyāva uddisitabbāni. Pabbajjā hi saraṇagamaneheva siddhā, sikkhāpadāni pana kevalaṃ sikkhāpadapūraṇatthaṃ jānitabbāni, tasmā pāḷiyā āgatanayeneva uggahetuṃ asakkontassa yāya kāyaci bhāsāya atthavasenapi ācikkhituṃ vaṭṭati. Yāva pana attanā sikkhitabbasikkhāpadāni na jānāti, saṅghāṭipattacīvaradhāraṇaṭṭhānanisajjādīsu pānabhojanādividhimhi ca na kusalo hoti, tāva bhojanasālaṃ vā salākabhājanaṭṭhānaṃ vā aññaṃ vā tathārūpaṭṭhānaṃ na pesetabbo, santikāvacaroyeva kātabbo, bāladārako viya paṭipajjitabbo, sabbamassa kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, nivāsanapārupanādīsu abhisamācārikesu vinetabbo. Tenapi –

In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Venerable sir, I, so-and-so, undertake the training rule of abstaining from killing living beings for life,” like giving the refuges, but this is neither in the texts nor commentaries. Thus, they should be recited only as in the text. Ordination is accomplished by going for refuge alone; the training rules are merely to be known for fulfilling them. Thus, if he cannot learn them as in the text, explaining their meaning in any language is permissible. Until he knows the training rules to be practiced, and is skilled in wearing the robe, bowl, and cloak, sitting, and the rules for drinking and eating, he should not be sent to the dining hall, ticket distribution, or similar places. He should stay close, be treated like a young child, taught all that is lawful and unlawful, and trained in wearing, covering, and minor conduct rules. And by him:

In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, however, it is said, “I, venerable sir, so-and-so, undertake the precept of abstaining from taking life for life,” thus giving the precepts like the giving of refuges, but that is found neither in the Pāḷi nor in the commentaries. Therefore, they should be recited as in the Pāḷi. Novice ordination is accomplished by going for refuge alone; the precepts, however, should be understood merely for the purpose of fulfilling the precepts. Therefore, for one who is unable to learn them in the way they are presented in the Pāḷi, it is permissible to explain them according to their meaning in any language. As long as he does not know the precepts he should train in, and is not skilled in the rules concerning the use of robes, bowl, and cloth, and in the procedures for drinking and eating, he should not be sent to the dining hall, the place for distributing portions, or any other such place; he should be kept as a close attendant, treated like a young child, taught everything permissible and impermissible, and trained in the minor rules of conduct such as dressing and robing. By him also –

In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “I, venerable sir, so-and-so, for life undertake the training rule of abstaining from killing living beings,” just as in the giving of the refuges, but this is not found in the Pali texts or the commentaries, so the training rules should be recited as in the Pali texts. The going forth is accomplished by the going for refuge alone, but the training rules are to be understood as merely for the purpose of fulfilling the training. Therefore, if one is unable to learn them according to the Pali texts, they may be explained in any language that conveys the meaning. Until one knows the training rules that one should train in, and is not skilled in the procedures for wearing the robe, carrying the bowl, sitting, eating, and drinking, one should not be sent to the dining hall, the place for receiving alms, or any such place. One should be kept close and treated like a child. Everything that is allowable or not allowable should be explained to him, and he should be trained in the proper conduct regarding robes and other requisites. Therefore:

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nāsetuṃ. Pāṇātipātī hoti, adinnādāyī hoti, abrahmacārī hoti, musāvādī hoti, majjapāyī hoti, buddhassa avaṇṇaṃ bhāsati, dhammassa avaṇṇaṃ bhāsati, saṅghassa avaṇṇaṃ bhāsati, micchādiṭṭhiko hoti, bhikkhunīdūsako hotī”ti (mahāva. 108) –

“I allow, monks, a novice endowed with ten qualities to be expelled: he kills living beings, takes what is not given, is non-celibate, speaks falsely, drinks intoxicants, disparages the Buddha, disparages the Dhamma, disparages the Sangha, holds wrong views, violates a bhikkhuni” (mahāva. 108).

“I allow, monks, that a novice possessing ten qualities be expelled. He takes life, he takes what is not given, he is unchaste, he speaks falsely, he drinks intoxicants, he speaks ill of the Buddha, he speaks ill of the Dhamma, he speaks ill of the Saṅgha, he holds wrong views, he is a corrupter of nuns” (Mahāva. 108) –

“I allow, monks, the expulsion of a novice who possesses ten qualities. He is one who kills living beings, takes what is not given, engages in sexual activity, speaks falsely, consumes intoxicants, speaks dispraise of the Buddha, speaks dispraise of the Dhamma, speaks dispraise of the Sangha, holds wrong view, or corrupts a nun.” (Mahāvagga 108)

Evaṃ vuttāni dasa nāsanaṅgāni ārakā parivajjetvā ābhisamācārikaṃ paripūrentena dasavidhe sīle sādhukaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ.

Keeping far from these ten grounds for expulsion as stated, he should diligently train in the tenfold virtue, fulfilling the minor conduct rules.

These ten grounds for expulsion, thus stated, should be carefully avoided, and by fulfilling the minor rules of conduct, one should train well in the tenfold virtue.

Thus, having avoided these ten grounds for expulsion, one should diligently train in the tenfold virtuous conduct.

149. Yo pana (mahāva. aṭṭha. 108) pāṇātipātādīsu dasasu nāsanaṅgesu ekampi kammaṃ karoti, so liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo. Tīsu hi nāsanāsu liṅganāsanāyeva idhādhippetā. Yathā ca bhikkhūnaṃ pāṇātipātādīsu tā tā āpattiyo honti, na tathā sāmaṇerānaṃ. Sāmaṇero hi kuntha kipillikampi māretvā maṅgulaṇḍakampi bhinditvā nāsetabbataṃyeva pāpuṇāti, tāvadevassa saraṇagamanāni ca upajjhāyaggahaṇañca senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhanti, saṅghalābhaṃ na labhati, liṅgamattameva ekaṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti. So sace ākiṇṇadosova hoti, āyatiṃ saṃvare na tiṭṭhati, nikkaḍḍhitabbo. Atha sahasā virajjhitvā “duṭṭhu mayā kata”nti puna saṃvare ṭhātukāmo hoti, liṅganāsanakiccaṃ natthi, yathānivatthapārutasseva saraṇāni dātabbāni, upajjhāyo dātabbo. Sikkhāpadāni pana saraṇagamaneneva ijjhanti. Sāmaṇerānañhi saraṇagamanaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ upasampadakammavācāsadisaṃ, tasmā bhikkhūnaṃ viya catupārisuddhisīlaṃ imināpi dasa sīlāni samādinnāneva honti, evaṃ santepi daḷhīkaraṇatthaṃ āyatiṃ saṃvare patiṭṭhāpanatthaṃ puna dātabbāni. Sace purimikāya puna saraṇāni gahitāni, pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchati. Sace pacchimikāya gahitāni, saṅghena apaloketvā lābho dātabbo. Adinnādāne tiṇasalākamattenapi vatthunā, abrahmacariye tīsu maggesu yattha katthaci vippaṭipattiyā, musāvāde hasādhippāyatāyapi musā bhaṇite assamaṇo hoti, nāsetabbataṃ āpajjati, majjapāne pana bhikkhuno ajānitvāpi bījato paṭṭhāya majjaṃ pivantassa pācittiyaṃ. Sāmaṇero jānitvā pivantova sīlabhedaṃ āpajjati, na ajānitvā. Yāni panassa itarāni pañca sikkhāpadāni, etesu bhinnesu na nāsetabbo, daṇḍakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sikkhāpade pana puna dinnepi adinnepi vaṭṭati, daṇḍakammena pana pīḷetvā āyatiṃ saṃvare ṭhapanatthāya dātabbameva.

149. One who (mahāva. aṭṭha. 108) commits even one of these ten expulsion acts, such as killing living beings, should be expelled by removal of the mark. Among the three expulsions, removal of the mark is intended here. Just as monks incur various offenses for killing living beings and the like, it is not so for novices. A novice who kills even an ant or breaks even a spider’s egg reaches the state of expulsion; with that, his going for refuge, acceptance of a preceptor, and lodging assignment cease, leaving only the mark. If he is full of faults and does not maintain restraint in the future, he should be cast out. But if, suddenly repenting, saying, “I acted badly,” he wishes to maintain restraint, there is no need for removal of the mark; the refuges should be given as he is, still dressed and covered, and a preceptor assigned. The training rules are fulfilled by going for refuge alone. For novices, going for refuge is like the proclamation for higher ordination for monks. Thus, just as monks undertake the fourfold pure virtue, he too undertakes the ten virtues by this alone. Even so, they should be given again to strengthen and establish future restraint. If the former refuges were taken again, he receives the rains residence with the latter; if taken with the latter, the Sangha must approve the gain without consultation. In taking what is not given, even with a blade of grass; in non-celibacy, by misconduct in any of the three paths; in false speech, even with playful intent—he becomes unascetic and reaches expulsion. In intoxicants, a monk incurs a pācittiya offense even unknowingly drinking from the seed onward, but a novice breaches virtue only by knowingly drinking, not unknowingly. For the other five training rules, he is not expelled if broken; a penalty should be imposed. Whether the training rules are given again or not, it is permissible, but they must be given with a penalty to afflict him and establish future restraint.

149. Whoever (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 108) commits even one of these ten grounds for expulsion, such as taking life, should be expelled by banishment from the Order. Among the three expulsions, banishment from the Order is intended here. The offenses of monks, such as taking life, are not the same as those of novices. A novice, even by killing an ant or breaking a small lump of earth, incurs expulsion; his going for refuge, acceptance of a preceptor, and acceptance of a dwelling are immediately dissolved; he does not receive the Saṅgha’s gains; only the mere form remains. If he is full of faults and does not stand in restraint in the future, he should be driven out. If he errs suddenly and, thinking, “I have done badly,” wishes to stand in restraint again, there is no need for banishment from the Order; the refuges should be given to him as he is dressed, and a preceptor should be given. The precepts, however, are fulfilled by going for refuge alone. The going for refuge of novices is similar to the ordination statement of monks; therefore, like the fourfold pure virtue of monks, the ten precepts are undertaken by him as well. Even so, they should be given again for strengthening and establishing restraint in the future. If the refuges were taken previously, he will receive the residence for the rainy season based on the later taking. If they were taken later, the gain should be given after informing the Saṅgha. Regarding taking what is not given, even with something worth a blade of grass; regarding unchastity, by misconduct in any of the three ways; regarding false speech, even if a lie is told with the intention of joking, he is no longer an ascetic and incurs expulsion. Regarding drinking intoxicants, a monk, even unknowingly drinking any intoxicant starting from the seed, incurs a pācittiya offense. A novice incurs a breach of the precept only by drinking knowingly, not unknowingly. As for the other five precepts, if these are broken, he should not be expelled; a penalty should be imposed. Even if the precepts are given again, or not given again, it is permissible, but he should be made to suffer through the penalty, and they should be given for establishing restraint in the future.

149. If a novice commits even one of these ten offenses, such as killing living beings, he should be expelled by the removal of his status. Here, among the three types of expulsion, the removal of status is intended. Just as monks commit various offenses by killing living beings and so on, it is not so for novices. A novice who kills even an ant or a termite, or breaks a clay pot, reaches the state of being expelled. At that very moment, his going for refuge, his acceptance by the preceptor, and his right to a dwelling cease. He does not gain the benefit of the Sangha; only his status remains. If he is full of faults and does not restrain himself in the future, he should be cast out. But if he quickly becomes disenchanted and wishes to restrain himself again, saying, “I have acted wrongly,” there is no need for the removal of his status. The refuges should be given to him as before, and the preceptor should be given to him. The training rules are fulfilled by the going for refuge alone. For the novices’ going for refuge is like the monks’ ordination ceremony. Therefore, just as monks possess the fourfold purity of virtue, so too do novices who undertake these ten precepts. Even so, to strengthen him and establish him in future restraint, they should be given again. If the refuges are taken again in the earlier way, he gains the right to the rainy season residence. If they are taken in the later way, the Sangha should be informed, and the right should be given. In the case of stealing, even a blade of grass or a piece of wood is enough to constitute an offense. In sexual misconduct, any deviation in the three paths is enough. In false speech, even a joke told with the intention to deceive makes one not a true ascetic and leads to expulsion. In the case of intoxicants, if a monk unknowingly drinks alcohol starting from the seed, it is a pācittiya offense. A novice who knowingly drinks alcohol breaks his virtue, but not if he does so unknowingly. As for the other five training rules, if they are broken, he should not be expelled, but a disciplinary action should be taken. Even if the training rules are given again or not, it is valid. However, after punishing him, they should be given again to establish him in future restraint.

Avaṇṇabhāsane pana “arahaṃ sammāsambuddho”tiādīnaṃ paṭipakkhavasena buddhassa vā “svākkhāto”tiādīnaṃ paṭipakkhavasena dhammassa vā “suppaṭipanno”tiādīnaṃ paṭipakkhavasena saṅghassa vā avaṇṇaṃ bhāsanto ratanattayaṃ nindanto garahanto ācariyupajjhāyādīhi “mā evaṃ avacā”ti avaṇṇabhāsane ādīnavaṃ dassetvā nivāretabbo. “Sace yāvatatiyaṃ vuccamāno na oramati, kaṇṭakanāsanāya nāsetabbo”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “sace evaṃ vuccamāno taṃ laddhiṃ nissajjati, daṇḍakammaṃ kāretvā accayaṃ desāpetabbo. Sace na nissajjati, tatheva ādāya paggayha tiṭṭhati, liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Ayameva hi nāsanā idhādhippetāti. Micchādiṭṭhikepi eseva nayo. Sassatucchedānañhi aññataradiṭṭhiko sace ācariyādīhi ovadiyamāno nissajjati, daṇḍakammaṃ kāretvā accayaṃ desāpetabbo, apaṭinissajjantova nāsetabbo. Bhikkhunīdūsako cettha kāmaṃ abrahmacāriggahaṇena gahitova, abrahmacāriṃ pana āyatiṃ saṃvare ṭhātukāmaṃ saraṇāni datvā upasampādetuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhunīdūsako āyatiṃ saṃvare ṭhātukāmopi pabbajjampi na labhati, pageva upasampadanti etamatthaṃ dassetuṃ “bhikkhunīdūsako”ti idaṃ visuṃ dasamaṃ aṅgaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

In disparaging, speaking against the Buddha with phrases opposing “arahant, perfectly enlightened,” or the Dhamma with phrases opposing “well-proclaimed,” or the Sangha with phrases opposing “well-practiced,” thus reviling the Triple Gem, he should be stopped by the preceptor or teacher showing the danger of disparaging, saying, “Do not speak thus.” In the Kurundiya, it is said, “If he does not desist after being told up to three times, he should be expelled by thorn-expulsion.” In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “If, when told thus, he relinquishes that view, a penalty should be imposed and the offense confessed. If he does not relinquish it and persists in upholding it, he should be expelled by removal of the mark.” This is reasonable, for this expulsion is intended here. The same applies to one with wrong views. If one holds either eternalism or annihilationism and, when admonished by the preceptor or others, relinquishes it, a penalty should be imposed and the offense confessed; if he does not relinquish it, he should be expelled. The violator of a bhikkhuni is included under non-celibacy here, but a non-celibate one wishing to maintain restraint in the future may be given the refuges and higher ordination. A violator of a bhikkhuni, even wishing to maintain restraint, gains neither ordination nor higher ordination. To show this meaning, “violator of a bhikkhuni” is stated separately as the tenth quality.

Regarding speaking ill, one who speaks ill of the Buddha, saying the opposite of “Araham Sammāsambuddho,” etc., or of the Dhamma, saying the opposite of “Svākkhāto,” etc., or of the Saṅgha, saying the opposite of “Suppaṭipanno,” etc., thus reviling and disparaging the Triple Gem, should be prevented by teachers and preceptors, showing the disadvantage of speaking ill, saying, “Do not speak thus.” “If, being told up to three times, he does not desist, he should be expelled by banishment for being a thorn,” it is said in the Kurundi. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is said, “If, being told thus, he gives up that view, he should be made to perform a penalty and confess his fault. If he does not give it up, but holds on to it and persists, he should be expelled by banishment from the Order,” which is appropriate. This very expulsion is intended here. The same applies to one holding wrong views. If one holding any view of eternalism or annihilationism gives it up when admonished by teachers and others, he should be made to perform a penalty and confess his fault; only one who does not give it up should be expelled. Although a corrupter of nuns is indeed included in the category of unchastity, one who is unchaste but wishes to stand in restraint in the future may be given the refuges and fully ordained. A corrupter of nuns, even if he wishes to stand in restraint in the future, does not receive even novice ordination, let alone full ordination. To show this point, this tenth ground, “a corrupter of nuns,” is stated separately.

In the case of speaking dispraise, if one speaks dispraise of the Buddha by saying, “The Blessed One is not fully enlightened,” or of the Dhamma by saying, “The Dhamma is not well-expounded,” or of the Sangha by saying, “The Sangha is not practicing the good way,” or if one blames, criticizes, or disparages the Triple Gem, the teacher or preceptor should show the danger of such speech and stop him. If, after being told up to three times, he does not desist, he should be expelled by the removal of his status, as stated in the Kurundi. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “If, after being told, he abandons that view, a disciplinary action should be taken, and he should be made to confess the offense. If he does not abandon it, but continues to hold it firmly, he should be expelled by the removal of his status.” This is appropriate. For this is the intended expulsion here. The same applies to one with wrong view. If a holder of the annihilationist view or another wrong view, when admonished by the teacher or others, abandons it, a disciplinary action should be taken, and he should be made to confess the offense. If he does not abandon it, he should be expelled. As for one who corrupts a nun, even if he is caught in the act of sexual misconduct, if he wishes to restrain himself in the future, he may be given the refuges and ordained. However, one who corrupts a nun, even if he wishes to restrain himself in the future, does not gain the going forth, let alone higher ordination. To explain this, the tenth factor, “one who corrupts a nun,” is stated separately.

150. “Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatassa sāmaṇerassa daṇḍakammaṃ kātuṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ alābhāya parisakkati, bhikkhūnaṃ anatthāya parisakkati, bhikkhūnaṃ avāsāya parisakkati, bhikkhū akkosati, paribhāsati, bhikkhū bhikkhūhi bhedetī”ti (mahāva. 107) “vacanato pana imāni pañca aṅgāni, sikkhāpadesu ca pacchimāni vikālabhojanādīni pañcāti dasa daṇḍakammavatthūni. Kiṃpanettha daṇḍakammaṃ kattabba”nti? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yattha vā vasati, yattha vā paṭikkamati, tattha āvaraṇaṃ kātu”nti (mahāva. 107) vacanato yattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 107) vasati vā pavisati vā, tattha āvaraṇaṃ kātabbaṃ “mā idha pavisā”ti. Ubhayenapi attano pariveṇañca vassaggena pattasenāsanañca vuttaṃ. Tasmā na sabbo saṅghārāmo āvaraṇaṃ kātabbo, karonto ca dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati “na, bhikkhave, sabbo saṅghārāmo āvaraṇaṃ kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttattā. Na ca mukhadvāriko āhāro āvaraṇaṃ kātabbo, karonto ca dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati “na, bhikkhave, mukhadvāriko āhāro āvaraṇaṃ kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttattā. Tasmā “ajja mā khāda mā bhuñjā”ti vadatopi “āhārampi nivāressāmī”ti pattacīvaraṃ anto nikkhipatopi sabbapayogesu dukkaṭaṃ. Anācārassa pana dubbacasāmaṇerassa daṇḍakammaṃ katvā yāguṃ vā bhattaṃ vā pattacīvaraṃ vā dassetvā “ettake nāma daṇḍakamme āhaṭe idaṃ lacchasī”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhagavatā hi āvaraṇameva daṇḍakammaṃ vuttaṃ. Dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi pana “aparādhānurūpaṃ udakadāruvālikādīnaṃ āharāpanampi kātabba”nti vuttaṃ, tasmā tampi kātabbaṃ, tañca kho “oramissati viramissatī”ti anukampāya, na “nassissati vibbhamissatī”tiādinayappavattena pāpajjhāsayena. “Daṇḍakammaṃ karomī”ti ca uṇhapāsāṇe vā nipajjāpetuṃ pāsāṇiṭṭhakādīni vā sīse nikkhipāpetuṃ udakaṃ vā pavesetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

150. “I allow, monks, a penalty to be imposed on a novice endowed with five qualities: he strives for the monks’ loss, strives for the monks’ harm, strives for the monks’ lack of dwelling, abuses and reviles the monks, causes division between monks and monks” (mahāva. 107). From this statement, these five qualities, along with the last five training rules like eating at the wrong time, make ten grounds for penalty. What penalty should be imposed here? From the statement, “I allow, monks, barring him from where he dwells or retreats” (mahāva. 107), he should be barred from where (mahāva. aṭṭha. 107) he dwells or enters, saying, “Do not enter here.” Both his cell and the lodging assigned for the rains are meant. Thus, the entire monastic grounds should not be barred; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as stated, “Monks, the entire monastic grounds should not be barred. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa.” Nor should food entering the mouth be barred; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as stated, “Monks, food entering the mouth should not be barred. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa.” Thus, saying, “Don’t eat or consume today,” or placing the bowl and robes inside thinking, “I’ll stop his food,” incurs a dukkaṭa in all efforts. But for an ill-behaved, stubborn novice, imposing a penalty and showing gruel, food, bowl, or robes, saying, “When this penalty is fulfilled, you’ll receive this,” is permissible. The Blessed One specified barring as the penalty. The Dhamma compilers, however, said, “Fetching water, wood, sand, or the like according to the offense may also be done.” Thus, this too should be done, but out of compassion, thinking, “He will desist,” not with an evil intent like, “He will perish or disrobe.” Saying, “I impose a penalty,” and making him lie on hot stones, placing stones or bricks on his head, or immersing him in water is not permissible.

150. “I allow, monks, that a penalty be imposed on a novice possessing five qualities. He strives for the loss of monks, he strives for the harm of monks, he strives for the non-residence of monks, he abuses and reviles monks, he causes division among monks” (Mahāva. 107). From this statement, these five qualities, and the last five precepts, starting with eating at the wrong time, are ten grounds for imposing a penalty. What penalty should be imposed here? “I allow, monks, that a restriction be imposed where he lives or frequents” (Mahāva. 107). Therefore, a restriction should be imposed where (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 107) he lives or enters, saying, “Do not enter here.” By both is meant his own dwelling and the dwelling assigned during the rainy season. Therefore, the entire monastery should not be restricted; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, the entire monastery should not be restricted; whoever does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense.” Nor should food at the entrance be restricted; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, food at the entrance should not be restricted; whoever does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense.” Therefore, even saying, “Do not eat today, do not consume,” or putting his bowl and robe inside with the intention of “I will prevent his food,” incurs a dukkaṭa offense in all attempts. Having imposed a penalty on a badly behaved and unruly novice, gruel, cooked rice, bowl, or robe should be given, saying, “When such-and-such a penalty has been carried out, you will receive this.” The Blessed One mentioned only restriction as a penalty. The compilers of the Dhamma, however, said, “Carrying out tasks such as fetching water, firewood, and sand, proportionate to the offense, should also be done.” Therefore, that should also be done, but with compassion, thinking, “He will desist, he will refrain,” and not with a bad intention, thinking, “He will be destroyed, he will wander aimlessly,” etc. One should not make him lie on hot stones, place stones, bricks, etc., on his head, or immerse him in water, thinking, “I am imposing a penalty.”

150. “I allow, monks, to impose a disciplinary action on a novice who possesses five qualities. He strives for the loss of the monks, strives for the harm of the monks, strives for the non-residence of the monks, abuses the monks, reviles the monks, and causes division among the monks.” (Mahāvagga 107) “According to the text, these five qualities are grounds for disciplinary action, and the last five training rules, such as abstaining from eating at the wrong time, make ten grounds for disciplinary action. What, then, should be done as a disciplinary action?” “I allow, monks, to impose a restriction wherever he resides or wherever he goes.” (Mahāvagga 107) According to the text, wherever he resides or enters, a restriction should be imposed, saying, “Do not enter here.” Both his own dwelling and the residence for the rainy season are included. Therefore, the entire monastery should not be restricted. If one does so, one commits a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, the entire monastery should not be restricted. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense.” Nor should food be restricted at the door. If one does so, one commits a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, food should not be restricted at the door. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense.” Therefore, even if one says, “Today, do not eat or drink,” or “I will withhold food,” and puts the bowl and robe inside, one commits a dukkaṭa offense in all such attempts. However, after imposing a disciplinary action on a misbehaving and difficult novice, it is permissible to show him gruel, rice, or robes and say, “When this much disciplinary action has been imposed, you will receive this.” For the Blessed One has spoken only of restriction as a disciplinary action. However, the compilers of the Dhamma have said that, according to the offense, bringing water, wood, or sand may also be done. This should be done out of compassion, thinking, “He will desist, he will refrain,” not with the intention, “He will perish, he will be ruined.” It is not permissible to make him lie on hot stones or place stone slabs on his head or make him enter water, saying, “I am imposing a disciplinary action.”

Upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchāpi daṇḍakammaṃ na kāretabbaṃ “na, bhikkhave, upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā āvaraṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 108) vacanato. Ettha pana “tumhākaṃ sāmaṇerassa ayaṃ nāma aparādho, daṇḍakammamassa karothā”ti tikkhattuṃ vutte sace so upajjhāyo daṇḍakammaṃ na karoti, sayaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sacepi ādito upajjhāyo vadati “mayhaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ dose sati tumhe daṇḍakammaṃ karothā”ti, kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Yathā ca sāmaṇerānaṃ, evaṃ saddhivihārikantevāsikānampi daṇḍakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, aññesaṃ pana parisā na apalāḷetabbā, apalāḷento dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati “na, bhikkhave, aññassa parisā apalāḷetabbā, yo apalāḷeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 108) vacanato . Tasmā “tumhākaṃ pattaṃ dema, cīvaraṃ demā”ti attano upaṭṭhānakaraṇatthaṃ saṅgaṇhitvā sāmaṇerā vā hontu upasampannā vā, antamaso dussīlabhikkhussapi parassa parisabhūte bhinditvā gaṇhituṃ na vaṭṭati, ādīnavaṃ pana vattuṃ vaṭṭati “tayā nahāyituṃ āgatena gūthamakkhanaṃ viya kataṃ dussīlaṃ nissāya viharantenā”ti. Sace so sayameva jānitvā upajjhaṃ vā nissayaṃ vā yācati, dātuṃ vaṭṭati.

A penalty should not be imposed without asking the preceptor, as stated, “Monks, barring should not be done without asking the preceptor. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 108). Here, if told three times, “Your novice has this offense; impose a penalty,” and the preceptor does not, one may impose it oneself. If the preceptor says from the start, “When my novices have faults, you impose the penalty,” it is indeed permissible. As with novices, it is permissible to impose a penalty on co-residents and disciples too. But others’ followings should not be enticed away; one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as stated, “Monks, another’s following should not be enticed away. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 108). Thus, saying, “We’ll give your bowl, we’ll give your robes,” to gather them for one’s own support—whether novices or ordained, even a corrupt monk’s following—should not be taken by breaking another’s group. But pointing out the danger is permissible, saying, “Living with a corrupt one is like smearing dung when you come to bathe.”

A penalty should not be imposed without asking the preceptor, as it is said, “Monks, a restriction should not be imposed without asking the preceptor; whoever does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 108). Here, if the preceptor, after being told three times, “Your novice has committed such-and-such an offense; impose a penalty on him,” does not impose a penalty, it is permissible to do it oneself. Even if the preceptor says from the beginning, “If my novices have a fault, you impose the penalty,” it is permissible to do so. Just as for novices, it is permissible to impose a penalty on resident disciples and attendants; the company of others, however, should not be disrupted; one who disrupts incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, the company of another should not be disrupted; whoever does so incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 108). Therefore, having gathered novices or fully ordained monks for the purpose of attending to oneself, saying, “We will give you a bowl, we will give you a robe,” it is not permissible to break up and take those who are part of another’s company, even if it is a novice or a fully ordained monk, even a morally corrupt monk; but it is permissible to point out the disadvantage, saying, “By you, who have come to bathe, it is as if you have smeared yourself with excrement by associating with a morally corrupt person.” If he himself realizes and asks for a preceptor or dependence, it is permissible to give it.

Without informing the preceptor, a disciplinary action should not be imposed. “Monks, without informing the preceptor, a restriction should not be imposed. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense.” (Mahāvagga 108) Here, if the preceptor is told three times, “This is the offense of your novice; impose a disciplinary action on him,” and the preceptor does not do so, one may impose it oneself. Even if from the beginning the preceptor says, “When my novices commit offenses, you should impose a disciplinary action on them,” it is permissible to do so. Just as for novices, so too for pupils and attendants, it is permissible to impose a disciplinary action. However, one should not incite others to do so. If one incites others, one commits a dukkaṭa offense, as it is said, “Monks, one should not incite others to impose a disciplinary action. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense.” Therefore, even if one says, “We give you a bowl, we give you a robe,” and gathers novices or ordained monks, even an immoral monk, it is not permissible to split another’s group and take them. However, it is permissible to point out the danger, saying, “By relying on an immoral monk, it is like smearing excrement on oneself when coming to bathe.” If he himself, knowing this, requests a preceptor or a support, it is permissible to give it.

23. Nissayavinicchayakathā

23. Discussion on the Judgment of Dependence

23. The Discourse on the Determination of Dependence

23. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Support

151. Nissayoti ettha pana ayaṃ nissayo nāma kena dātabbo, kena na dātabbo, kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabbo, kathaṃ gahito hoti, kathaṃ paṭippassambhati, nissāya kena vasitabbaṃ, kena ca na vasitabbanti? Tattha kena dātabbo, kena na dātabboti ettha tāva “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena dasavassena vā atirekadasavassena vā upasampādetuṃ, nissayaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 76, 82) ca vacanato yo byatto hoti paṭibalo upasampadāya dasavasso vā atirekadasavasso vā, tena dātabbo, itarena na dātabbo. Sace deti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

151. Here, dependence (nissayo)—who should give it, who should not give it, to whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given, how is it taken, how does it cease, with whom should one dwell in dependence, and with whom should one not dwell? Here, regarding who should give it and who should not give it, from the statement, “I allow, monks, a competent and capable monk of ten years or more to give higher ordination and dependence” (mahāva. 76, 82), one who is competent and capable, with ten years or more since higher ordination, should give it; another should not. If he does, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

151. Dependence (Nissaya): Here, by whom should this dependence be given, by whom should it not be given, to whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given, how is it taken, how is it dissolved, by whom should one live in dependence, and by whom should one not live in dependence? Here, regarding by whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given, it is said, “I allow, monks, that a competent and capable monk, fully ordained for ten years or more than ten years, give full ordination and give dependence” (Mahāva. 76, 82). Therefore, one who is competent, capable, and fully ordained for ten years or more than ten years should give it; another should not. If he gives it, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

151. Support: Here, what is this support? By whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given? To whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given? How is it accepted, how is it relinquished? Relying on whom should one live, and on whom should one not live? Here, by whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given: First, “I allow, monks, a competent monk who is capable and has ten years or more since his higher ordination to give support.” (Mahāvagga 76, 82) Therefore, one who is competent, capable, and has ten years or more since his higher ordination should give support. Another should not give it. If he does, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

Ettha (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147) ca “byatto”ti iminā parisupaṭṭhāpakabahussuto veditabbo. Parisupaṭṭhāpakena hi sabbantimena paricchedena parisaṃ abhivinaye vinetuṃ dve vibhaṅgā paguṇā vācuggatā kātabbā, asakkontena tīhi janehi saddhiṃ parivattanakkhamā kātabbā, kammākammañca khandhakavattañca uggahetabbaṃ, parisāya pana abhidhamme vinayanatthaṃ sace majjhimabhāṇako hoti, mūlapaṇṇāsako uggahetabbo, dīghabhāṇakena mahāvaggo, saṃyuttabhāṇakena heṭṭhimā vā tayo vaggā mahāvaggo vā, aṅguttarabhāṇakena heṭṭhā vā upari vā upaḍḍhanikāyo uggahetabbo, asakkontena tikanipātato paṭṭhāya uggahetumpi vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “ekaṃ gaṇhantena catukkanipātaṃ vā pañcakanipātaṃ vā uggahetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Jātakabhāṇakena sāṭṭhakathaṃ jātakaṃ uggahetabbaṃ, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati. “Dhammapadampi saha vatthunā uggahetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tato tato samuccayaṃ katvā mūlapaṇṇāsakamattaṃ vaṭṭati, “na vaṭṭatī”ti kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ, itarāsu vicāraṇāyeva natthi. Abhidhamme kiñci gahetabbanti na vuttaṃ. Yassa pana sāṭṭhakathampi vinayapiṭakaṃ abhidhammapiṭakañca paguṇaṃ, suttante ca vuttappakāro gantho natthi, parisaṃ upaṭṭhāpetuṃ na labhati. Yena pana suttantato ca vinayato ca vuttappamāṇo gantho uggahito, ayaṃ parisupaṭṭhāko bahussutova hoti, disāpāmokkho yenakāmaṃgamo parisaṃ upaṭṭhāpetuṃ labhati, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe “byatto”ti adhippeto.

Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147), the term “byatto” should be understood as referring to one who is skilled, an attendant of the assembly, and well-learned. For an attendant of the assembly must, by the minimal requirement, master the two Vibhaṅgas to guide the assembly in the Vinaya, making them proficient and recited by heart. If unable, he should be capable of reviewing them with three others. He must also learn the procedures of formal acts and non-formal acts, as well as the Khandhaka and Vatta. Moreover, if he is a reciter of the Majjhima Nikāya, he should learn the Mūlapaṇṇāsaka for the sake of instructing the assembly in the Abhidhamma and Vinaya; if a reciter of the Dīgha Nikāya, the Mahāvagga; if a reciter of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, either the three lower sections or the Mahāvagga; if a reciter of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, either the lower or upper half of the Nikāya should be learned. If unable, it is permissible to learn starting from the Tika Nipāta. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “One who takes up a single section may learn the Catukka Nipāta or Pañcaka Nipāta.” A reciter of the Jātakas should learn the Jātaka together with its commentary, and nothing less is permissible. It is stated in the Mahāpaccariya, “It is permissible to learn the Dhammapada along with its stories.” Collecting from various sources up to the extent of the Mūlapaṇṇāsaka is permissible, but this is forbidden in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā with the statement “it is not permissible,” while in other commentaries there is no such discussion. It is not said that anything specific must be learned in the Abhidhamma. However, one who has not mastered the commentary, the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, and the texts specified in the Suttanta, cannot attend to the assembly. But one who has learned the prescribed amount of texts from the Suttanta and Vinaya is indeed an attendant of the assembly and well-learned, a leader in the regions, able to go wherever he wishes and attend to the assembly. Such a one is intended by “byatto” in this context.

Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147), “learned” (byatto) refers to one who is knowledgeable and capable of instructing the assembly. To instruct the assembly in the Vinaya, the minimum requirement for an instructor is mastery of the two Vibhaṅgas (Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni), able to recite them. If unable to do that, they should be able to review them with three other people. They should also learn the duties of the Kamma and the Khandhakas. If the assembly is learning Abhidhamma and needs someone to explain the Vinaya, if there’s a reciter of the Majjhima Nikāya, the Mūlapaṇṇāsa should be learned. If there’s a reciter of the Dīgha Nikāya, the Mahāvagga should be learned. If there’s a reciter of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, either the first three vaggas or the Mahāvagga should be learned. If there’s a reciter of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, either the first or the last half of the Nikāya should be learned. If unable, it is permissible to learn starting from the Tika Nipāta. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “One who is learning may learn the Catukka Nipāta or the Pañcaka Nipāta.” A reciter of the Jātaka should learn the Jātaka with its commentary; learning less than that is not permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya “It is allowed to study Dhammapada with its stories”. Combining various sections, an amount equivalent to the Mūlapaṇṇāsa is permissible. It is prohibited in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, “It is not permissible.” In other commentaries, there is no discussion. Nothing is said about learning any part of the Abhidhamma. One who has mastered the entire Vinaya Piṭaka and Abhidhamma Piṭaka, along with the commentaries, and has no collection of the Suttanta as mentioned, is not allowed to instruct an assembly. One who has learned the required amount from the Suttanta and the Vinaya is considered learned and capable of instructing the assembly. This is the meaning of “learned” (byatto) in this context. A foremost teacher is allowed to go wherever they wish.

Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147), the term “byatto” (competent) should be understood as referring to one who is learned and capable of guiding the assembly. For a guide of the assembly, in order to train the assembly thoroughly in discipline, two Vibhaṅgas (analytical expositions) should be mastered and recited fluently. If unable to do so, one should be capable of rotating the responsibility among three individuals. One should also study the rules of conduct (kammākamma) and the Khandhaka procedures. If the guide of the assembly is a reciter of the Majjhima Nikāya, the Mūlapaṇṇāsa should be studied. If a reciter of the Dīgha Nikāya, the Mahāvagga should be studied. If a reciter of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the lower three Vaggas or the Mahāvagga should be studied. If a reciter of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the lower or upper half of the Nikāya should be studied. If unable to do so, one may begin studying from the Tikanipāta. Mahāpaccariya states that one may study either the Catukkanipāta or the Pañcakanipāta. A reciter of the Jātaka should study the Jātaka with its commentary; studying less than this is not permissible. Mahāpaccariya also states that the Dhammapada along with its stories may be studied. After compiling from these sources, studying the Mūlapaṇṇāsa is permissible, but Kurundaṭṭhakathā rejects this, stating it is not permissible. There is no further deliberation on this matter. Regarding the Abhidhamma, nothing specific is mentioned. However, one who is well-versed in the Vinaya Piṭaka, Abhidhamma Piṭaka, and the Suttanta, but lacks the ability to guide the assembly, is not suitable. One who has studied the Suttanta and Vinaya to the extent mentioned is considered learned and capable of guiding the assembly in any direction desired. Such a person is intended by the term “byatto” (competent) here.

Yo pana antevāsino vā saddhivihārikassa vā gilānassa sakkoti upaṭṭhānādīni kātuṃ, ayaṃ idha “paṭibalo”ti adhippeto. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ –

One who is capable of performing services such as attending to a sick pupil or co-resident is intended here by “paṭibalo.” As for what has been said—

One who is able to care for a sick student or co-resident is considered “competent” (paṭibalo) here. It is said:

One who is capable of attending to a sick pupil or co-resident is intended here by the term “paṭibalo” (capable). As it is said –

“Pañcahi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Na asekkhena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na asekkhena samādhikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na asekkhena paññākkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na asekkhena vimuttikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na asekkhena vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhena samannāgato hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He is not endowed with the aggregate of virtuous behavior of one beyond training, he is not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training, he is not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training, he is not endowed with the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training, he is not endowed with the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He is not endowed with the virtue of the Noble Ones, nor with the concentration of the Noble Ones, nor with the wisdom of the Noble Ones, nor with the liberation of the Noble Ones, nor with the knowledge and vision of liberation of the Noble Ones. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Attanā na asekkhena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na paraṃ asekkhe sīlakkhandhe samādapetā. Attanā na asekkhena samādhikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na paraṃ asekkhe samādhikkhandhe samādapetā. Attanā na asekkhena paññākkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na paraṃ asekkhe paññākkhandhe samādapetā. Attanā na asekkhena vimuttikkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na paraṃ asekkhe vimuttikkhandhe samādapetā. Attanā na asekkhena vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na paraṃ asekkhe vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhe samādapetā. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training and does not encourage others in the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training and does not encourage others in the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training and does not encourage others in the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training and does not encourage others in the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training and does not encourage others in the aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of virtuous behavior of one beyond training, and he does not encourage others in the aggregate of virtuous behavior of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training, and he does not encourage others in the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training, and he does not encourage others in the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training, and he does not encourage others in the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training, and he does not encourage others in the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He himself is not endowed with the virtue of the Noble Ones, nor does he encourage others in the virtue of the Noble Ones. He himself is not endowed with the concentration of the Noble Ones, nor does he encourage others in the concentration of the Noble Ones. He himself is not endowed with the wisdom of the Noble Ones, nor does he encourage others in the wisdom of the Noble Ones. He himself is not endowed with the liberation of the Noble Ones, nor does he encourage others in the liberation of the Noble Ones. He himself is not endowed with the knowledge and vision of liberation of the Noble Ones, nor does he encourage others in the knowledge and vision of liberation of the Noble Ones. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Assaddho hoti, ahiriko hoti, anottappī hoti, kusīto hoti, muṭṭhassati hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ , na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He is without faith, without shame, without fear of wrongdoing, lazy, and forgetful. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He lacks faith, he lacks a sense of shame, he lacks fear of wrongdoing, he is lazy, he is forgetful. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He is faithless, shameless, fearless, lazy, and unmindful. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Adhisīle sīlavipanno hoti, ajjhācāre ācāravipanno hoti, atidiṭṭhiyā diṭṭhivipanno hoti, appassuto hoti, duppañño hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He is defective in virtue regarding higher discipline, defective in conduct regarding higher behavior, defective in view regarding extreme views, of little learning, and lacking wisdom. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He is deficient in virtuous behavior concerning the higher virtue, he is deficient in conduct concerning the higher conduct, he is deficient in view concerning the higher view, he is unlearned, he is unwise. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He is deficient in higher virtue, deficient in conduct, deficient in view, unlearned, and unwise. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Na paṭibalo hoti antevāsiṃ vā saddhivihāriṃ vā gilānaṃ upaṭṭhātuṃ vā upaṭṭhāpetuṃ vā, anabhirataṃ vūpakāsetuṃ vā vūpakāsāpetuṃ vā, uppannaṃ kukkuccaṃ dhammato vinodetuṃ, āpattiṃ na jānāti, āpattiyā vuṭṭhānaṃ na jānāti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He is not capable of attending to or arranging attendance for a sick pupil or co-resident, nor of dispelling discontent or having it dispelled, nor of resolving arisen remorse in accordance with the Dhamma, nor does he know an offense, nor does he know the means of emerging from an offense. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He is not competent to attend to or arrange for the attendance of a sick student or co-resident, to dispel or arrange for the dispelling of discontent, to dispel arisen doubt according to the Dhamma, he does not know an offense, he does not know the arising from an offense. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He is incapable of attending to or arranging care for a sick pupil or co-resident, nor can he settle one who is discontented, nor can he dispel arisen remorse through Dhamma, nor does he know the offenses, nor does he know the way out of offenses. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Na paṭibalo hoti antevāsiṃ vā saddhivihāriṃ vā ābhisamācārikāya sikkhāya sikkhāpetuṃ, ādibrahmacariyakāya sikkhāya vinetuṃ, abhidhamme vinetuṃ, abhivinaye vinetuṃ, uppannaṃ diṭṭhigataṃ dhammato vivecetuṃ. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He is not capable of training a pupil or co-resident in the training of higher disciplinary conduct, nor of guiding them in the training of the preliminary holy life, nor of guiding them in the Abhidhamma, nor of guiding them in the Vinaya, nor of resolving an arisen speculative view in accordance with the Dhamma. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He is not competent to train a student or co-resident in the training in proper conduct, to instruct in the training in the fundamental principles of the holy life, to instruct in the Abhidhamma, to instruct in the higher Vinaya, to dispel arisen wrong views according to the Dhamma. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He is incapable of training a pupil or co-resident in the training of proper conduct, nor can he guide them in the preliminary training, nor can he guide them in the Abhidhamma, nor can he guide them in the Vinaya, nor can he dispel arisen wrong views through Dhamma. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo . Āpattiṃ na jānāti, anāpattiṃ na jānāti, lahukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, garukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena na svāgatāni honti na suvibhattāni na suppavattīni na suvinicchitāni suttaso anubyañjanaso. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a grave offense, and both Pātimokkhas are not well-mastered by him in detail, not well-analyzed, not well-practiced, not well-determined by thread and letter. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him.

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He does not know an offense, he does not know a non-offense, he does not know a minor offense, he does not know a serious offense, both Pātimokkhas are not well-received by him in detail, not well-analyzed, not well-mastered, not well-determined according to the text and the consonant. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He does not know the offenses, nor does he know the non-offenses, nor does he know the minor offenses, nor does he know the grave offenses, nor are both Pātimokkhas thoroughly learned, well-divided, well-practiced, well-determined in terms of the rules and their detailed analysis. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Āpattiṃ na jānāti, anāpattiṃ na jānāti, lahukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, garukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, ūnadasavasso hoti . Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo”tiādi (mahāva. 84). Tampi –

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a grave offense, and he is of less than ten years’ standing. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not ordain others, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him,” and so forth (mahāva. 84). This too—

“Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him. He does not know an offense, he does not know a non-offense, he does not know a minor offense, he does not know a serious offense, he has less than ten years [since higher ordination]. Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five factors should not give full ordination, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend on him” (mahāva. 84). All this –

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care. He does not know the offenses, nor does he know the non-offenses, nor does he know the minor offenses, nor does he know the grave offenses, and he is less than ten years ordained. Monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not be given higher ordination, nor should he be given dependence, nor should a novice be placed under his care,” and so on (mahāva. 84). This is also –

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena dasavassena vā atirekadasavassena vā upasampādetuṃ, nissayaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 76, 82) ca evaṃ saṅkhepato vuttasseva upajjhāyācariyalakkhaṇassa vitthāradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ.

“I allow, monks, a skilled and capable monk of ten years’ standing or more to ordain others and give dependence” (mahāva. 76, 82), is stated to elaborate on the characteristics of a preceptor and teacher, which were briefly mentioned earlier.

– is said to elaborate on the characteristics of a preceptor and teacher, which are stated concisely as, “I allow, monks, a learned, competent bhikkhu with ten years or more than ten years to give full ordination and to give dependence” (mahāva. 76, 82).

“I allow, monks, a competent and capable monk of ten years or more to give higher ordination and to give dependence” (mahāva. 76, 82), and thus, in brief, the characteristics of a preceptor or teacher are explained in detail.

Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 84) kiñci ayuttavasena paṭikkhittaṃ, kiñci āpattiaṅgavasena. Tathā hi “na asekkhena sīlakkhandhenā”ti ca “attanā na asekkhenā”ti ca “assaddho”ti ca ādīsu tīsu pañcakesu ayuttavasena paṭikkhepo kato, na āpattiaṅgavasena. Yo hi asekkhehi sīlakkhandhādīhi asamannāgato pare ca tattha samādapetuṃ asakkonto assaddhiyādidosayuttova hutvā parisaṃ pariharati, tassa parisā sīlādīhi pariyāyatiyeva na vaḍḍhati, tasmā “tena na upasampādetabba”ntiādi ayuttavasena vuttaṃ, na āpattiaṅgavasena. Na hi khīṇāsavasseva upajjhācariyabhāvo bhagavatā anuññāto, yadi tasseva anuññāto abhavissa, “sace upajjhāyassa anabhirati uppannā hotī”tiādiṃ na vadeyya, yasmā pana khīṇāsavassa parisā sīlādīhi na parihāyati, tasmā “pañcahi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā upasampādetabba”ntiādi vuttaṃ.

Therein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 84), some aspects are prohibited as unsuitable, others as factors of an offense. Indeed, in the three sets of five beginning with “not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training,” “he himself not endowed,” and “without faith,” the prohibition is made on the basis of unsuitability, not as factors of an offense. For one who, lacking the aggregates of virtue and so forth of one beyond training, unable to encourage others in them, and tainted by lack of faith and other faults, attends to an assembly—his assembly inevitably declines in virtue and so forth and does not grow. Therefore, it is said, “such a one should not ordain others,” and so forth, on the basis of unsuitability, not as factors of an offense. For the Blessed One did not permit only one who has destroyed the taints to be a preceptor or teacher. If it were permitted only for such a one, he would not have said, “If discontent arises in the preceptor,” and so forth. But since the assembly of one who has destroyed the taints does not decline in virtue and so forth, it is said, “Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities may ordain others,” and so forth.

There (mahāva. aṭṭha. 84), some things are prohibited as inappropriate, and some as constituting an offense. Thus, the prohibitions in the three sets of five beginning with “he is not endowed with the aggregate of virtuous behavior of one beyond training,” “he himself is not endowed with,” and “he lacks faith” are made on the grounds of inappropriateness, not as constituting an offense. One who is not endowed with the aggregates of virtuous behavior, etc., of one beyond training, and who is unable to encourage others in them, and who, due to lack of faith and other faults, manages the assembly, causes the assembly to decline in virtue, etc., and not to grow. Therefore, “he should not give full ordination,” etc., is said on the grounds of inappropriateness, not as constituting an offense. The status of preceptor and teacher is not allowed by the Blessed One only for one who has destroyed the āsavas. If it had been allowed only for him, he would not have said, “If discontent arises in the preceptor,” etc. Because the assembly of one who has destroyed the āsavas does not decline in virtue, etc., it is said, “Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should give full ordination,” etc.

Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 84), some are rejected as inappropriate, and some are rejected based on the nature of the offense. For example, in the three sets of five, such as “not endowed with the virtue of the Noble Ones,” “not himself endowed with the virtue of the Noble Ones,” and “faithless,” the rejection is based on inappropriateness, not on the nature of the offense. For one who is not endowed with the virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge and vision of the Noble Ones, and who is unable to guide others in these qualities, and who is associated with faults such as lack of faith, such a person, when guiding the assembly, does not help the assembly grow in virtue and other qualities. Therefore, it is said that such a person should not give higher ordination, and so on, based on inappropriateness, not on the nature of the offense. For the Blessed One did not appoint only Arahants as preceptors or teachers. If only Arahants were appointed, He would not have said, “If dissatisfaction arises in the preceptor,” and so on. However, since the assembly guided by an Arahant does not decline in virtue and other qualities, it is said, “Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities should give higher ordination,” and so on.

Adhisīle sīlavipannotiādīsu pārājikañca saṅghādisesañca āpanno adhisīle sīlavipanno nāma. Itare pañcāpattikkhandhe āpanno ajjhācāre ācāravipanno nāma. Sammādiṭṭhiṃ pahāya antaggāhikāya diṭṭhiyā samannāgato atidiṭṭhiyā diṭṭhivipanno nāma. Yattakaṃ sutaṃ parisaṃ pariharantassa icchitabbaṃ, tena virahitattā appassuto. Yaṃ tena jānitabbaṃ āpattādi, tassa ajānanato duppañño. Imasmiṃ pañcake purimāni tīṇi padāni ayuttavasena vuttāni, pacchimāni dve āpattiaṅgavasena.

In “defective in virtue regarding higher discipline” and so forth, one who has committed a pārājika or saṅghādisesa offense is called defective in virtue regarding higher discipline. One who has committed an offense in the other five classes of offenses is called defective in conduct regarding higher behavior. One who has abandoned right view and is endowed with an extreme view is called defective in view regarding extreme views. Due to lacking the learning desired for attending to an assembly, he is of little learning. Due to not knowing what should be known regarding offenses and so forth, he lacks wisdom. In this set of five, the first three terms are stated on the basis of unsuitability, while the last two are factors of an offense.

In the statements beginning with “deficient in virtuous behavior concerning the higher virtue,” one who has committed a pārājika or saṅghādisesa offense is called deficient in virtuous behavior concerning the higher virtue. One who has committed any of the other five types of offenses is called deficient in conduct concerning the higher conduct. One who has abandoned right view and is endowed with extreme views is called deficient in view concerning the higher view. He is unlearned because he lacks the amount of learning that is desirable for one who manages an assembly. He is unwise because he does not know what he should know, such as offenses. In this set of five, the first three statements are made on the grounds of inappropriateness, and the last two as constituting an offense.

Deficient in higher virtue refers to one who has committed a Pārājika or Saṅghādisesa offense. One who has committed offenses in the other five categories is called deficient in conduct. One who has abandoned right view and is endowed with a wrong view that leads to the extreme is called deficient in view. One who lacks the amount of learning expected of one who guides the assembly is called unlearned. One who does not know what should be known, such as offenses, is called unwise. In this set of five, the first three terms are based on inappropriateness, and the last two are based on the nature of the offense.

Āpattiṃ na jānātīti “idaṃ nāma mayā kata”nti vutte “imaṃ nāma āpattiṃ ayaṃ āpanno”ti na jānāti. Vuṭṭhānaṃ na jānātīti “vuṭṭhānagāminito vā desanāgāminito vā āpattito evaṃ nāma vuṭṭhānaṃ hotī”ti na jānāti. Imasmiñhi pañcake purimāni dve padāni ayuttavasena vuttāni, pacchimāni tīṇi āpattiaṅgavasena.

“He does not know an offense” means that when it is said, “I have done this,” he does not know, “This person has committed this offense.” “He does not know the means of emerging” means he does not know, “From an offense requiring reinstatement or confession, this is the means of emerging.” In this set of five, the first two terms are stated on the basis of unsuitability, while the last three are factors of an offense.

He does not know an offense means that when it is said, “This has been done by me,” he does not know, “This person has committed this offense.” He does not know the arising means that he does not know, “From an offense that leads to arising or that leads to confession, there is an arising in this way.” In this set of five, the first two statements are made on the grounds of inappropriateness, and the last three as constituting an offense.

He does not know the offense means that when it is said, “This is what I have done,” he does not know, “This is the offense I have committed.” He does not know the way out means he does not know, “From this offense, the way out is such and such.” In this set of five, the first two terms are based on inappropriateness, and the last three are based on the nature of the offense.

Ābhisamācārikāya sikkhāyāti khandhakavatte vinetuṃ na paṭibalo hotīti attho. Ādibrahmacariyakāyāti sekkhapaṇṇattiyaṃ vinetuṃ na paṭibaloti attho. Abhidhammeti nāmarūpaparicchede vinetuṃ na paṭibaloti attho. Abhivinayeti sakale vinayapiṭake vinetuṃ na paṭibaloti attho. Vinetuṃ na paṭibaloti ca sabbattha sikkhāpetuṃ na sakkotīti attho. Dhammato vivecetunti dhammena kāraṇena vissajjāpetuṃ. Imasmiṃ pañcake sabbapadesu āpatti.

“In the training of higher disciplinary conduct” means he is not capable of guiding in the Khandhaka and Vatta. “In the preliminary holy life” means he is not capable of guiding in the training of one in training. “In the Abhidhamma” means he is not capable of guiding in the analysis of name and form. “In the Vinaya” means he is not capable of guiding in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. “Not capable of guiding” means in all cases he is unable to train. “To resolve in accordance with the Dhamma” means to settle with reasons based on the Dhamma. In this set of five, all terms pertain to an offense.

In the training in proper conduct means he is not competent to instruct in the duties of the Khandhakas. In the fundamental principles of the holy life means he is not competent to instruct in the Sekkha Paṇṇatti. In the Abhidhamma means he is not competent to instruct in the analysis of name-and-form. In the higher Vinaya means he is not competent to instruct in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Not competent to instruct means in all cases that he is unable to teach. To dispel according to the Dhamma means to resolve it with a reason according to the Dhamma. In this set of five, there is an offense in all statements.

Training in proper conduct means being unable to guide in the Khandhaka procedures. Preliminary training means being unable to guide in the training prescribed for trainees. Abhidhamma means being unable to guide in the analysis of mind and matter. Vinaya means being unable to guide in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Unable to guide means being incapable of instructing in all these areas. To dispel through Dhamma means to explain through the Dhamma. In this set of five, all terms are based on offenses.

“Āpattiṃ na jānātī”tiādipañcakasmiṃ vitthārenāti ubhatovibhaṅgena saddhiṃ. Na svāgatānīti na suṭṭhu āgatāni. Suvibhattānīti suṭṭhu vibhattāni padapaccābhaṭṭhasaṅkaradosaraatāni. Suppavattīnīti paguṇāni vācuggatāni suvinicchitāni. Suttasoti khandhakaparivārato āharitabbasuttavasena suṭṭhu vinicchitāni. Anubyañjanasoti akkharapadapāripūriyā ca suvinicchitāni akhaṇḍāni aviparītakkharāni. Etena aṭṭhakathā dīpitā. Aṭṭhakathāto hi esa vinicchayo hotīti. Imasmiṃ pañcakepi sabbapadesu āpatti. Ūnadasavassapariyosānapañcakepi eseva nayo. Iti ādito tayo pañcakā, catutthe tīṇi padāni, pañcame dve padānīti sabbepi cattāro pañcakā ayuttavasena vuttā, catutthe pañcake dve padāni, pañcame tīṇi, chaṭṭhasattamaṭṭhamā tayo pañcakāti sabbepi cattāro pañcakā āpattiaṅgavasena vuttā.

In the set of five beginning with “He does not know an offense,” “in detail” refers to both Vibhaṅgas together. “Not well-mastered” means not thoroughly acquired. “Well-analyzed” means well-divided, free from the fault of mixing words and meanings. “Well-practiced” means proficient and recited by heart, well-determined. “By thread” means well-determined by the rules brought from the Khandhaka and Parivāra. “By letter” means well-determined with the completeness of syllables and words, unbroken and undistorted in letters. This indicates the commentary, for this determination comes from the commentary. In this set of five, all terms pertain to an offense. The same applies to the set ending with less than ten years’ standing. Thus, the first three sets of five, the first three terms in the fourth set, and the first two terms in the fifth set—all four sets—are stated on the basis of unsuitability. The last two terms in the fourth set, the last three in the fifth, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth sets—all four sets—are stated as factors of an offense.

In the set of five beginning with “He does not know an offense,” in detail means along with both Vibhaṅgas. Not well-received means not properly received. Well-analyzed means well-analyzed, free from the faults of mixing up words and reversing their order. Well-mastered means fluent and readily available for recitation. Well-determined according to the text means well-determined according to the text that should be brought from the Khandhakas and Parivāra. According to the consonant means well-determined in terms of the completion of letters and words, unbroken and with the letters not reversed. By this, the commentary is illuminated. For this determination comes from the commentary. In this set of five as well, there is an offense in all statements. The same principle applies to the set of five ending with “less than ten years.” Thus, the first three sets of five, three statements in the fourth, and two statements in the fifth – all these four sets of five are stated on the grounds of inappropriateness. Two statements in the fourth set of five, three in the fifth, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth – all these four sets of five are stated as constituting an offense.

In the set of five beginning with “He does not know the offense,” thoroughly means together with both Vibhaṅgas. Not well-learned means not well-mastered. Well-divided means well-classified without confusion of words and meanings. Well-practiced means well-recited and well-determined. In terms of the rules means well-determined according to the Suttas from the Khandhaka and Parivāra. In terms of the detailed analysis means well-determined in terms of the completeness of letters and words, without being incomplete or having incorrect letters. This is explained in the commentary. For this determination is made based on the commentary. In this set of five, all terms are based on offenses. The same applies to the set of five ending with “less than ten years ordained.” Thus, in the first three sets of five, in the fourth set, three terms, in the fifth set, two terms, all four sets of five are based on inappropriateness. In the fourth set of five, two terms, in the fifth set, three terms, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth sets, three sets of five, all four sets of five are based on the nature of the offense.

Sukkapakkhe pana vuttavipariyāyena “pañcahi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā upasampādetabbaṃ, nissayo dātabbo, sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Asekkhena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato hotī”tiādinā (mahāva. 84) aṭṭha pañcakā āgatāyeva. Tattha sabbattheva anāpatti.

On the positive side, however, it is stated in reverse, “Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities may ordain others, give dependence, and have a novice attend to him. He is endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training,” and so forth (mahāva. 84), with eight sets of five. Therein, in all cases, there is no offense.

On the bright side, however, in contrast to what has been said, eight sets of five are presented, beginning with, “Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should give full ordination, should give dependence, and should have a novice attend on him. He is endowed with the aggregate of virtuous behavior of one beyond training,” etc. (mahāva. 84). In all of those, there is no offense.

In the bright fortnight, however, the opposite is stated: “Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities should be given higher ordination, should be given dependence, and a novice should be placed under his care. He is endowed with the virtue of the Noble Ones,” and so on (mahāva. 84), and thus eight sets of five are mentioned. In all these cases, there is no offense.

152. Kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabboti ettha pana yo lajjī hoti, tassa dātabbo. Itarassa na dātabbo “na, bhikkhave, alajjīnaṃ nissayo dātabbo, yo dadeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 120) vacanato. Nissāya vasantenapi alajjī nissāya na vasitabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ “na, bhikkhave, alajjīnaṃ nissāya vatthabbaṃ, yo vaseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 120). Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 120) ca alajjīnanti upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ, alajjipuggale nissāya na vasitabbanti vuttaṃ hoti. Tasmā navaṃ ṭhānaṃ gatena “ehi, bhikkhu, nissayaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vuccamānenapi catūhapañcāhaṃ nissayadāyakassa lajjibhāvaṃ upaparikkhitvā nissayo gahetabbo. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catūhapañcāhaṃ āgametuṃ yāva bhikkhusabhāgataṃ jānāmī”ti (mahāva. 120) hi vuttaṃ. Sace “thero lajjī”ti bhikkhūnaṃ santike sutvā āgatadivaseyeva gahetukāmo hoti, thero pana “āgamehi tāva, vasanto jānissasī”ti katipāhaṃ ācāraṃ upaparikkhitvā nissayaṃ deti, vaṭṭati, pakatiyā nissayagahaṇaṭṭhānaṃ gatena pana tadaheva gahetabbo, ekadivasampi parihāro natthi. Sace paṭhamayāme ācariyassa okāso natthi, okāsaṃ alabhanto “paccūsasamaye gahessāmī”ti sayati, aruṇaṃ uggatampi na jānāti, anāpatti. Sace pana “gaṇhissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ akatvā sayati, aruṇuggamane dukkaṭaṃ. Agatapubbaṃ ṭhānaṃ gatena dve tīṇi divasāni vasitvā gantukāmena anissitena vasitabbaṃ. “Sattāhaṃ vasissāmī”ti ālayaṃ karontena pana nissayo gahetabbo. Sace thero “kiṃ sattāhaṃ vasantassa nissayenā”ti vadati, paṭikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya laddhaparihāro hoti.

152. As for to whom dependence should be given and to whom it should not, it should be given to one who is conscientious. It should not be given to one who is not, due to the statement, “Monks, dependence should not be given to those without conscience; one who gives it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 120). Nor should one living under dependence dwell with one without conscience. It is said, “Monks, one should not dwell under dependence with those without conscience; one who does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 120). Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 120), “those without conscience” is in the dative case with a general sense, meaning one should not dwell under dependence with an unconscientious person. Therefore, one who has gone to a new place and is told, “Come, monk, take dependence,” should examine the conscientiousness of the giver of dependence for four or five days before taking it. It is said, “I allow, monks, to wait for four or five days until I know the suitability of the monks” (mahāva. 120). If he hears from monks, “The elder is conscientious,” and wishes to take dependence on the day of arrival, but the elder says, “Wait a while; you will know by dwelling here,” and after examining his conduct for a few days gives dependence, this is permissible. But one who has naturally gone to a place for taking dependence should take it on that very day; there is no respite even for a single day. If there is no opportunity with the teacher in the first watch, and lacking the opportunity he lies down thinking, “I will take it at dawn,” and does not notice the rising of the dawn, there is no offense. But if he lies down without making the resolve, “I will take it,” and the dawn rises, it is an offense of wrongdoing. One who has gone to a place not previously visited and wishes to leave after staying two or three days may dwell without dependence. But one who forms an attachment, thinking, “I will stay for seven days,” must take dependence. If the elder says, “What need is there of dependence for one staying seven days?” then from the time of refusal, he gains respite.

152. To whom should it be given, and 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 not conscientious, because of the statement, “Monks, dependence should not be given to those who are not conscientious; whoever gives it commits an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 120). Even while living in dependence, one should not live in dependence on one who is not conscientious. It is said, “Monks, one should not live in dependence on those who are not conscientious; whoever lives [in such dependence] commits an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 120). Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 120), to those who are not conscientious is a locative of respect in the sense of the instrumental; it means that one should not live in dependence on a person who is not conscientious. Therefore, when one has gone to a new place and is told, “Come, monk, take dependence,” one should examine the conscientiousness of the giver of dependence for four or five days before taking dependence. For it is said, “I allow, monks, waiting for four or five days until I know the compatibility of the bhikkhus” (mahāva. 120). If, having heard from the bhikkhus that “the elder is conscientious,” one wishes to take [dependence] on the very day of arrival, but the elder says, “Wait for a while; you will know as you live here,” and examines his conduct for a few days before giving dependence, it is permissible. But one who has gone to a place where dependence is normally taken should take it on that very day; there is no allowance for even one day. If in the first watch the teacher has no opportunity, and not finding an opportunity, one sleeps thinking, “I will take it at dawn,” and does not know when dawn has arisen, there is no offense. But if one sleeps without making a determination, “I will take it,” there is an offense of wrong-doing at dawn. One who has gone to a place not visited before and wishes to stay for two or three days should live without dependence. But one who is attached, thinking, “I will stay for seven days,” should take dependence. If the elder says, “What need is there for dependence for one who is staying for seven days?”, from the time of the refusal, he has the allowance.

152. To whom should dependence be given, and to whom should it not be given? Here, dependence should be given to one who is conscientious. It should not be given to one who is not conscientious, as it is said, “Monks, dependence should not be given to the shameless. If one gives it, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 120). Even if a shameless person lives under dependence, he should not live under dependence. For it is said, “Monks, a shameless person should not live under dependence. If one does so, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 120). Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 120), shameless is used in the sense of association; it is said that one should not live under the dependence of a shameless person. Therefore, even if a new monk is told, “Come, monk, take dependence,” he should examine the conscientiousness of the giver of dependence for four or five days and then take dependence. For it is said, “I allow, monks, four or five days to wait until one knows the suitability of the monk” (mahāva. 120). If, having heard from the monks that “the elder is conscientious,” he wishes to take dependence on the very day he arrives, but the elder says, “Wait for a few days, and after observing your conduct, I will give dependence,” it is permissible. However, if one has gone to the place for taking dependence, he should take it on the same day; there is no allowance for even a single day’s delay. If in the first watch of the night the teacher is not available, and one, not obtaining the opportunity, thinks, “I will take it at dawn,” and sleeps, not knowing when dawn has broken, there is no offense. But if one sleeps without intending to take dependence, there is an offense of wrongdoing at dawn. If one goes to a place not visited before and wishes to stay for two or three days, one should stay without dependence. If one intends to stay for seven days, one should take dependence. If the elder says, “Why take dependence for staying seven days?” the allowance begins from the time of rejection.

“Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, addhānamaggappaṭipannena bhikkhunā nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vatthu”nti vacanato pana addhānamaggappaṭipanno sace attanā saddhiṃ addhānamaggappaṭipannaṃ nissayadāyakaṃ na labhati, evaṃ nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena bahūnipi divasāni gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pubbe nissayaṃ gahetvā vutthapubbaṃ kiñci āvāsaṃ pavisati, ekarattaṃ vasantenapi nissayo gahetabbo. Antarāmagge vissamanto vā satthaṃ vā pariyesanto katipāhaṃ vasati, anāpatti. Antovasse pana nibaddhavāsaṃ vasitabbaṃ, nissayo ca gahetabbo. Nāvāya gacchantassa pana vassāne āgatepi nissayaṃ alabhantassa anāpatti. Sace antarāmagge gilāno hoti, nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vasituṃ vaṭṭati.

From the statement, “I allow, monks, a monk traveling on a highway who cannot obtain dependence to dwell without dependence” (mahāva. 120), a monk traveling on a highway who cannot find a giver of dependence traveling with him may journey for many days without dependence. If he enters a residence where he has previously taken and completed dependence, he must take dependence even if staying for one night. If he rests on the way or searches for a caravan and stays for a few days, there is no offense. But during the rains, he must dwell in a fixed residence and take dependence. For one traveling by boat, even if the rains arrive, there is no offense if he cannot obtain dependence. If he falls ill on the way, it is permissible to dwell without dependence if he cannot obtain it.

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a bhikkhu who is traveling on a road, if he does not find dependence, to live without dependence” (mahāva. 121), a bhikkhu traveling on a road, if he does not find a giver of dependence who is also traveling on a road with him, may travel for many days without dependence. If, having previously taken dependence and having lived it out, he enters some dwelling, even if he stays for one night, he should take dependence. If he rests on the way or seeks provisions and stays for a few days, there is no offense. During the rains, however, he should live in a fixed residence, and he should take dependence. For one traveling by boat, even if the rains arrive, if he does not find dependence, there is no offense. If he becomes ill on the way, he may live without dependence if he does not find dependence.

“I allow, monks, a monk traveling on a journey who cannot obtain dependence to live without dependence” (mahāva. 121). Therefore, a monk traveling on a journey, if he cannot find a dependence-giver traveling with him, may travel without dependence for many days. If one enters a monastery after having previously taken dependence and stayed, one should take dependence even after staying for a single night. If one rests on the way or searches for a caravan and stays for a few days, there is no offense. However, during the rains retreat, one must stay in a fixed residence and take dependence. If one is traveling by boat and the rains arrive, there is no offense if one cannot obtain dependence. If one falls ill on the way, one may stay without dependence if one cannot obtain it.

Gilānupaṭṭhākopi gilānena yāciyamāno anissito eva vasituṃ labhati. Vuttañhetaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānena bhikkhunā nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vatthuṃ, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānupaṭṭhākena bhikkhunā nissayaṃ alabhamānena yāciyamānena anissitena vatthu”nti (mahāva. 121). Sace pana “yācāhi ma”nti vuccamānopi gilāno mānena na yācati, gantabbaṃ.

One attending to a sick person, when requested by the sick person, may also dwell without dependence. It is said, “I allow, monks, a sick monk who cannot obtain dependence to dwell without dependence; I allow, monks, a monk attending to a sick person who cannot obtain dependence, when requested, to dwell without dependence” (mahāva. 121). But if the sick person, when told, “Request me,” does not request due to pride, he may leave.

One who is attending to the sick may also live without dependence if requested by the sick person. It is said, “I allow, monks, a sick bhikkhu, if he does not find dependence, to live without dependence. I allow, monks, a bhikkhu attending to the sick, if requested and if he does not find dependence, to live without dependence” (mahāva. 121). But if, even when told, “Ask me,” the sick person does not ask due to pride, one should leave.

A caregiver of the sick, when requested by the sick, may also live without dependence. For it is said, “I allow, monks, a sick monk who cannot obtain dependence to live without dependence. I allow, monks, a caregiver of the sick who cannot obtain dependence, when requested, to live without dependence” (mahāva. 121). However, if the sick person, being told, “Ask for me,” does not ask out of pride, one should go.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āraññikena bhikkhunā phāsuvihāraṃ sallakkhentena nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vatthuṃ ’yadā patirūpo nissayadāyako āgacchissati, tadā tassa nissāya vasissāmī”’ti vacanato pana yattha vasantassa samathavipassanānaṃ paṭilābhavasena phāsu hoti, tādisaṃ phāsuvihāraṃ sallakkhentena nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Imañca pana parihāraṃ neva sotāpanno, na sakadāgāmianāgāmiarahanto labhanti, na thāmagatassa samādhino vā vipassanāya vā lābhī, vissaṭṭhakammaṭṭhāne pana bālaputhujjane kathāva natthi. Yassa kho pana samatho vā vipassanā vā taruṇā hoti, ayaṃ imaṃ parihāraṃ labhati, pavāraṇāsaṅgahopi etasseva anuññāto. Tasmā iminā puggalena ācariye pavāretvā gatepi “yadā patirūponissayadāyako āgacchissati, taṃ nissāya vasissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā puna yāva āsāḷhīpuṇṇamā, tāva anissitena vatthuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana āsāḷhīmāse ācariyo nāgacchati, yattha nissayo labbhati, tattha gantabbaṃ.

From the statement, “I allow, monks, a forest-dwelling monk, considering a comfortable dwelling, who cannot obtain dependence to dwell without dependence, thinking, ‘When a suitable giver of dependence comes, I will dwell under his dependence’” (mahāva. 121), where dwelling facilitates the attainment of calm and insight, such a comfortable dwelling may be considered, and if dependence cannot be obtained, he may dwell without dependence. However, this respite is not available to a stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant, nor to one accomplished in strong concentration or insight. For an ordinary person who has abandoned his meditation subject, there is no question. But one whose calm or insight is nascent may obtain this respite, and the invitation is permitted only for such a one. Therefore, this person, even if the teacher departs after being invited, may resolve, “When a suitable giver of dependence comes, I will dwell under him,” and until the full moon of Āsāḷhī, he may dwell without dependence. If the teacher does not come in the month of Āsāḷhī, he must go where dependence is available.

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a forest-dwelling bhikkhu, considering a comfortable dwelling, if he does not find dependence, to live without dependence, thinking, ‘When a suitable giver of dependence comes, then I will live in dependence on him,’” one who is considering a comfortable dwelling, where there is the attainment of calm and insight, may live without dependence if he does not find dependence. This allowance is not obtained by a stream-enterer, a once-returner, a non-returner, or an arahant, nor by one who has attained firmness of concentration or insight. There is no question of a foolish worldling who is practicing a meditation subject that has been abandoned. But one whose calm or insight is weak obtains this allowance. The invitation for the Pavāraṇā is also allowed for him. Therefore, this person, having invited the teacher and departed, may live without dependence until the full moon of Āsāḷhī, making the determination, “When a suitable giver of dependence comes, I will live in dependence on him.” But if the teacher does not come in the month of Āsāḷhī, one should go where dependence is available.

“I allow, monks, a forest-dwelling monk who, considering comfortable living, cannot obtain dependence, to live without dependence, thinking, ‘When a suitable dependence-giver arrives, I will live under his dependence’” (mahāva. 121). Therefore, a monk who, considering the comfort of his meditation and insight practice, cannot obtain dependence, may live without dependence. However, this allowance is not available to a Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, or Arahant, nor to one who has attained strong concentration or insight, nor to an ordinary person who has abandoned meditation subjects. But one whose meditation or insight is still young may avail himself of this allowance. The Pavāraṇā invitation is also allowed for such a person. Therefore, such a person, after inviting the teacher and even after the teacher has left, may live without dependence, thinking, “When a suitable dependence-giver arrives, I will live under his dependence,” until the Āsāḷhī full moon. If, however, the teacher does not arrive in the Āsāḷhī month, one should go to a place where dependence can be obtained.

153. Kathaṃ gahito hotīti ettha upajjhāyassa santike tāva upajjhaṃ gaṇhantena ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā pāde vanditvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “upajjhāyo me, bhante, hohī”ti tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ saddhivihārikena vutte sace upajjhāyo “sāhū”ti vā “lahū”ti vā “opāyika”nti vā “patirūpa”nti vā “pāsādikena sampādehī”ti vā kāyena viññāpeti, vācāya viññāpeti, kāyena vācāya viññāpeti, gahito hoti upajjhāyo. Idameva hettha upajjhāyaggahaṇaṃ, yadidaṃ upajjhāyassa imesu pañcasu padesu yassa kassaci padassa vācāya sāvanaṃ kāyena vā atthaviññāpananti. Keci pana “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchanaṃ sandhāya vadanti, na taṃ pamāṇaṃ. Āyācanadānamattena hi gahito hoti upajjhāyo, na ettha sampaṭicchanaṃ aṅgaṃ. Saddhivihārikenapi na kevalaṃ “iminā me padena upajjhāyo gahito”ti ñātuṃ vaṭṭati, “ajjatagge dāni thero mayhaṃ bhāro, ahampi therassa bhāro”ti idampi ñātuṃ vaṭṭati (mahāva. aṭṭha. 64). Vuttañhetaṃ –

153. As for how it is taken, at the preceptor’s presence, one taking a preceptor should place the upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage at his feet, sit in a squatting position, raise his hands in añjali, and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my preceptor.” If the preceptor indicates consent with his body or speech, saying “Good,” “Light,” “Appropriate,” “Suitable,” or “Accomplish it gracefully,” or both with body and speech, the preceptor is taken. This alone is the taking of a preceptor here: the preceptor’s indication of consent by speech in any of these five terms or by gesture of meaning with the body. Some say it refers to acceptance with “Good,” but that is not authoritative. For the preceptor is taken merely by the act of requesting and giving, and acceptance is not a factor here. The co-resident should not only understand, “The preceptor is taken by this term,” but also, “From now on, the elder is my responsibility, and I am his,” which is also appropriate to understand (mahāva. aṭṭha. 64). It is said—

153. How is it taken? Here, when taking a preceptor, one should arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage to the feet [of the preceptor], sit down on the heels, raise the joined hands, and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my preceptor.” When this is said by the co-resident, if the preceptor indicates with the body, indicates with speech, or indicates with body and speech, saying, “Good,” or “Light,” or “Suitable,” or “Appropriate,” or “Accomplish it with confidence,” the preceptor is taken. This is the taking of a preceptor here: the hearing by the preceptor of any of these five statements with speech, or the indication of the meaning with the body. Some, however, say that it refers to accepting with “sādhu,” but that is not authoritative. The preceptor is taken merely by requesting and giving; acceptance is not a factor here. The co-resident should not only know, “By this statement, the preceptor has been taken by me,” but he should also know, “From today, the elder is my responsibility, and I am the elder’s responsibility” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 64). It is said:

153. How is dependence taken? Here, first, when taking dependence in the presence of the preceptor, one should arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, pay respects at the feet, sit in a kneeling position, raise joined palms, and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my preceptor.” When the pupil has spoken thus, if the preceptor indicates acceptance by body, speech, or both, saying, “Good,” “Very well,” “Suitable,” “Proper,” or “Complete it with confidence,” the preceptor is taken. This is the taking of the preceptor here, namely, the preceptor’s indication of acceptance in these five ways, either by speech or by bodily gesture. Some, however, say that the word “Good” indicates acceptance, but this is not the measure. For the preceptor is taken by the mere act of requesting, and acceptance is not a necessary factor here. The pupil, too, should not only know, “The preceptor has been taken by this word,” but also, “From today, the elder is my responsibility, and I am the elder’s responsibility.” For it is said –

“Upajjhāyo, bhikkhave, saddhivihārikamhi puttacittaṃ upaṭṭhapessati, saddhivihāriko upajjhāyamhi pitucittaṃ upaṭṭhapessati, evaṃ te aññamaññaṃ sagāravā sappatissā sabhāgavuttino viharantā imasmiṃ dhammavinaye vuḍḍhiṃ virūḷhiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjissantī”ti (mahāva. 65).

“Monks, a preceptor should establish a fatherly mind toward his co-resident, and the co-resident should establish a son-like mind toward his preceptor. Thus, living together with mutual respect, deference, and harmony, they will reach growth, increase, and abundance in this Dhamma and Vinaya” (mahāva. 65).

“The preceptor, monks, should establish the thought of a son towards the co-resident; the co-resident should establish the thought of a father towards the preceptor. Thus, living with mutual reverence, respect, and shared conduct, they will attain growth, increase, and expansion in this Dhamma and Discipline” (mahāva. 65).

“The preceptor, monks, should develop a father’s mind toward the pupil, and the pupil should develop a son’s mind toward the preceptor. Thus, living respectfully and deferentially toward each other, they will attain growth, increase, and maturity in this Dhamma and Vinaya” (mahāva. 65).

Ācariyassa santike nissayaggahaṇepi ayameva vinicchayo. Ayaṃ panettha viseso – ācariyassa santike nissayaṃ gaṇhantena ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā “ācariyo me, bhante, hohi, āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī”ti (mahāva. 77) tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ, sesaṃ vuttanayameva.

The same determination applies to taking dependence in the presence of a teacher. The difference here is that one taking dependence in the presence of a teacher should sit in a squatting position and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher; I will dwell under your dependence” (mahāva. 77). The rest follows the method stated above.

The same determination applies to taking dependence on a teacher. The difference here is that when taking dependence on a teacher, one should sit down on the heels and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher; I will live in dependence on the venerable one” (mahāva. 77). The rest is as previously stated.

The same determination applies when taking dependence in the presence of the teacher. The difference here is that when taking dependence in the presence of the teacher, one should sit in a kneeling position and say three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher; I will live under your dependence” (mahāva. 77). The rest is the same as previously stated.

154. Kathaṃ paṭippassambhatīti ettha tāva upajjhāyamhā pañcahākārehi nissayapaṭippassaddhi veditabbā, ācariyamhā chahi ākārehi. Vuttañhetaṃ –

154. As for how it ceases, the cessation of dependence from a preceptor should be understood in five ways, and from a teacher in six ways. It is said—

154. How does it cease? Here, the cessation of dependence from a preceptor should be understood in five ways, and from a teacher in six ways. It is said:

154. How is dependence relinquished? Here, first, dependence is relinquished from the preceptor in five ways and from the teacher in six ways. For it is said –

“Pañcimā, bhikkhave, nissayapaṭippassaddhiyo upajjhāyamhā. Upajjhāyo pakkanto vā hoti, vibbhanto vā, kālakato vā, pakkhasaṅkanto vā, āṇattiyeva pañcamī. Imā kho, bhikkhave, pañca nissayapaṭippassaddhiyo upajjhāyamhā.

“Monks, there are these five ways in which dependence ceases from a preceptor: the preceptor has departed, has disrobed, has passed away, has changed faction, or has given a directive—this is the fifth. Indeed, monks, these are the five ways in which dependence ceases from a preceptor.

“Monks, there are these five cessations of dependence from a preceptor. The preceptor has departed, or has disrobed, or has passed away, or has joined another faction, or the fifth is by command. These, monks, are the five cessations of dependence from a preceptor.

“Monks, there are five ways in which the dependence on the preceptor is relinquished. The preceptor has departed, or has disrobed, or has passed away, or has gone over to another faction, or the fifth is by formal announcement. These, monks, are the five ways in which the dependence on the preceptor is relinquished.

Chayimā , bhikkhave, nissayapaṭippassaddhiyo ācariyamhā. Ācariyo pakkanto vā hoti, vibbhanto vā, kālakato vā, pakkhasaṅkanto vā, āṇattiyeva pañcamī, upajjhāyena vā samodhānagato hoti. Imā kho, bhikkhave, cha nissayapaṭippassaddhiyo ācariyamhā”ti (mahāva. 83).

Monks, there are these six ways in which dependence ceases from a teacher: the teacher has departed, has disrobed, has passed away, has changed faction, has given a directive—this is the fifth—or has come into alignment with the preceptor. Indeed, monks, these are the six ways in which dependence ceases from a teacher” (mahāva. 83).

There are these six cessations of dependence from a teacher, monks. The teacher has departed, or has disrobed, or has passed away, or has joined another faction, or the fifth is by command, or he is united with the preceptor. These, monks, are the six cessations of dependence from a teacher” (Mahāva. 83).

Monks, there are six ways in which the dependence on the teacher is relinquished. The teacher has departed, or has disrobed, or has passed away, or has gone over to another faction, or the fifth is by formal announcement, or the sixth is when the teacher is reunited with the preceptor. These, monks, are the six ways in which the dependence on the teacher is relinquished” (Mahāvagga 83).

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (mahāva. aṭṭha. 83) – pakkantoti disaṃ gato. Evaṃ gate ca pana tasmiṃ sace vihāre nissayadāyako atthi, yassa santike aññadāpi nissayo vā gahitapubbo hoti, yo vā ekasambhogaparibhogo, tassa santike nissayo gahetabbo, ekadivasampi parihāro natthi. Sace tādiso natthi, añño lajjī pesalo atthi, tassa pesalabhāvaṃ jānantena tadaheva nissayo yācitabbo. Sace deti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. Atha pana “tumhākaṃ upajjhāyo lahuṃ āgamissatī”ti pucchati, upajjhāyena ce tathā vuttaṃ, “āma, bhante”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace vadati “tena hi upajjhāyassa āgamanaṃ āgamethā”ti, vaṭṭati. Atha panassa pakatiyā pesalabhāvaṃ na jānāti, cattāri pañca divasāni tassa bhikkhussa sabhāgataṃ oloketvā okāsaṃ kāretvā nissayo gahetabbo. Sace pana vihāre nissayadāyako natthi, upajjhāyo ca “ahaṃ katipāhena āgamissāmi, mā ukkaṇṭhitthā”ti vatvā gato, yāva āgamanā parihāro labbhati, athāpi naṃ tattha manussā paricchinnakālato uttaripi pañca vā dasa vā divasāni vāsentiyeva, tena vihāraṃ pavatti pesetabbā “daharā mā ukkaṇṭhantu, ahaṃ asukadivasaṃ nāma āgamissāmī”ti, evampi parihāro labbhati. Atha āgacchato antarāmagge nadīpūrena vā corādīhi vā upaddavo hoti, thero udakosakkanaṃ vā āgameti, sahāye vā pariyesati, taṃ ce pavattiṃ daharā suṇanti, yāva āgamanā parihāro labbhati. Sace pana so “idhevāhaṃ vasissāmī”ti pahiṇati, parihāro natthi. Yattha nissayo labbhati, tattha gantabbaṃ. Vibbhante pana kālakate pakkhasaṅkante vā ekadivasampi parihāro natthi, yattha nissayo labbhati, tattha gantabbaṃ.

Here is the determination (mahāva. aṭṭha. 83): “Departed” means gone to another region. When he has gone thus, if there is a giver of dependence in the monastery—either one from whom dependence was previously taken at another time or one with whom there is shared use—he should take dependence from him; there is no respite even for a single day. If there is no such person but there is another conscientious and virtuous monk, knowing his virtue, he should request dependence from him on that very day. If he gives it, that is well. But if he asks, “Will your preceptor return soon?” and the preceptor has said so, he should reply, “Yes, venerable sir.” If he says, “Then wait for your preceptor’s return,” that is permissible. If he does not naturally know his virtue, he should observe that monk’s suitability for four or five days and then, finding an opportunity, take dependence. If there is no giver of dependence in the monastery and the preceptor has said, “I will return in a few days; do not be distressed,” respite is obtained until his return. Even if people there detain him beyond the specified time for five or ten days, he should send word to the monastery, “Let the novices not be distressed; I will return on such-and-such a day,” and thus respite is obtained. If, while returning, there is an obstacle on the way due to a flooded river or thieves, and the elder waits for the water to subside or seeks companions, and the novices hear this news, respite is obtained until his return. But if he sends word, “I will stay here,” there is no respite; he must go where dependence is available. In the case of disrobing, passing away, or changing faction, there is no respite even for a single day; he must go where dependence is available.

Herein, the determination (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 83) is this – departed means gone to another region. And when he has thus gone, if there is in the monastery someone who can give dependence, with whom dependence has been taken before, or who shares the same communal life, dependence should be taken with him; there is no allowance for even one day. If there is no such person, but there is another who is conscientious and virtuous, knowing his virtuous nature, dependence should be requested from him that very day. If he grants it, that is good. But if he asks, “Will your preceptor return soon?”, if the preceptor had said so, one should say, “Yes, venerable sir.” If he says, “Then wait for the preceptor’s return,” that is permissible. But if one does not know his naturally virtuous nature, one should observe that monk’s compatibility for four or five days, then create an opportunity and take dependence. If, however, there is no one in the monastery to give dependence, and the preceptor has left saying, “I will return in a few days, do not be anxious,” allowance is obtained until his return. Even if people there keep him five or ten days beyond the appointed time, he should send word to the monastery, “Let the young monks not be anxious, I will return on such-and-such a day,” thus allowance is obtained. If, while he is returning, there is an obstacle on the way, such as a flooded river or bandits, and the elder waits for the water to subside or seeks companions, and the young monks hear of this situation, allowance is obtained until his return. But if he sends word, “I will stay here,” there is no allowance. One should go where dependence is available. However, when one has disrobed, passed away, or joined another faction, there is no allowance for even one day; one should go where dependence is available.

Herein, this is the analysis (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 83): “Departed” means gone to another region. When he has gone in this way, if there is a giver of dependence in the monastery, one who has previously taken dependence from him, or one who shares the same dwelling, dependence should be taken from him. There is no delay even for a single day. If there is no such person, but there is another who is modest and virtuous, knowing his virtuous nature, dependence should be requested from him on that very day. If he gives it, that is good. But if he asks, “Will your preceptor return soon?” and if the preceptor has said so, one should say, “Yes, venerable sir.” If he says, “Then wait for the preceptor’s return,” it is acceptable. But if one does not know his usual virtuous nature, one should observe that monk for four or five days, make an opportunity, and then take dependence. If there is no giver of dependence in the monastery, and the preceptor has said, “I will return in a few days, do not be anxious,” and has departed, then until his return, a delay is allowed. Even then, the people there may keep him for a fixed period, five or ten days, and one should send a message to the monastery, “Let the young ones not be anxious, I will return on such and such a day.” In this way, a delay is allowed. But if on the way back, there is an obstacle such as a river flood or robbers, the elder sends a message or seeks companions. If the young ones hear the message, a delay is allowed until his return. But if he sends a message saying, “I will stay here,” there is no delay. One should go where dependence can be obtained. In the case of disrobing, death, or going over to another faction, there is no delay even for a single day. One should go where dependence can be obtained.

Āṇattīti pana nissayapaṇāmanā vuccati, tasmā “paṇāmemi ta”nti vā “mā idha paṭikkamī”ti vā “nīhara te pattacīvara”nti vā “nāhaṃ tayā upaṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vāti iminā pāḷinayena “mā maṃ gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchī”tiādinā pāḷimuttakanayena vā yo nissayapaṇāmanāya paṇāmito hoti, tena upajjhāyo khamāpetabbo. Sace āditova na khamati, daṇḍakammaṃ āharitvā tikkhattuṃ tāva sayameva khamāpetabbo. No ce khamati, tasmiṃ vihāre mahāthere gahetvā khamāpetabbo. No ce khamati, sāmantavihāre bhikkhū gahetvā khamāpetabbo. Sace evampi na khamati, aññattha gantvā upajjhāyassa sabhāgānaṃ santike vasitabbaṃ “appeva nāma ’sabhāgānaṃ me santike vasatī’ti ñatvāpi khameyyā”ti. Sace evampi na khamati, tatreva vasitabbaṃ. Tatra ce dubbhikkhādidosena na sakkā hoti vasituṃ, taṃyeva vihāraṃ āgantvā aññassa santike nissayaṃ gahetvā vasituṃ vaṭṭati. Ayamāṇattiyaṃ vinicchayo.

“Directive” refers to the dismissal from dependence. Thus, if one is dismissed with statements like “I dismiss you,” “Do not return here,” “Take your bowl and robe away,” or “I am not to be attended by you” according to the canonical method, or with non-canonical statements like “Do not ask me about entering the village,” he should seek forgiveness from the preceptor. If he does not forgive from the outset, he should bring a disciplinary measure and seek forgiveness three times himself. If he still does not forgive, he should take a senior monk from that monastery and seek forgiveness. If he still does not forgive, he should take monks from a neighboring monastery and seek forgiveness. If even then he does not forgive, he should go elsewhere and dwell in the presence of those compatible with the preceptor, hoping, “Perhaps, knowing he dwells with those compatible with me, he might forgive.” If even then he does not forgive, he should dwell there. If it is impossible to dwell there due to famine or other faults, he may return to that monastery, take dependence from another, and dwell there. This is the determination regarding a directive.

Here, by command refers to dismissal from dependence. Therefore, one who has been dismissed from dependence by the preceptor, in this manner of the stated text, “I dismiss you,” or “Do not come here,” or “Remove your bowl and robe,” or “I am not to be attended by you,” or in this manner not stated in the text, “Do not ask me about entering the village,” and so on, should ask forgiveness from the preceptor. If he does not forgive from the beginning, bringing up the penalty, one should ask forgiveness oneself three times. If he still does not forgive, one should ask forgiveness taking the senior monks in that monastery. If he still does not forgive, one should ask forgiveness taking monks from neighboring monasteries. If even then he does not forgive, one should go elsewhere and stay with those who are compatible with the preceptor, thinking, “Perhaps, knowing that I am staying with those compatible with me, he might forgive.” If even then he does not forgive, one should stay there. If, due to famine or other troubles, it is not possible to stay there, one should return to that same monastery, take dependence with another, and stay. This is the determination concerning dismissal.

“Formal announcement” refers to the relinquishment of dependence. Therefore, whether one says, “I relinquish you,” or “Do not come here,” or “Take away your bowl and robe,” or “You should not attend on me,” or in the manner of the Pāli phrase, “Do not ask me for permission to enter the village,” or in the manner of the Pāli phrase, “Do not ask me for permission to enter the village,” or in any other way, if one is relinquished by the formal announcement of dependence, the preceptor should be asked for forgiveness. If he does not forgive from the beginning, one should bring a disciplinary action and ask for forgiveness three times by oneself. If he still does not forgive, one should ask for forgiveness in the presence of the senior monks in that monastery. If he still does not forgive, one should ask for forgiveness in the presence of the monks in a neighboring monastery. If even then he does not forgive, one should go elsewhere and stay in the presence of the preceptor’s peers, thinking, “Perhaps knowing that I am staying in the presence of his peers, he will forgive.” If even then he does not forgive, one should stay there. If it is not possible to stay there due to famine or other difficulties, one may return to that monastery, take dependence from another, and stay. This is the analysis of the formal announcement.

Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhīsu ācariyo pakkanto vā hotīti ettha koci ācariyo āpucchitvā pakkamati, koci anāpucchitvā, antevāsikopi evameva. Tatra sace antevāsiko ācariyaṃ āpucchati “asukaṃ nāma, bhante, ṭhānaṃ gantuṃ icchāmi kenacideva karaṇīyenā”ti, ācariyena ca “kadā gamissasī”ti vutto “sāyanhe vā rattiṃ vā uṭṭhahitvā gamissāmī”ti vadati, ācariyopi “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, taṃ khaṇaṃyeva nissayo paṭippassambhati. Sace pana “bhante, asukaṃ nāma ṭhānaṃ gantukāmomhī”ti vutte ācariyo “asukasmiṃ nāma gāme piṇḍāya caritvā pacchā jānissasī”ti vadati, so ca “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, tato ce gato sugato. Sace pana na gacchati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Athāpi “gacchāmī”ti vutte ācariyena “mā tāva gaccha, rattiṃ mantetvā jānissāmā”ti vutto mantetvā gacchati, sugato. No ce gacchati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Ācariyaṃ anāpucchā pakkamantassa pana upacārasīmātikkame nissayo paṭippassambhati, antoupacārasīmato paṭinivattantassa na paṭippassambhati. Sace pana ācariyo antevāsikaṃ āpucchati “āvuso, asukaṃ nāma ṭhānaṃ gamissāmī”ti, antevāsikena ca “kadā”ti vutte “sāyanhe vā rattibhāge vā”ti vadati, antevāsikopi “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, taṃ khaṇaṃyeva nissayo paṭippassambhati, sace pana ācariyo “sve piṇḍāya caritvā gamissāmī”ti vadati, itaro ca “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, ekadivasaṃ tāva nissayo na paṭippassambhati, punadivase paṭippassaddho hoti. “Asukasmiṃ nāma gāme piṇḍāya caritvā jānissāmi mama gamanaṃ vā agamanaṃ vā”ti vatvā pana sace na gacchati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Athāpi “gacchāmī”ti vutte antevāsikena “mā tāva gacchatha, rattiṃ mantetvā jānissathā”ti vutto mantetvāpi na gacchati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Sace ubhopi ācariyantevāsikā kenacideva karaṇīyena bahisīmaṃ gacchanti, tato ce ācariyo gamiyacitte uppanne anāpucchāva gantvā dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ antoyeva nivattati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Sace dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā nivattati, paṭippassaddho hoti. Ācariyupajjhāyā dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasanti, nissayo paṭippassambhati. Ācariye vibbhante kālakate pakkhasaṅkante ca taṃ khaṇaṃyeva paṭippassambhati.

In the cessations of dependence from a teacher, “the teacher has departed” means some teachers depart after informing, others without informing, and the pupil does likewise. If the pupil informs the teacher, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such-and-such a place for some reason,” and the teacher asks, “When will you go?” and he replies, “In the evening or at night after rising,” and the teacher consents with “Good,” dependence ceases at that moment. But if he says, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such-and-such a place,” and the teacher says, “After almsround in such-and-such a village, you will know,” and he consents with “Good” and goes, it is well. If he does not go, dependence does not cease. Or if he says, “I am going,” and the teacher says, “Do not go yet; we will discuss it at night,” and after discussion he goes, it is well. If he does not go, dependence does not cease. For one departing without informing the teacher, dependence ceases when he crosses the boundary of the precinct; if he returns within the precinct, it does not cease. If the teacher informs the pupil, “Friend, I will go to such-and-such a place,” and the pupil asks, “When?” and he replies, “In the evening or at night,” and the pupil consents with “Good,” dependence ceases at that moment. But if the teacher says, “I will go tomorrow after almsround,” and the other consents with “Good,” dependence does not cease for that day but ceases the next day. If he says, “After almsround in such-and-such a village, I will know whether I go or not,” and does not go, dependence does not cease. Or if he says, “I am going,” and the pupil says, “Do not go yet; you will know after discussion at night,” and after discussion he does not go, dependence does not cease. If both teacher and pupil go outside the boundary for some reason, and the teacher, with the intention to depart arising, goes without informing and returns within two stone-throws, dependence does not cease. If he crosses two stone-throws and returns, it ceases. If both teacher and preceptor cross two stone-throws and dwell in another monastery, dependence ceases. When the teacher disrobes, passes away, or changes faction, it ceases at that moment.

Regarding the cessations of dependence from a teacher, where it says the teacher has departed, some teachers depart after asking permission, some without asking permission, and the same applies to the student. Herein, if the student asks the teacher, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such-and-such a place for some business,” and the teacher asks, “When will you go?” and he says, “I will go in the evening or after rising at night,” and the teacher agrees, saying, “Good,” at that moment the dependence ceases. But if, when he says, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such-and-such a place,” the teacher says, “After going for alms in such-and-such a village, you will know later,” and he agrees, saying, “Good,” then if he goes, he has gone well. But if he does not go, the dependence does not cease. Or if, when he says, “I will go,” the teacher says, “Do not go yet, after discussing tonight, we will know,” and after discussing, he goes, he has gone well. But if he does not go, the dependence does not cease. However, for one who departs without asking the teacher, the dependence ceases when he crosses the boundary of the residence; if he returns from within the boundary of the residence, it does not cease. But if the teacher asks the student, “Friend, I will go to such-and-such a place,” and the student asks, “When?” and he says, “In the evening or during the night,” and the student agrees, saying, “Good,” at that moment the dependence ceases. But if the teacher says, “Tomorrow, after going for alms, I will go,” and the other agrees, saying, “Good,” for one day the dependence does not cease; on the following day, it ceases. But if he says, “After going for alms in such-and-such a village, I will know whether I will go or not,” and then does not go, the dependence does not cease. Or if, when he says, “I will go,” the student says, “Do not go yet, after discussing tonight, you will know,” and even after discussing, he does not go, the dependence does not cease. If both the teacher and the student go outside the boundary for some business, and then the teacher, with the intention to go, departs without asking permission and returns from within two stone-throws, the dependence does not cease. If he returns after crossing two stone-throws, it has ceased. If the teacher and preceptor stay in another monastery beyond two stone-throws, the dependence ceases. When the teacher disrobes, passes away, or joins another faction, it ceases at that very moment.

In the case of the relinquishment of dependence on the teacher, “the teacher has departed” means that some teachers depart after informing, while others depart without informing. The pupil also does the same. If the pupil informs the teacher, saying, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such and such a place for some reason,” and the teacher asks, “When will you go?” and the pupil replies, “I will go in the evening or at night,” and the teacher approves, saying, “Good,” then at that moment the dependence is relinquished. But if the pupil says, “Venerable sir, I wish to go to such and such a place,” and the teacher says, “After walking for alms in such and such a village, you will know,” and the pupil agrees, saying, “Good,” and then goes and returns successfully, the dependence is relinquished. But if he does not go, the dependence is not relinquished. Even if he says, “I will go,” and the teacher says, “Do not go yet, we will discuss it tonight,” and after discussing, he goes and returns successfully, the dependence is relinquished. But if he does not go, the dependence is not relinquished. If the pupil departs without informing the teacher, the dependence is relinquished when he crosses the boundary of the vicinity, but not if he returns within the boundary. If the teacher informs the pupil, saying, “Friend, I will go to such and such a place,” and the pupil asks, “When?” and the teacher replies, “In the evening or at night,” and the pupil approves, saying, “Good,” then at that moment the dependence is relinquished. But if the teacher says, “I will go after walking for alms tomorrow,” and the pupil agrees, saying, “Good,” the dependence is not relinquished for that day, but it is relinquished the next day. If the teacher says, “After walking for alms in such and such a village, I will know whether I will go or not,” and then does not go, the dependence is not relinquished. Even if he says, “I will go,” and the pupil says, “Do not go yet, we will discuss it tonight,” and after discussing, he does not go, the dependence is not relinquished. If both the teacher and the pupil go outside the boundary for some reason, and if the teacher, without informing, goes and returns within the distance of two stone throws, the dependence is not relinquished. But if he goes beyond two stone throws and returns, the dependence is relinquished. If the teacher and preceptor go beyond two stone throws and stay in another monastery, the dependence is relinquished. In the case of the teacher disrobing, passing away, or going over to another faction, the dependence is relinquished at that moment.

Āṇattiyaṃ pana ācariyo muñcitukāmova hutvā nissayapaṇāmanāya paṇāmeti, antevāsiko ca “kiñcāpi maṃ ācariyo paṇāmeti, atha kho hadayena muduko”ti sālayo hoti, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Sacepi āriyo sālayo, antevāsiko nirālayo “na dāni imaṃ nissāya vasissāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, evampi na paṭippassambhati. Ubhinnaṃ sālayabhāve pana na paṭippassambhatiyeva, ubhinnaṃ dhuranikkhepena paṭippassambhati, paṇāmitena daṇḍakammaṃ āharitvā tikkhattuṃ khamāpetabbo. No ce khamati, upajjhāye vuttanayena paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Yathāpaññattaṃ pana ācariyupajjhāyavattaṃ paripūrentaṃ adhimattapemādipañcaṅgasamannāgataṃ antevāsikaṃ saddhivihārikaṃ vā paṇāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ, itaraṃ apaṇāmentassapi dukkaṭameva. Vuttañhetaṃ –

In the case of a directive, if the teacher, wishing to release, dismisses with a dismissal from dependence, and the pupil thinks, “Though the teacher dismisses me, his heart is soft,” and remains attached, dependence does not cease. Even if the teacher is attached and the pupil is unattached, thinking, “I will no longer dwell under him,” and relinquishes responsibility, it still does not cease. If both are attached, it certainly does not cease; if both relinquish responsibility, it ceases. One dismissed should bring a disciplinary measure and seek forgiveness three times. If he does not forgive, he should act as stated regarding the preceptor. For one fulfilling the duties toward teacher and preceptor as prescribed, endowed with the five qualities of excessive affection and so forth, if the teacher dismisses such a pupil or co-resident, it is an offense of wrongdoing; if he does not dismiss one who is otherwise, it is also an offense of wrongdoing. It is said—

In the case of dismissal, if the teacher, wishing to release, dismisses from dependence, and the student, thinking, “Although the teacher dismisses me, yet he is gentle at heart,” is attached, the dependence does not cease. Even if the teacher is attached, if the student is unattached, thinking, “I will no longer stay in dependence on him,” and gives up his duty, even then it does not cease. When both are attached, it certainly does not cease; with the giving up of duty by both, it ceases. The one dismissed should bring up the penalty and ask forgiveness three times. If he does not forgive, one should proceed as stated in the case of the preceptor. However, for a teacher or preceptor who dismisses a student or resident who is fulfilling the teacher-preceptor duties as prescribed, and who is endowed with the five factors such as exceeding affection, there is an offense of wrong-doing; for the other, not dismissing him is also an offense of wrong-doing. It is said:

In the case of the formal announcement, if the teacher wishes to release the pupil, he relinquishes the dependence by formal announcement. But if the pupil thinks, “Even though the teacher relinquishes me, he is still kind-hearted,” and remains attached, the dependence is not relinquished. Even if the teacher is detached, but the pupil is not, thinking, “I will no longer depend on him,” and gives up the responsibility, the dependence is not relinquished. If both are attached, the dependence is not relinquished. If both give up the responsibility, the dependence is relinquished. The one who is relinquished should bring a disciplinary action and ask for forgiveness three times. If he does not forgive, one should proceed as stated in the case of the preceptor. However, if a pupil or attendant who fulfills the duties toward the teacher and preceptor, who is endowed with excessive affection and other qualities, is relinquished, it is a wrongdoing. Not relinquishing such a one is also a wrongdoing. For it is said:

“Na, bhikkhave, sammāvattanto paṇāmetabbo, yo paṇāmeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Na ca, bhikkhave, asammāvattanto na paṇāmetabbo, yo na paṇāmeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa (mahāva. 80).

“Monks, one who conducts himself properly should not be dismissed; one who dismisses him commits an offense of wrongdoing. Nor, monks, should one who does not conduct himself properly not be dismissed; one who does not dismiss him commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 80).

“Monks, one who is behaving properly should not be dismissed; whoever dismisses him commits an offense of wrong-doing. And, monks, one who is not behaving properly should not be left undismissed; whoever does not dismiss him commits an offense of wrong-doing (Mahāva. 80).

“Monks, one who is behaving correctly should not be relinquished. Whoever relinquishes such a one commits a wrongdoing. Monks, one who is not behaving correctly should not be relinquished. Whoever does not relinquish such a one commits a wrongdoing” (Mahāvagga 80).

“Pañcahi , bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgataṃ antevāsikaṃ apaṇāmento ācariyo sātisāro hoti, paṇāmento anatisāro hoti. Ācariyamhi nādhimattaṃ pemaṃ hoti, nādhimatto pasādo hoti, nādhimattā hirī hoti, nādhimatto gāravo hoti, nādhimattā bhāvanā hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ antevāsikaṃ apaṇāmento ācariyo sātisāro hoti, paṇāmento anatisāro hoti (mahāva. 81).

“Monks, a teacher who does not dismiss a pupil endowed with five qualities bears a fault; by dismissing him, he is free from fault. There is not excessive affection toward the teacher, not excessive confidence, not excessive shame, not excessive respect, not excessive development. Indeed, monks, a teacher who does not dismiss a pupil endowed with these five qualities bears a fault; by dismissing him, he is free from fault” (mahāva. 81).

“Monks, a teacher who does not dismiss a student endowed with five factors is blameworthy; dismissing him, he is not blameworthy. There is not exceeding affection for the teacher, not exceeding confidence, not exceeding shame, not exceeding respect, not exceeding cultivation. Monks, a teacher who does not dismiss a student endowed with these five factors is blameworthy; dismissing him, he is not blameworthy (Mahāva. 81).

“Monks, a teacher who does not relinquish a pupil endowed with five factors is blameworthy. Relinquishing such a one is not blameworthy. The teacher does not have excessive affection for the pupil, does not have excessive confidence, does not have excessive shame, does not have excessive respect, and does not have excessive development. Monks, a teacher who does not relinquish a pupil endowed with these five factors is blameworthy. Relinquishing such a one is not blameworthy” (Mahāvagga 81).

“Pañcahi , bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgataṃ saddhivihārikaṃ apaṇāmento upajjhāyo sātisāro hoti, paṇāmento anatisāro hoti. Upajjhāyamhi nādhimattaṃ pemaṃ hoti, nādhimatto pasādo hoti, nādhimattā hirī hoti, nādhimatto gāravo hoti, nādhimattā bhāvanā hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ saddhivihārikaṃ apaṇāmento upajjhāyo sātisāro hoti, paṇāmento anatisāro hotī”tiādi (mahāva. 68).

“Monks, a preceptor who does not dismiss a co-resident endowed with five qualities bears a fault; by dismissing him, he is free from fault. There is not excessive affection toward the preceptor, not excessive confidence, not excessive shame, not excessive respect, not excessive development. Indeed, monks, a preceptor who does not dismiss a co-resident endowed with these five qualities bears a fault; by dismissing him, he is free from fault,” and so forth (mahāva. 68).

“Monks, a preceptor who does not dismiss a resident endowed with five factors is blameworthy; dismissing him, he is not blameworthy. There is not exceeding affection for the preceptor, not exceeding confidence, not exceeding shame, not exceeding respect, not exceeding cultivation. Monks, a preceptor who does not dismiss a resident endowed with these five factors is blameworthy; dismissing him, he is not blameworthy,” and so on (Mahāva. 68).

“Monks, a preceptor who does not relinquish an attendant endowed with five factors is blameworthy. Relinquishing such a one is not blameworthy. The preceptor does not have excessive affection for the attendant, does not have excessive confidence, does not have excessive shame, does not have excessive respect, and does not have excessive development. Monks, a preceptor who does not relinquish an attendant endowed with these five factors is blameworthy. Relinquishing such a one is not blameworthy” (Mahāvagga 68).

Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 68) nādhimattaṃ pemaṃ hotīti upajjhāyamhi adhimattaṃ gehassitapemaṃ na hoti. Nādhimattā bhāvanā hotīti adhimattā mettābhāvanā na hotīti attho.

Therein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 68), “not excessive affection” means there is not excessive household-like affection toward the preceptor. “Not excessive development” means there is not excessive development of loving-kindness.

Therein (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 68), there is not exceeding affection means there is not exceeding worldly affection for the preceptor. Not exceeding cultivation means there is not exceeding cultivation of loving-kindness; this is the meaning.

Herein (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 68), “does not have excessive affection” means the preceptor does not have excessive household affection. “Does not have excessive development” means he does not have excessive development of loving-kindness.

Upajjhāyena vā samodhānagatoti ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 83) dassanasavanavasena samodhānaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sace hi ācariyaṃ nissāya vasanto saddhivihāriko ekavihāre cetiyaṃ vā vandantaṃ, ekagāme vā piṇḍāya carantaṃ upajjhāyaṃ passati, nissayo paṭippassambhati. Upajjhāyo passati, saddhivihāriko na passati, na paṭippassambhati. Maggappaṭipannaṃ vā ākāsena vā gacchantaṃ upajjhāyaṃ disvā dūrattā “bhikkhū”ti jānāti, “upajjhāyo”ti na jānāti, na paṭippassambhati. Sace jānāti, paṭippassambhati. Uparipāsāde upajjhāyo vasati, heṭṭhā saddhivihāriko, taṃ adisvāva yāguṃ pivitvā paṭikkamati, āsanasālāya vā nisinnaṃ adisvāva ekamante bhuñjitvā pakkamati, dhammassavanamaṇḍape vā nisinnampi taṃ adisvāva dhammaṃ sutvā pakkamati, nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Evaṃ tāva dassanavasena samodhānaṃ veditabbaṃ. Savanavasena pana sace upajjhāyassa vihāre vā antaraghare vā dhammaṃ vā kathentassa anumodanaṃ vā karontassa saddaṃ sutvā “upajjhāyassa me saddo”ti sañjānāti, nissayo paṭippassambhati, asañjānantassa na paṭippassambhati. Ayaṃ samodhāne vinicchayo.

“Has come into alignment with the preceptor” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 83) should be understood as alignment through seeing or hearing. If a co-resident dwelling under a teacher sees the preceptor in the same monastery—whether paying homage at a shrine or going for alms in the same village—dependence ceases. If the preceptor sees him but the co-resident does not, it does not cease. If he sees the preceptor traveling on a road or in the sky from a distance and knows only “monks” but not “my preceptor,” it does not cease. If he knows, it ceases. If the preceptor dwells in an upper storey and the co-resident below, and he leaves after drinking gruel without seeing him, or eats to one side in the dining hall without seeing him, or listens to the Dhamma in the preaching hall without seeing him and departs, dependence does not cease. This is how alignment through seeing is understood. Through hearing, if he hears the preceptor’s voice in the monastery or village—whether preaching the Dhamma or giving a blessing—and recognizes, “This is my preceptor’s voice,” dependence ceases; if he does not recognize, it does not cease. This is the determination regarding alignment.

Here, or he is united with the preceptor (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 83), the union should be understood as by seeing or hearing. For if a resident, staying in dependence on a teacher, sees the preceptor in the same monastery worshipping a shrine, or going for alms in the same village, the dependence ceases. If the preceptor sees, but the resident does not see, it does not cease. If he sees the preceptor walking on the road or going through the air, and due to the distance, knows it is a “monk,” but does not know it is the “preceptor,” it does not cease. If he knows, it ceases. The preceptor stays on the upper floor, the resident below; without seeing him, he drinks gruel and departs; or without seeing him sitting in the assembly hall, he eats in a corner and departs; or without seeing him sitting in the Dhamma-listening hall, he listens to the Dhamma and departs; the dependence does not cease. Thus, the union by seeing should be understood. By hearing, however, if he hears the sound of the preceptor in the monastery or in the inner house, either teaching the Dhamma or giving a blessing, and recognizes, “This is the sound of my preceptor,” the dependence ceases; for one not recognizing, it does not cease. This is the determination concerning union.

“Reunited with the preceptor” here (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 83) should be understood through seeing or hearing. For if a pupil staying under the dependence of the teacher sees the preceptor in the same monastery paying homage to a shrine, or walking for alms in the same village, the dependence is relinquished. If the preceptor sees the pupil, but the pupil does not see the preceptor, the dependence is not relinquished. If one sees the preceptor walking in the sky or on the path from a distance and knows, “It is a monk,” but does not know, “It is the preceptor,” the dependence is not relinquished. If one knows, the dependence is relinquished. If the preceptor is staying in an upper chamber, and the pupil below drinks the gruel and departs without seeing him, or eats in the dining hall without seeing him and departs, or listens to the Dhamma in the Dhamma hall without seeing him and departs, the dependence is not relinquished. Thus, the reunion through seeing should be understood. Through hearing, if one hears the preceptor’s voice in the monastery or in the village while he is teaching the Dhamma or expressing appreciation, and recognizes, “It is my preceptor’s voice,” the dependence is relinquished. If one does not recognize it, the dependence is not relinquished. This is the analysis of reunion.

155. Nissāya kena vasitabbaṃ, kena na vasitabbanti ettha pana “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena pañca vassāni nissāya vatthuṃ, abyattena yāvajīva”nti (mahāva. 103) vacanato yo abyatto hoti, tena yāvajīvaṃ nissāyeva vasitabbaṃ. Sacāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 103) vuḍḍhataraṃ ācariyaṃ na labhati, upasampadāya saṭṭhivasso vā sattativasso vā hoti, navakatarassapi byattassa santike ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “ācariyo me, āvuso, hoti, āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī”ti evaṃ tikkhattuṃ vatvā nissayo gahetabbova. Gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchantenapi ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchāmi ācariyā”ti vattabbaṃ. Esa nayo sabbaāpucchanesu.

155. As for who should dwell under dependence and who should not, from the statement, “I allow, monks, a skilled and capable monk to dwell under dependence for five years, and an unskilled one for life” (mahāva. 103), one who is unskilled must dwell under dependence for life. If he (mahāva. aṭṭha. 103) cannot find an elder teacher and is sixty or seventy years since ordination, he must take dependence from a skilled monk, even a junior one, by sitting in a squatting position, raising his hands in añjali, and saying three times, “Friend, be my teacher; I will dwell under your dependence.” When asking permission to enter the village, he should sit in a squatting position, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “I ask permission to enter the village, teacher.” This method applies to all permissions.

155. As for who should live in dependence and who should not, here, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a learned monk, competent, to live in dependence for five years; an unlearned one, for life” (Mahāva. 103), one who is unlearned should live in dependence for life. If he (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 103) does not find an older teacher, and is sixty or seventy years old since ordination, he should still take dependence with a younger but learned monk, sitting on his haunches, raising his joined hands, and saying, “Venerable sir, you are my teacher, I will live in dependence on you,” thus saying it three times. When asking permission to enter the village, he should sit on his haunches, raise his joined hands, and say, “I ask permission to enter the village, teacher.” This method applies to all requests for permission.

155. Under whose dependence should one stay, and under whose dependence should one not stay? Herein, it is said, “I allow, monks, a competent and capable monk to stay under dependence for five years. For an incompetent one, it is for life” (Mahāvagga 103). Therefore, one who is incompetent should stay under dependence for life. If he (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 103) does not find a more senior teacher, and he is sixty or seventy years since his ordination, he should sit on his heels, raise his hands in añjali, and say three times to a more junior but competent monk, “Friend, you are my teacher. I will stay under your dependence.” Even when asking for permission to enter the village, one should sit on his heels, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “I ask for permission to enter the village, teacher.” This is the method for all requests.

Yo pana byatto hoti upasampadāya pañcavasso, tena anissitena vatthuṃ vaṭṭati. Tasmā nissayamuccanakena (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147) upasampadāya pañcavassena sabbantimena paricchedena dve mātikā paguṇā vācuggatā kattabbā, pakkhadivasesu dhammassavanatthāya suttantato cattāro bhāṇavārā, sampattānaṃ parisānaṃ parikathanatthāya andhakavinda(a. ni. 5.114) mahārāhulovāda(ma. ni. 2.113 ādayo) ambaṭṭha(daī. ni. 1.254 ādayo) sadiso eko kathāmaggo, saṅghabhattamaṅgalāmaṅgalesu anumodanatthāya tisso anumodanā, uposathapavāraṇādijānanatthaṃ kammākammavinicchayo, samaṇadhammakaraṇatthaṃ samādhivasena vā vipassanāvasena vā arahattapariyosānamekaṃ kammaṭṭhānaṃ, ettakaṃ uggahetabbaṃ. Ettāvatā hi ayaṃ bahussuto hoti cātuddiso, yattha katthaci attano issariyena vasituṃ labhati. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ –

But one who is skilled and of five years’ standing since ordination may dwell without dependence. Therefore, for one seeking release from dependence (pāci. aṭṭha. 145-147), by the minimal requirement after five years since ordination, the two disciplinary summaries should be mastered and recited by heart; four recitation sections from the Suttanta for listening to the Dhamma on half-month days; one discourse path like Andhakavinda (a. ni. 5.114), Mahārāhulovāda (ma. ni. 2.113 ff.), or Ambaṭṭha (dī. ni. 1.254 ff.) for discussing with assemblies present; three blessings for giving thanks at Saṅgha meals and auspicious occasions; the determination of formal acts and non-formal acts for knowing the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā; and one meditation subject leading to arahantship through concentration or insight for fulfilling the duties of a recluse. This much should be learned. By this, he becomes well-learned and free in all directions, able to dwell anywhere by his own authority. As for what is said—

But one who is learned, five years after ordination, it is permissible to live without dependence. Therefore, for release from dependence (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 145-147), a monk five years after ordination, at the very least, should make the two Mātikās fluent and well-recited, four discourses from the Suttanta for listening to the Dhamma on the days of the half-month, one discourse like Andhakavinda (A. Ni. 5.114), Mahārāhulovāda (Ma. Ni. 2.113 and others), Ambaṭṭha (Dī. Ni. 1.254 and others) for explaining to the assembled congregations, three blessings for giving blessings at sangha meals and auspicious occasions, the determination of actions and non-actions for knowing the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, and one meditation subject ending in Arahantship, either through the method of serenity or insight, for practicing the monk’s duties; this much should be learned. For with this much, he becomes well-learned, belonging to the four directions, able to live anywhere by his own authority. But it is said:

But one who is competent and has five years since ordination may stay without dependence. Therefore, one who is freed from dependence (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 145-147) and has five years since ordination should, as a final measure, master two matrices by recitation, learn four recitations from the Suttas for listening to the Dhamma on Uposatha days, and for addressing assemblies, one discourse similar to Andhakavinda (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.114), Mahārāhulovāda (Majjhima Nikāya 2.113, etc.), Ambaṭṭha (Dīgha Nikāya 1.254, etc.), and for expressing appreciation at Saṅgha meals and auspicious occasions, three appreciations. For knowing the Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, etc., the analysis of what is and is not an offense, and for practicing the ascetic duties, one should master one meditation subject leading to Arahantship through concentration or insight. This much should be learned. For thus one becomes learned and versatile, able to stay anywhere by his own authority. As it is said:

“Pañcahi , bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Na asekkhena sīlakkhandhena samannāgato hoti, na asekkhena samādhikkhandhena… na asekkhena paññākkhandhena… na asekkhena vimuttikkhandhena… na asekkhena vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhena samannāgato hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ.

“Monks, a monk endowed with five qualities should not dwell without dependence. He is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of liberation of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not dwell without dependence.

“Monks, a monk endowed with five factors should not live without dependence. He is not endowed with the aggregate of moral discipline of one beyond training, not endowed with the aggregate of concentration… not endowed with the aggregate of wisdom… not endowed with the aggregate of liberation… not endowed with the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not live without dependence.

“Monks, a monk endowed with five factors should not stay without dependence. He is not endowed with the virtue of the trainee, the concentration of the trainee, the wisdom of the trainee, the liberation of the trainee, or the knowledge and vision of liberation of the trainee. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not stay without dependence.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Assaddho hoti, ahiriko hoti, anottappī hoti, kusīto hoti, muṭṭhassati hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not dwell without dependence. He is without faith, without shame, without fear of wrongdoing, lazy, and forgetful. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not dwell without dependence.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five factors should not live without dependence. He is faithless, shameless, without fear of wrongdoing, lazy, and forgetful. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not live without dependence.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five factors should not stay without dependence. He is faithless, shameless, fearless, lazy, and unmindful. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not stay without dependence.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Adhisīle sīlavipanno hoti, ajjhācāre ācāravipanno hoti, atidiṭṭhiyā diṭṭhivipanno hoti, appassuto hoti, duppañño hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not dwell without dependence. He is defective in virtue regarding higher discipline, defective in conduct regarding higher behavior, defective in view regarding extreme views, of little learning, and lacking wisdom. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not dwell without dependence.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five factors should not live without dependence. He is deficient in higher morality, deficient in higher conduct, deficient in right view, has little learning, and is unwise. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not live without dependence.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five factors should not stay without dependence. He is deficient in higher virtue, deficient in conduct, deficient in view, of little learning, and unwise. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not stay without dependence.

“Aparehipi , bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Āpattiṃ na jānāti, anāpattiṃ na jānāti, lahukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, garukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena na svāgatāni honti na suvibhattāni na suppavattīni na suvinicchitāni suttaso anubyañjanaso. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not dwell without dependence. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a grave offense, and both Pātimokkhas are not well-mastered by him in detail, not well-analyzed, not well-practiced, not well-determined by thread and letter. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not dwell without dependence.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five factors 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 the two Pātimokkhas are not well-received by him in detail, not well-divided, not well-established, not well-determined according to the text and the commentary. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not live without dependence.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five factors should not stay without dependence. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a grave offense, and both Pātimokkhas are not well learned, not well analyzed, not well practiced, and not well determined by rule and by detail. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not stay without dependence.

“Aparehipi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabbaṃ. Āpattiṃ na jānāti, anāpattiṃ na jānāti, lahukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, garukaṃ āpattiṃ na jānāti, ūnapañcavasso hoti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā na anissitena vatthabba”nti (mahāva. 103). Etthāpi purimanayeneva ayuttavasena āpattiaṅgavasena ca paṭikkhepo katoti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five other qualities should not dwell without dependence. He does not know an offense, does not know a non-offense, does not know a light offense, does not know a grave offense, and he is of less than five years’ standing. Indeed, monks, a monk endowed with these five qualities should not dwell without dependence” (mahāva. 103). Here too, the prohibition should be understood as made on the basis of unsuitability and factors of an offense, as in the previous method.

“Furthermore, monks, a monk endowed with five factors 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 he is less than five years ordained. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not live without dependence” (Mahāva. 103). Here too, it should be understood that the prohibition is made due to the unsuitability and due to the factors of offenses, as in the previous method.

“Monks, a monk endowed with another five factors should not stay without dependence. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a grave offense, and he has less than five years since ordination. Monks, a monk endowed with these five factors should not stay without dependence” (Mahāvagga 103). Herein, the rejection should be understood as before, by inappropriate conduct and by the factors of offenses.

Bālānaṃ pana abyattānaṃ disaṃgamikānaṃ antevāsikasaddhivihārikānaṃ anuññā na dātabbā. Sace denti, ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Te ce ananuññātā gacchanti, tesampi dukkaṭaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ –

Permission should not be given to unskilled novices or co-residents who are foolish and intend to travel to other regions. If it is given, it is an offense of wrongdoing for the teachers and preceptors. If they go without permission, it is an offense of wrongdoing for them too. It is said—

But permission should not be given to foolish, unlearned students and residents who are going to another region. If they give it, the teachers and preceptors commit an offense of wrong-doing. And if those monks go without permission, they also commit an offense of wrong-doing. It is said:

Permission should not be given to foolish, incompetent pupils or attendants who are travelers. If given, it is a wrongdoing for the teacher and preceptor. If they go without permission, it is also a wrongdoing for them. For it is said:

“Idha pana, bhikkhave, sambahulā bhikkhū bālā abyattā disaṃgamikā ācariyupajjhāye āpucchanti. Te, bhikkhave, ācariyupajjhāyehi pucchitabbā “kahaṃ gamissatha, kena saddhiṃ gamissathā”ti. Te ce, bhikkhave, bālā abyattā aññe bāle abyatte apadiseyyuṃ. Na, bhikkhave, ācariyupajjhāyehi anujānitabbā, anujāneyyuṃ ce, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Te ce, bhikkhave, bālā abyattā ananuññātā ācariyupajjhāyehi gaccheyyuṃ ce, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 163).

“Here, monks, several monks who are foolish and unskilled, intending to travel to other regions, ask their teachers and preceptors. Those teachers and preceptors should ask them, ‘Where will you go, and with whom will you go?’ If those foolish and unskilled monks point to other foolish and unskilled ones, they should not be permitted by the teachers and preceptors. If they permit them, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If those foolish and unskilled monks go without permission from their teachers and preceptors, it is an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 163).

“Here, monks, many monks who are foolish and unlearned, going to another region, ask permission from their teachers and preceptors. They, monks, should be asked by their teachers and preceptors, ‘Where will you go, with whom will you go?’ And if, monks, those foolish and unlearned monks indicate other foolish and unlearned monks, monks, they should not be permitted by their teachers and preceptors; if they permit them, they commit an offense of wrong-doing. And if, monks, those foolish and unlearned monks go without permission from their teachers and preceptors, they commit an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 163).

“Here, monks, several foolish, incompetent, traveling monks inform their teacher and preceptor. Monks, the teacher and preceptor should ask them, ‘Where will you go? With whom will you go?’ If, monks, those foolish, incompetent ones point out other foolish, incompetent ones, monks, the teacher and preceptor should not give permission. If they give permission, it is a wrongdoing. If, monks, those foolish, incompetent ones go without permission from the teacher and preceptor, it is a wrongdoing” (Mahāvagga 163).

24. Sīmāvinicchayakathā

24. Discussion on the Determination of Boundaries

24. Discourse on the Determination of Boundaries

24. Discussion on the Analysis of Boundaries

156. Sīmāti ettha (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) sīmā nāmesā baddhasīmā abaddhasīmāti duvidhā hoti. Tattha ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ bandhitvā sammatā sīmā baddhasīmā nāma. Atikhuddakā, atimahatī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā, nadiyā sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatāti imehi ekādasahi ākārehi sīmato kammāni vipajjantīti vacanato etā vipattisīmāyo nāma.

156. Here (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), a boundary is twofold: a bound boundary and an unbound boundary. Therein, a boundary that is agreed upon by marking one marker with another, endowed with the threefold accomplishment and transcending the eleven defective boundaries, is called a bound boundary. Due to the statement that formal acts fail due to a boundary in these eleven ways—too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, agreed upon while standing outside the boundary, agreed upon in a river, agreed upon in the sea, agreed upon in a natural lake, agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another, agreed upon by encroaching on another boundary—these are called defective boundaries.

156. Here, boundary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), this boundary is twofold: bounded boundary and unbounded boundary. Therein, having transgressed the eleven faulty boundaries, and having bound a boundary marker with a boundary marker, endowed with the threefold accomplishment, a boundary that is agreed upon is called a bounded boundary. Too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, 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 joining one boundary with another, agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another – because the actions of the boundary are faulty in these eleven ways, these are called faulty boundaries.

156. Boundary herein (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Nidānavannana) refers to two kinds of boundaries: the established boundary and the unestablished boundary. Among these, after avoiding the eleven faulty boundaries, a boundary marked by markers and agreed upon with threefold suitability is called an established boundary. The eleven faulty boundaries are: too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, established outside the boundary, established in a river, established in the ocean, established in a natural lake, established by overlapping boundaries, and established by encroaching on another boundary. These eleven are called faulty boundaries because they cause the invalidity of legal acts.

Tattha atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkonti. Atimahatī nāma yā kesaggamattenapi tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā sammatā. Khaṇḍanimittā nāma aghaṭitanimittā vuccati. Puratthimāya disāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkamena dakkhiṇāya disāya pacchimāya uttarāya disāya kittetvā puna puratthimāya disāya pubbakittitaṃ paṭikittetvā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, evaṃ akhaṇḍanimittā hoti. Sace pana anukkamena āharitvā uttarāya disāya nimittaṃ kittetvā tattheva ṭhapeti, khaṇḍanimittā hoti. Aparāpi khaṇḍanimittā nāma yā animittupagaṃ tacasārarukkhaṃ vā khāṇukaṃ vā paṃsupuñjaṃ vā vālukapuñjaṃ vā aññataraṃ antarā ekanimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Chāyānimittā nāma pabbatachāyādīnaṃ yaṃ kiñci chāyaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Animittā nāma sabbena sabbaṃ nimittāni akittetvā sammatā. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma nimittāni kittetvā nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhitena sammatā. Nadiyā, samudde, jātassare sammatā nāma etesu nadiādīsu sammatā. Sā hi evaṃ sammatāpi “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā, sabbo samuddo asīmo, sabbo jātassaro asīmo”ti (mahāva. 147) vacanato asammatāva hoti. Sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 148) nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā. Sace hi porāṇakassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya ambo ceva jambu cāti dve rukkhā aññamaññaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā honti, tesu ambassa pacchimadisābhāge jambu, vihārasīmā ca jambuṃ antokatvā ambaṃ kittetvā baddhā hoti. Atha pacchā tassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya vihāre kate sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū taṃ ambaṃ antokatvā jambuṃ kittetvā bandhanti , sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhinnā hoti. Tasmā sace paṭhamataraṃ katassa vihārassa sīmā asammatā hoti, sīmāya upacāro ṭhapetabbo. Sace sammatā hoti, pacchimakoṭiyā hatthamattā sīmantarikā ṭhapetabbā. Kurundiyaṃ “vidatthimattampi”, mahāpaccariyaṃ “caturaṅgulamattampi vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ekarukkhopi ca dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti. So pana vaḍḍhanto sīmasaṅkaraṃ karoti, tasmā na kātabbo. Sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā. Sace hi paresaṃ baddhasīmaṃ sakalaṃ vā tassā padesaṃ vā antokatvā attano sīmaṃ sammannanti, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharitā nāma hoti. Bhikkhunīnaṃ pana sīmaṃ ajjhottharitvā antopi bhikkhūnaṃ sīmaṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhunīnampi bhikkhūnaṃ sīmāya eseva nayo. Na hi te aññamaññassa kamme gaṇapūrakā honti, na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karonti. Iti imā ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā sīmā sammannitabbā.

Therein, too small refers to a boundary where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Too large refers to one agreed upon that exceeds three yojanas even by a hair’s breadth. With broken markers refers to one with unconnected markers. It is permissible to designate a marker in the eastern direction, then sequentially in the southern, western, and northern directions, and again in the eastern direction, re-designating the first marker to establish it; thus, it becomes unbroken. But if, after sequentially designating up to the northern direction, it is established there alone, it is with broken markers. Another type of with broken markers is one agreed upon by making a single marker in between, such as a bark-bearing tree, a stake, a heap of earth, or a heap of sand, which is subject to markers. With shadow markers refers to one agreed upon by making any shadow, such as that of a mountain, a marker. Without markers refers to one agreed upon without designating any markers at all. Agreed upon while standing outside the boundary refers to one agreed upon by someone standing outside the designated markers. Agreed upon in a river, sea, or natural lake refers to one agreed upon in these—a river, sea, or natural lake. Even if agreed upon thus, due to the statement, “Monks, every river is unbound, every sea is unbound, every natural lake is unbound” (mahāva. 147), it remains unagreed. Agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another (mahāva. aṭṭha. 148) refers to one agreed upon by overlapping another’s boundary with one’s own. For example, if in an ancient monastery to the east there are two trees—a mango and a rose-apple—whose branches intertwine, and the monastery’s boundary is bound by including the rose-apple within and designating the mango, then later, when a monastery is built to the east of that one and monks bind a boundary by including the mango and designating the rose-apple, one boundary overlaps another. Therefore, if the boundary of the earlier monastery is not agreed upon, a precinct should be established around it. If it is agreed upon, a boundary interval of a hand’s span should be left at its western edge. In the Kurundī, it is said, “Even a span is permissible,” and in the Mahāpaccariya, “Even four fingers’ breadth is permissible.” Even a single tree may serve as a marker for two boundaries, but as it grows, it causes boundary confusion, so it should not be used. Agreed upon by encroaching on another boundary refers to one agreed upon by encroaching on another’s boundary with one’s own. If one agrees upon a boundary by encompassing entirely or partially another’s bound boundary, it is called encroaching on another boundary. However, it is permissible for monks to agree upon a boundary by encroaching on nuns’ boundary and including it within, and the same applies for nuns with monks’ boundary. For they do not serve as quorum-fillers in each other’s formal acts, nor do they cause a recitation to be incomplete. Thus, transcending these eleven defective boundaries, a boundary should be agreed upon.

Herein, excessively small means where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Excessively large means what has been consented to exceeding three yojanas, even by a hair’s breadth. Broken boundary markers refers to unconjoined boundary markers. Having declared the marker in the eastern direction, then successively in the southern, western, and northern directions, one should again declare the previously declared marker in the eastern direction; thus, it becomes an unbroken boundary marker. If, however, having brought them in succession, one declares the marker in the northern direction and leaves it there, it becomes a broken boundary marker. Another broken boundary marker is one that has been consented to by making a single intermediate marker of a tree with bark but no core, or a stump, or a heap of dust, or a heap of sand, or something else that does not extend to the marker. Shadow boundary markers means what is consented to making the shadow of a mountain, or some other shadow, a boundary marker. Without boundary markers means what is consented to without declaring any markers at all. Consented to while standing outside the boundary means consented to by one standing outside the boundary markers after having declared the markers. Consented to in a river, in the sea, in a natural lake means consented to in these rivers and so on. Even if consented to in this way, it is indeed not consented to, because of the statement, “All rivers, monks, are without boundaries; all seas are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147). Consented to by joining one boundary with another (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 148) means consented to by joining one’s own boundary with the boundary of others. If, in the eastern direction of an old monastery, two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, have their branches intertwined, and the rose-apple is in the western part of the mango, and the monastery boundary has been established by declaring the mango, including the rose-apple, then later, when a monastery is made in the eastern direction of that monastery, the monks establishing the boundary include that mango and declare the rose-apple, the boundaries are joined. Therefore, if the boundary of the monastery made earlier is not consented to, the boundary’s vicinity should be maintained. If it is consented to, a hand-span boundary interval should be left at the westernmost end. In the Kurundi, it is said, “Even a span is sufficient,” and in the Mahāpaccari, “Even four finger-breadths are sufficient.” And a single tree can be a marker for two boundaries. But as it grows, it causes a confusion of boundaries; therefore, it should not be done. Consented to by overlapping one boundary with another means consented to by overlapping one’s own boundary with the boundary of others. If they consent to their own boundary including all or part of the boundary established by others, it is called overlapping one boundary with another. But it is permissible to consent to a boundary for nuns even overlapping inside the boundary of monks. The same principle applies to the boundary of monks for nuns. For they are not completers of the quorum for each other’s acts, nor do they make the formal act incomplete. Thus, these eleven defective boundaries should be avoided, and the boundary should be consented to.

Here, atikhuddakā refers to a place where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Atimahatī refers to a boundary that is established even if it extends beyond three yojanas. Khaṇḍanimittā refers to an unconnected boundary marker. If a boundary marker is declared in the eastern direction and then successively in the southern, western, and northern directions, and then again in the eastern direction, repeating the previously declared marker, it is considered an unbroken boundary. However, if after declaring the marker in the northern direction, it is left there, it becomes a broken boundary. Another type of khaṇḍanimittā refers to a boundary established by making a single marker out of a tree with bark, a stump, a pile of earth, or a pile of sand, etc., in between. Chāyānimittā refers to a boundary established by using the shadow of a mountain or similar as a marker. Animittā refers to a boundary established without declaring any markers at all. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā refers to a boundary established by declaring markers and then standing outside those markers. Nadiyā, samudde, jātassare sammatā refers to boundaries established in rivers, oceans, or natural lakes. Even if such boundaries are established, they are considered invalid according to the statement, “All rivers, bhikkhus, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147). Sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 148) refers to a boundary established by overlapping one’s own boundary with another’s boundary. For example, if in an ancient monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, intertwined in the eastern direction, and the rose-apple is in the western part of the mango, and the monastery boundary includes the rose-apple while declaring the mango as the marker, then if later, when establishing a boundary for a new monastery in the eastern direction, the monks include the mango and declare the rose-apple as the marker, the boundaries overlap. Therefore, if the boundary of the earlier monastery is invalid, the boundary should be adjusted. If it is valid, a space of a hand’s breadth should be left at the edge. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “Even a vidatthi measure is valid,” and in the Mahāpaccariya, “Even a measure of four aṅgulas is valid.” A single tree can also serve as a marker for two boundaries. However, if the tree grows and causes confusion, it should not be used. Sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā refers to a boundary established by encompassing another’s boundary within one’s own. For example, if one establishes a boundary by encompassing the entire or part of another’s boundary, it is called an overlapping boundary. Even if bhikkhunīs’ boundaries overlap, bhikkhus can establish their boundaries within them. The same applies to bhikkhunīs’ boundaries within bhikkhus’ boundaries. They do not participate in each other’s formal acts or disrupt the formal proceedings. Thus, after avoiding these eleven faulty boundaries, a proper boundary should be established.

157. Tividhasampattiyuttā nāma nimittasampattiyā parisasampattiyā kammavācāsampattiyā ca yuttā. Tattha nimittasampattiyā yuttā nāma pabbatanimittaṃ pāsāṇanimittaṃ vananimittaṃ rukkhanimittaṃ magganimittaṃ vammikanimittaṃ nadīnimittaṃ udakanimittanti evaṃ vuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu tasmiṃ tasmiṃ disābhāge yathāladdhāni nimittupagāni nimittāni “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ. Pabbato, bhante. Eso pabbato nimitta”ntiādinā nayena sammā kittetvā sammatā.

157. Endowed with the threefold accomplishment refers to being endowed with the accomplishment of markers, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the formal recitation. Therein, endowed with the accomplishment of markers refers to a boundary agreed upon by properly designating markers available in each direction—mountain marker, rock marker, forest marker, tree marker, path marker, anthill marker, river marker, water marker—as stated among these eight markers, with the method: “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker,” and so forth.

157. Endowed with the three perfections means endowed with the perfection of boundary markers, the perfection of the assembly, and the perfection of the formal act. Herein, endowed with the perfection of boundary markers means having properly declared suitable markers among the eight markers mentioned, such as mountain marker, rock marker, forest marker, tree marker, path marker, anthill marker, river marker, and water marker, in each direction, saying, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker,” and so on, and then consenting.

157. Tividhasampattiyuttā refers to a boundary that is complete in three ways: with proper markers, proper assembly, and proper proclamation. Here, nimittasampattiyā yuttā refers to a boundary where markers such as a mountain, rock, forest, tree, road, anthill, river, or water are properly declared in each direction as they are found. For example, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, Venerable Sir. That mountain is the marker,” and so on.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) – vinayadharena pucchitabbaṃ “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti? “Pabbato, bhante”ti. Idaṃ pana upasampanno vā ācikkhatu anupasampanno vā, vaṭṭatiyeva. Puna vinayadharena “eso pabbato nimitta”nti evaṃ nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ, “etaṃ pabbataṃ nimittaṃ karoma, karissāma, nimittaṃ kato, nimittaṃ hotu, hoti, bhavissatī”ti evaṃ pana kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Pāsāṇādīsupi eseva nayo. Puratthimāya disāya, puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāya, dakkhiṇāya anudisāya, pacchimāya disāya, pacchimāya anudisāya, uttarāya disāya, uttarāya anudisāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Udakaṃ, bhante. Etaṃ udakaṃ nimittanti kittetabbaṃ. Ettha pana aṭṭhapetvā puna “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Pabbato, bhante. Eso pabbato nimitta”nti evaṃ paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittaṃ kittetvāva ṭhapetabbaṃ. Evañhi nimittena nimittaṃ ghaṭitaṃ hoti, nimittāni sakiṃ kittitānipi kittitāneva honti. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “tikkhattuṃ sīmamaṇḍalaṃ bandhantena nimittaṃ kittetabba”nti vuttaṃ.

Here is the determination (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138): A Vinaya expert should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” “A mountain, venerable sir.” This may be declared by either an ordained or unordained person; it is permissible either way. Then the Vinaya expert should designate the marker, saying, “This mountain is the marker.” However, it is not permissible to designate it as, “We make this mountain a marker, we will make it a marker, the marker is made, let it be a marker, it is, it will be.” The same applies to rocks and so forth. “What is the marker in the eastern direction, the eastern sub-direction, the southern direction, the southern sub-direction, the western direction, the western sub-direction, the northern direction, the northern sub-direction? Water, venerable sir. This water is the marker,” should be designated. Here, after designating all eight and then again, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker,” the first designated marker should be re-designated and established. Thus, one marker is connected with another, and even if designated once, they remain designated. However, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “The markers should be designated three times while binding the boundary circle.”

Herein is the determination (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) – the Vinaya-master should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” “A mountain, venerable sir.” This may be stated by an ordained or an unordained person; it is permissible. Then the Vinaya-master should declare the marker thus: “This mountain is the marker.” But one should not declare it thus: “We make this mountain the marker, we will make, the marker has been made, let it be the marker, it is, it will be.” The same principle applies to rocks and so on. What is the marker in the eastern direction, in the southeastern direction, in the southern direction, in the southwestern direction, in the western direction, in the northwestern direction, in the northern direction, in the northeastern direction? Water, venerable sir. This water should be declared as the marker. Here, however, after declaring the eight, one should again declare the first-declared marker, saying, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker.” Thus, the marker is joined with the marker, and the markers, even if declared once, are indeed declared. But in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “The marker should be declared by one establishing the boundary circle three times.”

Here is the decision (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): The Vinaya expert should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” “A mountain, Venerable Sir.” This can be stated by either an ordained or unordained person. Then the Vinaya expert should declare, “That mountain is the marker.” However, it is not proper to declare, “We make this mountain the marker, we will make it the marker, the marker is made, the marker will be, is, or will become.” The same applies to rocks, etc. In the eastern, eastern intermediate, southern, southern intermediate, western, western intermediate, northern, and northern intermediate directions, the question should be asked, “What is the marker?” “Water, Venerable Sir.” “That water is the marker,” should be declared. However, after declaring, if one repeats, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, Venerable Sir. That mountain is the marker,” the first declared marker should be left as it is. Thus, the markers are connected, and once declared, they remain declared. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “When establishing a boundary circle three times, the marker should be declared.”

158. Idāni nimittupagāni pabbatādīni veditabbāni – tividho pabbato suddhapaṃsupabbato suddhapāsāṇapabbato ubhayamissakoti. So tividhopi vaṭṭati, vālikarāsi pana na vaṭṭati. Itaropi hatthippamāṇato omakataro na vaṭṭati, hatthippamāṇato paṭṭhāya sineruppamāṇopi vaṭṭati. Sace catūsu disāsu cattāro tīsu vā tayo pabbatā honti , catūhi vā tīhi vā pabbatanimittehi sammannitumpi vaṭṭati, dvīhi pana nimittehi ekena vā sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati. Ito paresu pāsāṇanimittādīsupi eseva nayo. Tasmā pabbatanimittaṃ karontena pucchitabbaṃ “ekābaddho, na ekābaddho”ti. Sace ekābaddho hoti, na kātabbo. Tañhi catūsu vā aṭṭhasu vā disāsu kittentenapi ekameva nimittaṃ kittitaṃ hoti, tasmā yo evaṃ cakkasaṇṭhānena vihārampi parikkhipitvā ṭhito pabbato, taṃ ekadisāya kittetvā aññāsu disāsu taṃ bahiddhā katvā anto aññāni nimittāni kittetabbāni. Sace pabbatassa tatiyabhāgaṃ vā upaḍḍhaṃ vā antosīmāya kattukāmā honti, pabbataṃ akittetvā yattakaṃ padesaṃ anto kattukāmā, tassa parato tasmiṃyeva pabbate jātarukkhavammikādīsu aññataraṃ nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ. Sace ekayojanadviyojanappamāṇaṃ sabbaṃ pabbataṃ anto kattukāmā honti, pabbatassa parato bhūmiyaṃ jātarukkhavammikādīni nimittāni kittetabbāni.

158. Now, the markers subject to designation—mountains and so forth—should be understood. A mountain is threefold: a pure earth mountain, a pure rock mountain, and a mixed one. All three are permissible; a pile of sand, however, is not. Another type smaller than an elephant’s size is not permissible; from an elephant’s size up to the size of Mount Sineru, it is permissible. If there are four mountains in four directions or three in three directions, it is permissible to agree upon it with four or three mountain markers, but not with two or one. The same applies to rock markers and the rest that follow. Therefore, when making a mountain marker, it should be asked, “Is it connected or not connected?” If it is connected, it should not be used. For even if designated in four or eight directions, it is considered a single marker designated. Thus, a mountain that surrounds a monastery in a circular form should be designated in one direction, and in other directions, other markers should be designated within, excluding it. If they wish to include a third or half of the mountain within the boundary, instead of designating the mountain, another marker—such as a tree or anthill growing on that mountain—should be designated beyond the area they wish to include. If they wish to include an entire mountain of one or two yojanas within, markers such as trees or anthills growing on the ground beyond the mountain should be designated.

158. Now, the mountains and other suitable markers should be known – the mountain is threefold: pure earth mountain, pure rock mountain, and a mixture of both. All three are permissible, but a heap of sand is not permissible. Any other that is smaller than the size of an elephant is not permissible; from the size of an elephant up to the size of Mount Sineru is permissible. If there are four mountains in the four directions, or three in three directions, it is permissible to consent with four or three mountain markers, but it is not permissible to consent with two markers or one. The same principle applies to rock markers and so on. Therefore, one making a mountain marker should ask, “Is it connected, or is it not connected?” If it is connected, it should not be made. For even if declared in four or eight directions, only one marker is declared. Therefore, a mountain that stands encircling the monastery in a circular shape should be declared in one direction, and in other directions, it should be excluded, and other markers inside should be declared. If they wish to make a third part or half of the mountain inside the boundary, without declaring the mountain, they should declare another marker among the trees, anthills, etc., that have grown on that mountain beyond the area they wish to include. If they wish to include the entire mountain, measuring one or two yojanas, they should declare trees, anthills, etc., that have grown on the ground beyond the mountain as markers.

158. Now, the types of markers such as mountains should be understood. There are three types of pabbato: pure earth mountain, pure rock mountain, and a mixture of both. All three are valid, but a pile of sand is not valid. Anything smaller than an elephant’s size is not valid, but from the size of an elephant up to the size of Mount Sineru is valid. If there are four mountains in the four directions or three in three directions, it is valid to establish a boundary with four or three mountain markers, but not with two or one. The same applies to rock markers, etc. Therefore, when establishing a mountain marker, one should ask, “Is it connected or not?” If it is connected, it should not be used. For if one declares a marker in four or eight directions, only one marker is declared. Thus, a mountain that surrounds the monastery like a circle should be declared in one direction, and other markers should be declared inside it. If one wishes to include a third or half of the mountain within the boundary, without declaring the mountain, another marker such as a tree or anthill on the mountain should be declared. If one wishes to include the entire mountain, which is one or two yojanas in size, markers such as trees or anthills on the ground beyond the mountain should be declared.

Pāsāṇanimitte ayaguḷopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchati, tasmā yo koci pāsāṇo vaṭṭati. Pamāṇato pana hatthippamāṇo pabbatasaṅkhyaṃ gato, tasmā so na vaṭṭati, mahāgoṇamahāmahiṃsappamāṇo pana vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhimaparicchedena dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇo vaṭṭati, tato khuddakataro iṭṭhakā vā mahantīpi na vaṭṭati, animittupagapāsāṇānaṃ rāsipi na vaṭṭati, pageva paṃsuvālukarāsi. Bhūmisamo khalamaṇḍalasadiso piṭṭhipāsāṇo vā bhūmito khāṇuko viya uṭṭhitapāsāṇo vā hoti, sopi pamāṇupago ce, vaṭṭati. Piṭṭhipāsāṇo atimahantopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchati, tasmā sace mahato piṭṭhipāsāṇassa ekappadesaṃ antosīmāya kattukāmā honti, taṃ akittetvā tassupari añño pāsāṇo kittetabbo. Sace piṭṭhipāsāṇupari vihāraṃ karonti, vihāramajjhena vā piṭṭhipāsāṇo vinivijjhitvā gacchati, evarūpo piṭṭhipāsāṇo na vaṭṭati. Sace hi taṃ kittenti, nimittassa upari vihāro hoti, nimittañca nāma bahisīmāya hoti, vihāropi bahisīmāyaṃ āpajjati. Vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā ṭhitapiṭṭhipāsāṇo ekattha kittetvā aññattha na kittetabbo.

In a rock marker, even an iron ball counts as a rock. Thus, any rock is permissible. In terms of size, one the size of an elephant is considered a mountain, so it is not permissible; but one the size of a large ox or buffalo is permissible. The minimal limit is a lump weighing thirty-two palas; smaller than that, even a large brick, is not permissible, nor is a pile of rocks subject to markers, let alone a pile of earth or sand. A flat rock level with the ground like a threshing floor or a rock protruding like a stake from the ground, if it meets the size requirement, is permissible. A flat rock, even if very large, still counts as a rock. Thus, if they wish to include a portion of a large flat rock within the boundary, instead of designating it, another rock on it should be designated. If they build a monastery on a flat rock and the flat rock runs through the middle of the monastery, such a flat rock is not permissible. For if they designate it, the monastery would be above the marker, and since a marker is outside the boundary, the monastery would fall outside the boundary. A flat rock surrounding a monastery should be designated in one place and not elsewhere.

In rock markers, even an iron ball comes under the category of rock; therefore, any rock is permissible. But in size, one the size of an elephant is considered a mountain; therefore, it is not permissible. One the size of a large bull or a large buffalo is permissible. As a minimum, one the size of a lump of thirty-two palas is permissible; anything smaller, even large bricks, is not permissible. A heap of rocks that do not extend to the marker is not permissible, let alone a heap of dust or sand. A flat rock level with the ground, resembling a threshing floor, or a rock that has risen from the ground like a stump, is also permissible if it is of sufficient size. A flat rock, even if very large, comes under the category of rock. Therefore, if they wish to include a part of a large flat rock inside the boundary, without declaring it, they should declare another rock on top of it. If they build a monastery on top of a flat rock, or if the flat rock passes through the middle of the monastery, such a flat rock is not permissible. For if they declare it, the monastery would be on top of the marker, and the marker is outside the boundary, so the monastery would also fall outside the boundary. A flat rock that stands encircling the monastery should be declared in one place and not declared in another.

In pāsāṇanimitte, even an iron ball is considered a rock, so any rock is valid. However, a rock the size of an elephant is considered a mountain and is not valid, but a rock the size of a large ox or buffalo is valid. A rock the size of a thirty-two pala iron ball is valid, but smaller bricks or larger rocks are not valid. A pile of rocks without a specific marker is not valid, let alone a pile of earth or sand. A flat rock level with the ground or a rock protruding like a stump is valid if it meets the size requirement. A flat rock, even if very large, is still considered a rock. Therefore, if one wishes to include part of a large flat rock within the boundary, without declaring the rock, another rock on top of it should be declared. If a monastery is built on a flat rock, or if a flat rock passes through the middle of the monastery, such a rock is not valid. If declared, the monastery would be above the marker, and the marker would be outside the boundary, placing the monastery outside the boundary. A flat rock surrounding the monastery should be declared in one place and not elsewhere.

Vananimitte tiṇavanaṃ vā tacasāratālanāḷikerādirukkhavanaṃ vā na vaṭṭati, antosārānaṃ pana sākasālādīnaṃ antosāramissakānaṃ vā rukkhānaṃ vanaṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho heṭṭhimaparicchedena catupañcarukkhamattampi, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati, paraṃ yojanasatikampi vaṭṭati. Sace pana vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karonti, vanaṃ na kittetabbaṃ. Ekadesaṃ antosīmāya kātukāmehipi vanaṃ akittetvā tattha rukkhapāsāṇādayo kittetabbā. Vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā ṭhitavanaṃ ekattha kittetvā aññattha na kittetabbaṃ.

In a forest marker, a grass forest or a forest of bark-bearing trees like palms or coconuts is not permissible. However, a forest of trees with heartwood, such as sāka or sāl, or mixed with heartwood, is permissible, with a minimal limit of four or five trees; less than that is not permissible, but up to a yojana or more is permissible. If they build a monastery in the middle of a forest, the forest should not be designated. Even if they wish to include a portion within the boundary, instead of designating the forest, trees or rocks within it should be designated. A forest surrounding a monastery should be designated in one place and not elsewhere.

In forest markers, a grass forest or a forest of trees with bark but no core, such as palmyra and coconut trees, is not permissible. But a forest of trees with core, such as teak and sal trees, or of trees mixed with core trees, is permissible, even as little as four or five trees as a minimum; less than that is not permissible, but more than that, even a hundred yojanas, is permissible. If, however, they build a monastery in the middle of the forest, the forest should not be declared. Even if they wish to make a part inside the boundary, without declaring the forest, they should declare trees, rocks, etc., there. A forest that stands encircling the monastery should be declared in one place and not declared in another.

In vananimitte, a grass forest or a forest of trees with bark, such as palm or coconut trees, is not valid. However, a forest of trees with heartwood, such as teak or sal trees, or a mixture of heartwood and other trees, is valid, provided it has at least four or five trees. Less than that is not valid, but even a forest extending over a hundred yojanas is valid. If a monastery is built in the middle of a forest, the forest should not be declared as a marker. If one wishes to include part of the forest within the boundary, without declaring the forest, trees or rocks there should be declared. A forest surrounding the monastery should be declared in one place and not elsewhere.

Rukkhanimitte tacasāro tālanāḷikerādirukkho na vaṭṭati, antosāro jīvamānako antamaso ubbedhato aṭṭhaṅgulo pariṇāhato sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇopi vaṭṭati. Tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati, paraṃ dvādasayojano suppatiṭṭhitanigrodhopi vaṭṭati. Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsu bījaṃ ropetvā vaḍḍhāpito pamāṇupagopi na vaṭṭati, tato apanetvā pana taṃ khaṇampi bhūmiyaṃ ropetvā koṭṭhakaṃ katvā udakaṃ āsiñcitvā kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Navamūlasākhāniggamanaṃ akāraṇaṃ, khandhaṃ chinditvā ropite pana etaṃ yujjati. Kittentena ca “rukkho”tipi vattuṃ vaṭṭati “sākarukkho”tipi “sālarukkho”tipi. Ekābaddhaṃ pana suppatiṭṭhitanigrodhasadisaṃ ekattha kittetvā aññattha kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

In a tree marker, a bark-bearing tree like a palm or coconut is not permissible. A tree with heartwood, even if only eight fingers in height and the girth of a needle’s handle, is permissible. Less than that is not permissible, but a well-established banyan tree twelve yojanas high is permissible. A bamboo, reed, or shrub planted from a seed, even if it meets the size requirement, is not permissible; but if removed and planted in the ground even for a moment, watered, and enclosed, it may be designated. New roots or branches emerging are not a reason against it; this applies even if the trunk is cut and replanted. When designating, it is permissible to say “tree,” “sāka tree,” or “sāl tree.” However, a well-established banyan-like tree connected in one place should not be designated elsewhere.

In tree markers, a tree with bark but no core, such as a palmyra or coconut tree, is not permissible. A living tree with core, even if only eight finger-breadths in height and the size of a needle’s shaft in circumference, is permissible. Less than that is not permissible, but more than that, even a well-established banyan tree twelve yojanas high, is permissible. Among bamboo, reeds, kasara, etc., even if planted and grown from seed and of sufficient size, it is not permissible. But having removed it from there and planted it in the ground even for a moment, making a pot and pouring water, it is permissible to declare it. The emergence of new roots and branches is not a reason; but if the trunk is cut and planted, this is appropriate. And when declaring, it is permissible to say “tree,” or “teak tree,” or “sal tree.” But a connected one, like a well-established banyan tree, should be declared in one place and not declared in another.

In rukkhanimitte, a tree with bark, such as a palm or coconut tree, is not valid. A tree with heartwood, even if only eight aṅgulas in circumference and the size of a needle stick, is valid. Less than that is not valid, but even a well-rooted banyan tree extending over twelve yojanas is valid. Bamboo, reeds, or similar plants grown from seeds are not valid, but if they are removed and planted in the ground, watered, and fenced, they can be declared as markers. Cutting the trunk and replanting is acceptable. When declaring, one can say, “a tree,” “a teak tree,” or “a sal tree.” A single well-rooted banyan tree should be declared in one place and not elsewhere.

Magganimitte araññakhettanadītaḷākamaggādayo na vaṭṭanti, jaṅghamaggo vā sakaṭamaggo vā vaṭṭati. Yo nibbijjhitvā dve tīṇi gāmantarāni gacchati, yo pana jaṅghamaggasakaṭamaggato okkamitvā puna sakaṭamaggameva otarati, ye vā jaṅghamaggasakaṭamaggā avaḷañjā, te na vaṭṭanti, jaṅghasatthasakaṭasatthehi vaḷañjiyamānāyeva vaṭṭanti. Sace dve maggā nikkhamitvā pacchā sakaṭadhuramiva ekībhavanti, dvedhā bhinnaṭṭhāne vā sambandhaṭṭhāne vā sakiṃ kittetvā puna na kittetabbā. Ekābaddhanimittañhetaṃ hoti. Sace vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā cattāro maggā catūsu disāsu gacchanti, majjhe ekaṃ kittetvā aparaṃ kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Ekābaddhanimittañhetaṃ. Koṇaṃ nibbijjhitvā gataṃ pana parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Vihāramajjhena nibbijjhitvā gatamaggo pana na kittetabbo, kittite nimittassa upari vihāro hoti. Sace sakaṭamaggassa antimacakkamaggaṃ nimittaṃ karonti, maggo bahisīmāya hoti, sace bāhiracakkamaggaṃ nimittaṃ karonti, bāhiracakkamaggo bahisīmāya hoti , sesaṃ antosīmaṃ bhajati. Maggaṃ kittentena “maggo pantho patho pajjo”tiādīsu dasasu yena kenaci nāmena ca kittetuṃ vaṭṭati, parikhāsaṇṭhānena vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā gatamaggo ekattha kittetvā aññattha kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

In a path marker, paths through wilderness, fields, rivers, or lakes are not permissible; a footpath or cart path is permissible. One that pierces through two or three villages is permissible, but one that diverges from a footpath or cart path and returns to a cart path, or irregular footpaths or cart paths, are not permissible; only those regularly used by foot travelers or cart caravans are permissible. If two paths diverge and later converge like a cart’s yoke, they should be designated once at the divergence or convergence and not again. This is a connected marker. If four paths surround a monastery in four directions, designating one in the middle and another is not permissible; this is a connected marker. However, a path diverging at an angle may be designated at its far end. A path piercing through the middle of a monastery should not be designated; if designated, the monastery would be above the marker. If they make the last wheel track of a cart path the marker, the path is outside the boundary; if they make the outer wheel track the marker, the outer track is outside, and the rest falls within the boundary. When designating a path, it may be called by any of the ten terms like “path,” “track,” “road,” or “way.” A path encircling a monastery like a moat should be designated in one place and not elsewhere.

In path markers, forest paths, field paths, river paths, and pond paths are not permissible; a footpath or a cart path is permissible. One that goes through two or three villages, or one that deviates from a footpath or cart path and then returns to the cart path, or footpaths and cart paths that are not frequented, are not permissible. Only those frequented by foot travelers, cart travelers, and carts are permissible. If two paths emerge and then become one like the yoke of a cart, they should be declared once at the place where they diverge or at the place where they join, and not again. This is a connected marker. If four paths encircle the monastery and go in four directions, having declared one in the middle, it is not permissible to declare another. This is a connected marker. But one that has passed through a corner can be declared in another part. A path that passes through the middle of the monastery should not be declared; if declared, the monastery would be on top of the marker. If they make the last wheel track of a cart path the marker, the path is outside the boundary; if they make the outer wheel track the marker, the outer wheel track is outside the boundary, and the rest is included within the boundary. When declaring a path, it is permissible to declare it by any of the ten names, such as “magga, pantha, patha, pajja,” etc. A path that encircles the monastery like a moat should be declared in one place and not declared in another.

In magganimitte, paths through forests, fields, rivers, or lakes are not valid. A footpath or cart path is valid. A path that diverges and goes through two or three villages, or a path that leaves a footpath or cart path and returns to the cart path, or paths that are not straight, are not valid. Only paths that are straight and used by foot travelers or carts are valid. If two paths merge into one like a cart yoke, or if they split or join at a certain point, they should be declared once and not again. This is a single connected marker. If four paths go in four directions around a monastery, only one should be declared, and not another. This is a single connected marker. A path that diverges at a corner can be declared in another section. A path that passes through the middle of a monastery should not be declared, as the monastery would be above the marker. If the last wheel track of a cart path is declared as a marker, the path is outside the boundary. If the outer wheel track is declared, the outer track is outside the boundary, and the rest is within the boundary. When declaring a path, it can be called “path,” “road,” “way,” etc. A path that surrounds the monastery like a moat should be declared in one place and not elsewhere.

Vammikanimitte heṭṭhimaparicchedena taṃ divasaṃ jāto aṭṭhaṅgulubbedho govisāṇappamāṇopi vammiko vaṭṭati, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati. Paraṃ himavantapabbatasadisopi vaṭṭati, vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā ṭhitaṃ pana ekābaddhaṃ ekattha kittetvā aññattha kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

In an anthill marker, the minimal limit is an anthill born that day, eight fingers high and the size of a cow’s horn; less than that is not permissible, but one like the Himavanta mountain is permissible. One surrounding a monastery, being connected, should be designated in one place and not elsewhere.

In anthill markers, as a minimum, an anthill that has arisen that day, eight finger-breadths high, and the size of a bull’s horn is permissible; less than that is not permissible. More than that, even one like the Himalayan mountain, is permissible. But a connected one that stands encircling the monastery should be declared in one place and not declared in another.

In vammikanimitte, an anthill born that day, even if only eight aṅgulas high and the size of a cow’s horn, is valid. Less than that is not valid, but even an anthill as large as Mount Himavanta is valid. An anthill surrounding the monastery should be declared in one place and not elsewhere.

Nadīnimitte yassā dhammikānaṃ rājūnaṃ kāle anvaḍḍhamāsaṃ anudasāhaṃ anupañcāhanti evaṃ deve vassante valāhakesu vigatamattesu sotaṃ pacchijjati, ayaṃ nadīsaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Yassā pana īdise suvuṭṭhikāle vassānassa cātumāse sotaṃ na pacchijjati, yattha titthena vā atitthena vā sikkhākaraṇīye āgatalakkhaṇena timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā antaravāsakaṃ anukkhipitvā uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā ekaṅguladvaṅgulamattampi antaravāsako temiyati, ayaṃ nadī sīmaṃ bandhantānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti. Bhikkhuniyā nadīpāragamanepi uposathādisaṅghakammakaraṇepi nadīpārasīmāsammannanepi ayameva nadī. Yā pana maggo viya sakaṭadhurasaṇṭhānena vā parikhāsaṇṭhānena vā vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā gatā, taṃ ekattha kittetvā aññattha kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Vihārassa catūsu disāsu aññamaññaṃ vinibbijjhitvā gate nadīcatukkepi eseva nayo. Asammissā nadiyo pana catassopi kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace vatiṃ karonto viya rukkhapāde nikhaṇitvā vallipalālādīhi nadīsotaṃ rundhanti, udakaṃ ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyeva, nimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yathā pana udakaṃ na pavattati, evaṃ setumhi kate apavattamānā nadīnimittaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittaṃ, appavattanaṭṭhāne udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yā pana dubbuṭṭhikāle vā gimhe vā nirudakabhāvena na pavattati, sā vaṭṭati. Mahānadito udakamātikaṃ nīharanti, sā kunnadīsadisā hutvā tīṇi sassāni sampādentī niccaṃ pavattati, kiñcāpi pavattati, nimittaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yā pana mūle mahānadito nīhatāpi kālantarena teneva nīhatamaggena nadiṃ bhinditvā sayaṃ gacchati, gacchantī parato susumārādisamākiṇṇā nāvādīhi sañcaritabbā nadī hoti, taṃ nimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

In a river marker, a river whose flow ceases every half-month, ten days, or five days in the time of righteous kings when rain falls and clouds dissipate is not considered a river. But one whose flow does not cease during the four months of the rainy season in such good rainfall, where a nun crossing at a ford or non-ford with the characteristics of training, covering the three circles without lifting her inner robe, gets even one or two fingers’ breadth of her inner robe wet, is a river and serves as a marker for those binding a boundary. This same river applies to a nun crossing to the other side, performing Sangha acts like Uposatha, or agreeing upon a boundary on the other side. One that encircles a monastery like a cart’s yoke or moat should be designated in one place and not elsewhere. If four rivers flow in four directions around a monastery without mixing, all four may be designated. If someone blocks the river’s flow with stakes and creepers or straw like making a fence, and the water overflows but the barrier persists, it may be used as a marker. But if a dam is built so the water does not flow, it cannot be a river marker; a river marker may be used where it flows, and a water marker where it does not. One that does not flow in drought or summer due to lack of water is permissible. A channel drawn from a great river, like a small river, irrigating three crops and flowing constantly, though it flows, cannot be a marker. But one drawn from a great river that later breaks through its original channel and flows on its own, becoming a river infested with crocodiles and navigable by boats, may be used as a marker.

In river markers, one whose flow ceases when the clouds are dispersed during the rainy season, such as in the half-month, ten-day, or five-day periods during the time of righteous kings, is not considered a river. But one whose flow does not cease during the four months of the rainy season in such a time of good rainfall, where the undergarment of a nun crossing by a ford or a non-ford, with the characteristic of having come for training, covering the three circles and not pulling up the undergarment, gets wet even by one or two finger-breadths, this is a river that is a marker for those establishing the boundary. This is also the river for a nun’s crossing of the river, for performing monastic acts such as the uposatha, and for consenting to a boundary beyond the river. One that, like a path, encircles the monastery in the shape of a cart yoke or a moat, should be declared in one place and not declared in another. The same principle applies to a set of four rivers that pass through the four directions of the monastery without joining. But unconnected rivers can be declared, even four. If, as if making a fence, they block the river flow with roots, creepers, etc., placed at the base of trees, and the water flows over the obstruction, it is permissible to make it a marker. But if a dam is made so that the water does not flow, it is not permissible to make the non-flowing part a river marker; it is permissible to make the flowing part a river marker and the non-flowing part a water marker. But one that does not flow due to lack of rain or in the summer is permissible. They draw water from a large river into a channel; it becomes like a small river and, constantly flowing, produces three crops. Even though it flows, it is not permissible to make it a marker. But one that, though drawn from a large river at the source, later breaks through the river by the same path it was drawn and flows independently, flowing onward, infested with crocodiles and other creatures, navigable by boats and other vessels, becomes a river; it is permissible to make it a marker.

In nadīnimitte, a river that dries up during the fortnightly, ten-day, or five-day periods when righteous kings rule, even if it rains heavily during the rainy season, is not considered a river. However, a river that does not dry up during the rainy season, where a bhikkhunī crossing it wets her lower robe by one or two aṅgulas, is considered a river for establishing a boundary. Even if a bhikkhunī crosses the river, for performing Uposatha or other Saṅgha acts, or for establishing a boundary on the other side, this is the river. A path that surrounds the monastery like a cart yoke or a moat should be declared in one place and not elsewhere. The same applies to rivers that diverge in the four directions around a monastery. Separate rivers can be declared in all four directions. If one digs a hole at the base of a tree and blocks the river flow with branches or leaves, covering it with water, it is valid to declare it as a marker. However, if a bridge is built and the water does not flow, it is not valid to declare it as a river marker. A river marker should be declared where the water flows, and a water marker where it does not flow. A river that does not flow during drought or summer is valid. Water drawn from a great river, even if it flows like a small river for three crops, is not valid as a marker. A river that, though originating from a great river, later cuts through the river and flows on its own, navigable by boats, can be declared as a marker.

Udakanimitte nirudakaṭṭhāne nāvāya vā cāṭiādīsu vā udakaṃ pūretvā udakanimittaṃ kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati, bhūmigatameva vaṭṭati. Tañca kho appavattanaudakaṃ āvāṭapokkharaṇītaḷaākajātassaraloṇisamuddādīsu ṭhitaṃ, aṭṭhitaṃ pana oghanadīudakavāhakamātikādīsu udakaṃ na vaṭṭati . Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “gambhīresu āvāṭādīsu ukkhepimaṃ udakaṃ nimittaṃ na kātabba”nti vuttaṃ, taṃ duvuttaṃ, attanomatimattameva. Ṭhitaṃ pana antamaso sūkarakhatāyapi gāmadārakānaṃ kīḷanavāpiyampi taṃ khaṇaññeva pathaviyaṃ āvāṭaṃ katvā kuṭehi āharitvā pūritaudakampi sace yāva kammavācāpariyosānā tiṭṭhati, appaṃ vā hotu bahuṃ vā, vaṭṭati. Tasmiṃ pana ṭhāne nimittasaññākaraṇatthaṃ pāsāṇavālikāpaṃsuādirāsi vā pāsāṇatthambho vā dārutthambho vā kātabbo. Taṃ kātuṃ kāretuñca bhikkhussa vaṭṭati, lābhasīmāyaṃ pana na vaṭṭati. Samānasaṃvāsakasīmā kassaci pīḷanaṃ na karoti, kevalaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vinayakammameva sādheti, tasmā ettha vaṭṭati.

In a water marker, filling a dry place with water in a boat or pots and designating it as a water marker is not permissible; only underground water is permissible. This refers to standing water in pits, lotus ponds, lakes, natural lakes, salt seas, and so forth—not flowing water in rivers, channels, or irrigation ditches. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “In deep pits and the like, water lifted up should not be made a marker,” but this is poorly stated and merely an opinion. Standing water, even in a pig’s wallow or a village children’s play pond, or water poured into a pit dug in the ground and filled from jars, if it remains until the end of the formal recitation—whether little or much—is permissible. In that place, a heap of rocks, sand, or earth, or a rock or wooden pillar, should be made as a sign of the marker. It is permissible for a monk to make or have it made, but not in a gain-boundary. A common-residence boundary does not oppress anyone and merely facilitates monks’ Vinaya acts, so it is permissible here.

In water markers, it is not permissible to fill water in a dry place, in a boat, or in pots, etc., and declare it a water marker; only water that is in the ground is permissible. And that is non-flowing water standing in pits, ponds, lakes, natural lakes, salt seas, etc.; but water that is not standing, in flowing rivers, water channels, etc., is not permissible. But in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Water lifted up in deep pits, etc., should not be made a marker,” which is wrongly stated, merely one’s own opinion. But standing water, even in a pig’s wallow or in a play pond of village children, even if water is brought in pots and poured into a pit made in the ground at that moment, if it remains until the end of the formal act, whether little or much, is permissible. But in that place, to make a marker sign, a heap of rocks, sand, dust, etc., or a stone pillar, or a wooden pillar should be made. It is permissible for a monk to do this or to have it done, but not in a boundary for gain. A boundary of equal communion does not cause distress to anyone; it only facilitates the monastic disciplinary acts of the monks; therefore, it is permissible here.

In udakanimitte, it is not valid to declare a water marker by filling a boat or a pot with water in a dry place. Only water on the ground is valid. This includes still water in pits, ponds, lakes, natural lakes, or saltwater oceans. Flowing water in rivers or streams is not valid. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “In deep pits, etc., water should not be taken up and declared as a marker,” but this is incorrect; only a small amount is valid. However, water in a pit dug by pigs or a pond where village children play, even if filled with water brought in pots, is valid if it remains until the end of the proclamation, whether little or much. In such a place, to mark the boundary, a pile of stones, sand, or earth, or a stone or wooden post should be made. A bhikkhu can make or have this made, but not in a boundary for material gains. A boundary for common residence does not harm anyone; it only facilitates the bhikkhus’ Vinaya acts, so it is valid here.

Imehi ca aṭṭhahi nimittehi asammissehipi aññamaññaṃ sammissehipi sīmā sammannituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sā evaṃ sammannitvā bajjhamānā ekena dvīhi vā nimittehi abaddhā hoti, tīṇi pana ādiṃ katvā vuttappakārānaṃ nimittānaṃ satenapi baddhā hoti. Sā tīhi siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānā hoti, catūhi caturassā vā siṅghāṭakaaḍḍhacandamudiṅgādisaṇṭhānā vā, tato adhikehi nānāsaṇṭhānā. Evaṃ vuttanayena nimittāni kittetvā sammatā “nimittasampattiyuttā”ti veditabbā.

With these eight markers, whether unmixed or mixed with one another, a boundary may certainly be agreed upon. When agreed upon and bound, it is unbound with one or two markers; but with three or more of the specified markers, even up to a hundred, it is bound. With three, it forms a triangular shape; with four, a square or a shape like a triangle, crescent, or drum; with more, various shapes. A boundary designated and agreed upon in this way should be understood as “endowed with the accomplishment of markers.”

And with these eight markers, even if not mixed or mixed with each other, it is permissible to consent to a boundary. When being established in this way, it is not established with one or two markers, but it is established with three or more, up to a hundred, of the aforementioned types of markers. With three, it is shaped like a triangle; with four, it is square or shaped like a triangle, a half-moon, a mudiṅga drum, etc.; with more than that, it has various shapes. Thus, having declared the markers in the manner described, it should be known as “endowed with the perfection of boundary markers.”

With these eight types of markers, whether mixed or not, a boundary can be established. When established, it may be unbound by one or two markers, but bound by three or more, up to a hundred. It can be triangular, square, or half-moon shaped, etc. Thus, after declaring the markers properly, the boundary is considered “complete with proper markers.”

159. Parisasampattiyuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakhette baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū, te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā sammatā.

159. Endowed with the accomplishment of the assembly refers to a boundary agreed upon by at least four monks gathered together, including all monks present in that village territory—whether a bound boundary or in a river, sea, or natural lake—without stepping outside, either within arm’s reach or by bringing their consent.

159. Endowed with the perfection of the assembly means having assembled at least four monks, and all the monks who are residing within that village area without encroaching upon an established boundary, a river, the sea, or a natural lake, having either brought them within arm’s reach or having obtained their consent, and then consenting.

159. Parisasampattiyuttā refers to a boundary where at least four bhikkhus have gathered, and all bhikkhus within the village area, river, ocean, or natural lake where the boundary is established, without crossing it, are present within arm’s reach or have given their consent.

160. Endowed with the accomplishment of the formal recitation refers to—

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammanneyya samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ, esā ñatti.

“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. As far as the markers have been designated around, if it is suitable for the Sangha, may the Sangha agree upon a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The markers around have been declared. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should consent to the boundary with these markers, for equal communion and for a single uposatha. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. As far as the markers have been declared, if the Saṅgha is ready, the Saṅgha should establish a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammannati samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ, yassāyasmato khamati etehi nimittehi sīmāya sammuti samānasaṃvāsāya ekūposathāya, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. As far as the markers have been designated around, the Sangha agrees upon a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. Whoever venerates approve of the agreement upon a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha, let him remain silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The markers around have been declared. The Saṅgha consents to the boundary with these markers, for equal communion and for a single uposatha. If any venerable one approves of the consent to the boundary with these markers, for equal communion and for a single uposatha, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable Sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. As far as the markers have been declared, the Saṅgha establishes a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. He who approves of establishing this boundary for common residence and a single Uposatha should remain silent. He who does not approve should speak.

“Sammatā sīmā saṅghena etehi nimittehi samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 139) –

The boundary has been agreed upon by the Sangha with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore silent. Thus, I hold it” (mahāva. 139)—

“The boundary is consented to by the Saṅgha with these markers, for equal communion and for a single uposatha. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. Thus, I hold it” (Mahāva. 139) –

“The boundary has been established by the Saṅgha with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. The Saṅgha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold it.” (Mahāva. 139)

Evaṃ vuttāya parisuddhāya ñattidutiyakammavācāya sammatā. Kammavācāpariyosāne nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti.

A boundary agreed upon with this pure formal recitation of a motion followed by a second recitation. At the conclusion of the formal recitation, the area within the markers becomes the boundary, and the markers are outside the boundary.

Thus consented to with the pure formal act of motion and second, at the end of the formal act, the inside of the markers is the boundary; the markers are outside the boundary.

Thus, with a pure motion and second proclamation, the boundary is established. At the end of the proclamation, the area within the markers becomes the boundary, and the markers remain outside the boundary.

161. Evaṃ baddhāya ca sīmāya ticīvarena vippavāsasukhatthaṃ daḷhīkammatthañca avippavāsasammuti kātabbā. Sā pana evaṃ kattabbā –

161. For a boundary thus bound, an agreement for non-separation with the three robes should be made for the ease of staying apart and for strengthening it. It should be done as follows—

161. And when the boundary has been established in this way, the consent to non-absence with the three robes should be made for the sake of comfortable dwelling during absence with the three robes and for the sake of strengthening. And it should be done thus –

161. Once the boundary is established, for the sake of happiness in non-separation and the strengthening of the robe season, a resolution for non-separation should be made. It should be done as follows:

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyya ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, esā ñatti.

“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. That boundary which the Sangha has agreed upon for common residence and a single Uposatha, if it is suitable for the Sangha, may the Sangha agree upon that boundary as non-separable with the three robes, except for the village and its precinct. This is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The boundary that has been consented to by the Saṅgha, for equal communion and for a single uposatha, if it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should consent to that boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity. This is the motion.

“Venerable Sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The boundary established by the Saṅgha for common residence and a single Uposatha, if the Saṅgha is ready, the Saṅgha should establish this boundary as non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and its vicinity. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammannati ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, yassāyasmato khamati etissā sīmāya ticīvarena avippavāsāya sammuti ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. That boundary which the Sangha has agreed upon for common residence and a single Uposatha, the Sangha agrees upon that boundary as non-separable with the three robes, except for the village and its precinct. Whoever venerates approve of the agreement upon this boundary as non-separable with the three robes, except for the village and its precinct, let him remain silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The boundary that has been consented to by the Saṅgha, for equal communion and for a single uposatha, the Saṅgha consents to that boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity. If any venerable one approves of the consent to this boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable Sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The boundary established by the Saṅgha for common residence and a single Uposatha, the Saṅgha establishes this boundary as non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and its vicinity. He who approves of establishing this boundary as non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and its vicinity, should remain silent. He who does not approve should speak.

“Sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāsā ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 143).

The boundary has been agreed upon by the Sangha as non-separable with the three robes, except for the village and its precinct. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore silent. Thus, I hold it” (mahāva. 143).

“That boundary is agreed upon by the Saṅgha, allowing absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent; thus I take it” (Mahāva. 143).

“The boundary (sīmā) is established by the Sangha, excluding the village and its precincts, with the agreement of the Sangha regarding the three robes and non-separation. It is acceptable to the Sangha; therefore, silence is observed. Thus, I maintain it” (Mahāva. 143).

Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) ca nigamanagarānampi gāmeneva saṅgaho veditabbo. Gāmūpacāroti parikkhittassa parikkhepo, aparikkhittassa parikkhepokāso. Imesu pana gāmagāmūpacāresu adhiṭṭhitatecīvariko bhikkhu parihāraṃ na labhati. Ayañhi avippavāsasīmā “ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā”ti vuttattā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca na ottharati, samānasaṃvāsakasīmāva ottharati. Samānasaṃvāsakasīmā cettha attano dhammatāya gacchati, avippavāsasīmā pana yattha samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, tattheva gacchati. Na hi tassā visuṃ nimittakittanaṃ atthi, tattha sace avippavāsāya sammutikāle gāmo atthi, taṃ sā na ottharati . Sace pana sammatāya sīmāya pacchā gāmo nivisati, sopi sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchati. Yathā ca pacchā niviṭṭho, evaṃ paṭhamaṃ niviṭṭhassa pacchā vaḍḍhitappadesopi sīmasaṅkhyameva gacchati. Sace sīmāsammutikāle gehāni katāni, “pavisissāmā”ti ālayopi atthi, manussā pana appaviṭṭhā, porāṇakagāmaṃ vā sace gehameva chaḍḍetvā aññattha gatā, agāmoyeva esa, sīmā ottharati. Sace pana ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vā agataṃ vā atthi, gāmoyeva, sīmā na ottharati. Ayamettha saṅkhepo.

Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), villages and towns are also included under “village.” Village precinct refers to the enclosure of an enclosed village and the surrounding space of an unenclosed one. In these villages and precincts, a monk who has resolved on the three robes does not gain respite. For this non-separation boundary, due to the statement “except for the village and its precinct,” does not extend over the village and its precinct; only the common-residence boundary does. The common-residence boundary extends by its own nature, but the non-separation boundary goes only where the common-residence boundary is. It has no separate marker designation. If there is a village at the time of agreeing upon non-separation, it does not extend over it. If a village settles within the boundary after it is agreed upon, that too counts as within the boundary. Just as one settled later, so too a portion of a village settled earlier that expands afterward counts as within the boundary. If, at the time of boundary agreement, houses are built and there is attachment thinking, “We will settle,” but people have not yet moved in, or if they have abandoned an ancient village’s houses and gone elsewhere, it is not a village, and the boundary extends over it. But if even one family has moved in or is present without having come, it is a village, and the boundary does not extend over it. This is the summary here.

Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), it should be understood that settlements and towns are also included as villages. Gāmūpacāra (village vicinity) means the সীমা surrounding what is already enclosed, or the area that can be enclosed for what is not yet enclosed. However, a bhikkhu with his three robes authorized does not receive exemption within these villages and village vicinities. Because this non-absence boundary is stated as “excluding the village and the village vicinity,” it does not extend over the village and the village vicinity; it extends over only the common-dwelling boundary. The common-dwelling boundary goes here by its own nature, but the non-absence boundary goes only where the common-dwelling boundary goes. For it does not have a separate designation of markers. If there is a village at the time of agreeing upon the non-absence boundary, it does not extend over it. But if a village is established after the agreed-upon boundary, it is included in the boundary. Just as a village established later is included, so too is an area expanded later from a village established first. If houses were built at the time of the boundary agreement, and there is also an intention [of people], thinking, “We will enter,” but people have not yet entered, or if they have abandoned just the house in an ancient village and gone elsewhere, it is not a village, and the boundary extends over it. But if even one family has entered or has not yet left, it is a village, and the boundary does not extend over it. This is the summary here.

Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), even the surrounding towns should be understood as included within the village. The precincts of the village refer to the enclosed area if it is enclosed, or the area suitable for enclosure if it is not enclosed. In these village precincts, a monk who has determined his robe does not receive exemption. This is because the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā) is said to “exclude the village and its precincts,” and thus it does not cover the village and its precincts but only covers the shared residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā). The shared residence boundary here follows its own nature, whereas the non-separation boundary only extends where the shared residence boundary exists. It does not have a separate designation. If, at the time of establishing the non-separation boundary, a village exists, it does not cover it. However, if a village is established after the boundary has been established, it is included within the boundary. Similarly, if an area expands after the initial establishment, it is also included within the boundary. If, at the time of establishing the boundary, houses were built with the intention of “we will enter,” but people have not yet entered, or if an ancient village has been abandoned and people have gone elsewhere, it is considered non-village, and the boundary covers it. However, if even a single household has entered or not yet entered, it is considered a village, and the boundary does not cover it. This is the summary here.

162. Ayaṃ pana vitthāro (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) sīmaṃ bandhitukāmena hi sāmantavihāresu bhikkhū tassa tassa vihārassa sīmāparicchedaṃ pucchitvā baddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya sīmantarikaṃ, abaddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā disācārikabhikkhūnaṃ nissañcārasamaye sace ekasmiṃ gāmakhette sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, ye tattha baddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhūnaṃ “mayaṃ ajja sīmaṃ bandhissāma, tumhe sakasīmāya paricchedato mā nikkhamitthā”ti pesetabbaṃ. Ye abaddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhū ekajjhaṃ sannipātetabbā, chandārahānaṃ chando āharāpetabbo. “Sace aññānipi gāmakhettāni antokātukāmā, tesu gāmesu ye bhikkhū vasanti, tehipi āgantabbaṃ, anāgacchantānaṃ chando āharitabbo”ti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero pana “nānāgāmakhettāni nāma pāṭiyekkaṃ baddhasīmasadisāni, na tato chandapārisuddhi āgacchati, antonimittagatehi pana bhikkhūhi āgantabba”nti vatvā puna āha “samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsammannanakāle āgamanampi anāgamanampi vaṭṭati, avippavāsasīmāsammannanakāle pana antonimittagatehi āgantabbaṃ, anāgacchantānaṃ chando āharitabbo”ti.

162. This is the elaboration (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138): One wishing to bind a boundary should inquire about the boundary limits of monasteries in neighboring areas, leaving an interval for bound-boundary monasteries and a precinct for unbound-boundary ones. At a time when wandering monks are not traveling, if they wish to bind a boundary in a single village territory, they should send word to the monks in bound-boundary monasteries there, saying, “We will bind a boundary today; do not leave your boundary’s limits.” Monks in unbound-boundary monasteries should be gathered together, and the consent of those deserving consent should be brought. The Elder Mahāsuma said, “If they wish to include other village territories within, monks dwelling in those villages should come, and the consent of those who do not come should be brought.” But the Elder Mahāpaduma said, “Different village territories are like separately bound boundaries; purity of consent does not come from them. However, monks within the markers must come,” and then added, “At the time of agreeing upon a common-residence boundary, coming or not coming is permissible, but for a non-separation boundary, those within the markers must come, and the consent of those who do not come should be brought.”

162. But this is the detail (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): One who wishes to establish a boundary should, having asked the bhikkhus in the surrounding monasteries about the boundary limits of each monastery, leave the boundary-interval of the monasteries with established boundaries and the vicinity of the boundary of the monasteries without established boundaries, at a time when bhikkhus traveling in the directions are free from travel. If they wish to establish a boundary in a single village area, among those monasteries with established boundaries, the bhikkhus should be sent a message: “Today we will establish a boundary; do not go beyond the limits of your own boundaries.” Among the monasteries without established boundaries, the bhikkhus should be gathered together, and the consent of those who are entitled to give consent should be brought. Mahāsumma Thera said, “If they wish to include other village areas, the bhikkhus who reside in those villages should also come; the consent of those who do not come should be brought.” But Mahāpaduma Thera, having said, “Different village areas are like individually established boundaries; consent and purification do not come from there; but bhikkhus within the markers should come,” further said, “At the time of agreeing upon a common-dwelling boundary, both coming and not coming are permissible; but at the time of agreeing upon a non-absence boundary, those within the markers should come; the consent of those who do not come should be brought.”

162. The detailed explanation (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138) is as follows: When one wishes to establish a boundary, monks from neighboring monasteries should be asked about the boundaries of each monastery. For monasteries with established boundaries, the space between the boundaries should be left, and for monasteries without established boundaries, the vicinity should be left. When monks on a journey are not traveling, if one wishes to establish a boundary within a single village area, the monks from established boundary monasteries should be informed, “We will establish the boundary today; do not leave your boundary area.” Monks from non-established boundary monasteries should be gathered, and their consent should be obtained. “If other village areas are also to be included, monks residing in those villages should be invited, and if they do not come, their consent should be obtained,” said the Elder Mahāsumedha. The Elder Mahāpaduma, however, said, “Different village areas are like separate established boundaries; consent is not obtained from them. Only monks within the vicinity should be invited.” He further said, “At the time of establishing the shared residence boundary, coming or not coming is acceptable, but at the time of establishing the non-separation boundary, only monks within the vicinity should be invited, and if they do not come, their consent should be obtained.”

Evaṃ sannipatitesu bhikkhūsu chandārahānaṃ chande āhaṭe tesu tesu maggesu nadītitthagāmadvārādīsu ca āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ sīghaṃ sīghaṃ hatthapāsanayanatthañceva bahisīmakaraṇatthañca ārāmike ceva samaṇuddese ca ṭhapetvā bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā katvā nimittakittanānantaraṃ vuttāya “suṇātu me bhante saṅgho”tiādikāya kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā. Kammavācāpariyosāneyeva nimittāni bahikatvā heṭṭhā pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakapariyantaṃ katvā sīmā gatā hoti.

When monks have gathered thus and the consent of those deserving consent has been brought, to quickly bring wandering monks within arm’s reach and to keep them outside the boundary, servants and novices should be stationed at roads, river fords, village gates, and so forth, and a signal with a drum or conch should be made. Immediately after designating the markers, the boundary should be bound with the formal recitation beginning, “May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs.” At the conclusion of the formal recitation, the markers become external, and the boundary extends down to the water supporting the earth.

When the bhikkhus have thus gathered, and the consent of those entitled to give consent has been brought, in order to quickly bring the incoming bhikkhus to within hand’s reach at those various roads, river crossings, village gates, and so on, and in order to make the outside of the boundary, lay attendants and novices should be stationed. Having given a signal with a drum or a conch, after the designation of the markers, the boundary should be established with the formal act of Saṅgha (kammavācā) beginning with “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me,” as stated. At the conclusion of the formal act, having excluded the markers and having made the water the limit, extending down to the earth-supporting level, the boundary is established.

When the monks have gathered and the consent of those eligible has been obtained, paths, rivers, fords, village gates, etc., should be quickly marked for the incoming monks, both for the purpose of guiding them and for marking the outer boundary. After placing a gong or conch signal, and after announcing the markers, the boundary should be established with the proclamation, “Venerable Sangha, please listen,” etc. At the conclusion of the proclamation, the markers should be placed outside, and the boundary should be established with the ground as the base and water as the limit.

163. Imaṃ pana samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannantehi pabbajjūpasampadādīnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ sukhakaraṇatthaṃ paṭhamaṃ khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbā. Taṃ pana bandhantehi vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Sace hi bodhicetiyabhattasālādīni sabbavatthūni patiṭṭhāpetvā katavihāre bandhanti, vihāramajjhe bahūnaṃ samosaraṇaṭṭhāne abandhitvā vihārapaccante vivittokāse bandhitabbā. Akatavihāre bandhantehi bodhicetiyādīnaṃ sabbavatthūnaṃ ṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā yathā patiṭṭhitesu vatthūsu vihārapaccante vivittokāse hoti, evaṃ bandhitabbā. Sā heṭṭhimaparicchedena sace ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhāti, vaṭṭati, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati, paraṃ bhikkhusahassaṃ gaṇhantīpi vaṭṭati. Taṃ bandhantehi sīmamāḷakassa samantā nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā, na khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitehi mahāsīmā bandhitabbā, na mahāsīmāya ṭhitehi khaṇḍasīmā, khaṇḍasīmāyameva pana ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbā.

163. When agreeing upon this common-residence boundary, a small boundary should first be bound for the ease of performing Sangha acts like going forth and ordination. Those binding it should know the procedure. If they bind it in a completed monastery with all structures like a Bodhi tree, shrine, or refectory established, it should not be bound in the middle where many gather but at an isolated spot on the monastery’s edge. In an uncompleted monastery, they should consider the sites of all structures like the Bodhi tree and shrine, binding it so that, when established, it is at an isolated spot on the monastery’s edge. The minimal limit is that it must accommodate twenty-one monks; less than that is not permissible, but one accommodating a thousand monks is permissible. Those binding it should place marker-compatible rocks around the boundary hall. A large boundary should not be bound by those within a small boundary, nor a small boundary by those within a large boundary; a small boundary should be bound only by standing within a small boundary.

163. When agreeing upon this common-dwelling boundary, in order to easily perform Saṅgha acts such as ordinations, a khaṇḍasīmā (sub-boundary) should first be established. When establishing it, the procedure should be known. If they are establishing it in a monastery where all the structures, such as the Bodhi tree, the cetiya, and the dining hall, have been established, it should be established in a secluded area at the edge of the monastery, not in the center of the monastery where many people gather. When establishing it in a monastery that is not yet built, having determined the location of all the structures, such as the Bodhi tree and the cetiya, it should be established in such a way that, when the structures are established, it will be in a secluded area at the edge of the monastery. If it accommodates at least twenty-one bhikkhus, it is permissible; less than that is not permissible; even if it accommodates a thousand bhikkhus, it is permissible. When establishing it, stones that mark the boundary should be placed around the boundary-hall; a great boundary should not be established by those standing in the sub-boundary, nor should a sub-boundary be established by those standing in the great boundary; but a sub-boundary should be established by standing only in the sub-boundary.

163. When establishing this shared residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā), for the ease of performing Sangha acts such as ordination and higher ordination, a fragment boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) should first be established. When establishing it, the procedure should be known. If the monastery has been built with all facilities such as the Bodhi tree, shrine, and dining hall, the boundary should be established in a secluded area on the monastery’s outskirts, avoiding the central gathering place. If the monastery is not yet built, the location of all facilities such as the Bodhi tree and shrine should be considered, and the boundary should be established in a secluded area on the outskirts, as if the facilities were already established. If this fragment boundary can accommodate twenty-one monks, it is valid; less than that is invalid, but even a thousand monks can be accommodated. When establishing it, marker stones should be placed around the boundary pavilion. A large boundary should not be established while the fragment boundary exists, nor should a fragment boundary be established while the large boundary exists. However, a fragment boundary can be established while the fragment boundary exists.

Tatrāyaṃ bandhanavidhi – samantā “eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti evaṃ nimittāni kittetvā kammavācāya sīmā sammannitabbā. Atha tassā eva daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācā kātabbā. Evañhi “sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti āgatā samūhanituṃ na sakkhissanti. Sīmaṃ sammannitvā bahi sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Sīmantarikā pacchimakoṭiyā ekaratanappamāṇā vaṭṭati. “Vidatthippamāṇāpi vaṭṭatī”ti kurundiyaṃ, “caturaṅgulappamāṇāpi vaṭṭatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sace pana vihāro mahā hoti, dvepi tissopi tatuttarimpi khaṇḍasīmāyo bandhitabbā.

Here is the method of binding: After designating markers around with “This rock is the marker,” the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal recitation. Then, for its strengthening, the non-separation formal recitation should be performed. Thus, those who come saying, “We will revoke the boundary,” cannot revoke it. After agreeing upon the boundary, interval rocks should be placed outside. An interval of one cubit at the western edge is permissible. In the Kurundī, it is said, “Even a span is permissible,” and in the Mahāpaccariya, “Even four fingers’ breadth is permissible.” If the monastery is large, two, three, or more small boundaries may be bound.

Here, this is the method of establishment: Having designated the markers all around, saying, “This stone is a marker,” the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal act. Then, for the sake of strengthening it, the formal act for non-absence should be performed. For in this way, those who come saying, “We will abolish the boundary,” will not be able to abolish it. Having agreed upon the boundary, boundary-interval stones should be placed outside. The boundary-intervals at the western end are permissible at one ratana (cubit). In the Kurundi, it is said, “Even a vidatthi (span) is permissible”; in the Mahāpaccari, it is said, “Even four aṅgulas (finger-breadths) are permissible.” But if the monastery is large, two, three, or even more sub-boundaries should be established.

The procedure for establishing it is as follows: After announcing the markers with, “This stone is a marker,” the boundary should be established with the proclamation. Then, to strengthen it, the non-separation proclamation should be made. Thus, those who come to remove the boundary will not be able to do so. After establishing the boundary, marker stones should be placed outside the boundary space. The boundary space at the western corner should be the size of a gem. In the Kurundiya, it is said to be the size of a span, and in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said to be four fingers. If the monastery is large, two or three fragment boundaries may be established.

Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā mahāsīmasammutikāle khaṇḍasīmato nikkhamitvā mahāsīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā samantā anupariyāyantehi sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā, tato avasesanimittāni kittetvā hatthapāsaṃ avijahantehi kammavācāya samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannitvā tassā daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācāpi kātabbā. Evañhi “sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti āgatā samūhanituṃ na sakkhissanti. Sace pana khaṇḍasīmāya nimittāni kittetvā tato sīmantarikāya nimittāni kittetvā mahāsīmāya nimittāni kittenti, evaṃ tīsu ṭhānesu nimittāni kittetvā yaṃ sīmaṃ icchanti, taṃ paṭhamaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ santepi yathāvuttanayena khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsu khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitā bhikkhū mahāsīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ na kopenti, mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitā khaṇḍasīmāya karontānaṃ, sīmantarikāya pana ṭhitā ubhinnampi na kopenti. Gāmakhette ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontānaṃ pana sīmantarikāya ṭhitā kopenti. Sīmantarikā hi gāmakhettaṃ bhajati.

Having agreed upon a small boundary, at the time of agreeing upon a large boundary, they should leave the small boundary, stand in the large boundary, designate interval rocks around sequentially, then designate the remaining markers, and, without abandoning arm’s reach, agree upon the common-residence boundary with the formal recitation, followed by the non-separation formal recitation for its strengthening. Thus, those who come saying, “We will revoke the boundary,” cannot revoke it. If they designate the small boundary’s markers, then the interval markers, and then the large boundary’s markers—designating markers in three places—it is permissible to bind whichever boundary they wish first. Even so, it should be bound starting with the small boundary as stated. In boundaries thus bound, monks standing in a small boundary do not obstruct those performing acts in a large boundary, nor do those in a large boundary obstruct those in a small boundary. But those in the interval obstruct neither. However, those in the interval obstruct those performing acts in the village territory, for the interval pertains to the village territory.

Having thus agreed upon the sub-boundary, at the time of agreeing upon the great boundary, having gone out from the sub-boundary and standing in the great boundary, going around all around, the boundary-interval stones should be designated. Then, having designated the remaining markers, while not letting go of hand’s reach, the common-dwelling boundary should be agreed upon with the formal act, and for the sake of strengthening it, the formal act for non-absence should also be performed. For in this way, those who come saying, “We will abolish the boundary,” will not be able to abolish it. But if, having designated the markers of the sub-boundary, then having designated the markers of the boundary-interval, they designate the markers of the great boundary, thus designating the markers in three places, whichever boundary they desire, it is permissible to establish first. Even so, starting from the sub-boundary, as previously stated, it should be established. But when the boundaries are established in this way, bhikkhus standing in the sub-boundary do not invalidate the act of those performing an act in the great boundary, nor do those standing in the great boundary invalidate the act of those performing an act in the sub-boundary; but those standing in the boundary-interval do not invalidate the act of either. But those standing in the boundary-interval invalidate the act of those performing an act while standing in the village area. For the boundary-interval belongs to the village area.

After establishing the fragment boundary in this way, at the time of establishing the large boundary, one should step out of the fragment boundary and stand in the large boundary, then announce the boundary space markers while walking around. After announcing the remaining markers, the shared residence boundary should be established with the proclamation, keeping within a hand’s reach. To strengthen it, the non-separation proclamation should also be made. Thus, those who come to remove the boundary will not be able to do so. If the markers of the fragment boundary are announced, then the markers of the boundary space, and then the markers of the large boundary, it is permissible to establish the desired boundary first. Even so, the fragment boundary should be established first as described. When the boundaries are established in this way, monks standing in the fragment boundary do not obstruct acts performed in the large boundary, nor do monks standing in the large boundary obstruct acts performed in the fragment boundary. Monks standing in the boundary space do not obstruct acts in either. However, monks standing in the boundary space while performing acts in the village area do obstruct, as the boundary space divides the village area.

Sīmā ca nāmesā na kevalā pathavītaleyeva baddhā baddhā nāma hoti, atha kho piṭṭhipāsāṇepi kuṭigehepi leṇepi pāsādepi pabbatamatthakepi baddhā baddhāyeva hoti. Tattha piṭṭhipāsāṇe bandhantehi pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ rājiṃ vā koṭṭetvā udukkhalaṃ vā khaṇitvā nimittaṃ na kātabbaṃ, nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā nimittāni kittetabbāni. Kammavācāpariyosāne sīmā pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakapariyantaṃ katvā otarati. Nimittapāsāṇā yathāṭhāne na tiṭṭhanti, tasmā samantato rāji vā upaṭṭhāpetabbā, catūsu vā koṇesu pāsāṇā vijjhitabbā, “ayaṃ sīmāparicchedo”ti vatvā akkharāni vā chinditabbāni. Keci usūyakā “sīmaṃ jhāpessāmā”ti aggiṃ denti, pāsāṇāva jhāyanti, na sīmā.

A boundary is not bound only on the surface of the earth; it is indeed bound when bound on a flat rock, in a hut, in a cave, in a mansion, or on a mountain peak. Therein, when binding on a flat rock, a line should not be scratched or a mortar dug on the rock’s surface as a marker; marker-compatible rocks should be placed and designated. At the conclusion of the formal recitation, the boundary extends down to the water supporting the earth. Since the marker rocks do not stay in place, a line should be established around, or rocks should be fixed at the four corners, or letters should be carved saying, “This is the boundary’s limit.” Some fanatics say, “We will burn the boundary,” and set fire; the rocks burn, not the boundary.

And this boundary is not only established when it is established on the surface of the earth; it is also established when it is established on a rock surface, in a hut, in a cave, in a palace, or on a mountaintop. When establishing it on a rock surface, a line should not be drawn or a mortar dug to make a marker on the surface of the rock; stones that mark the boundary should be placed, and the markers should be designated. At the conclusion of the formal act, the boundary extends down to the water, making the earth its support. The marker stones do not remain in their place, therefore a line should be established all around, or stones should be pierced at the four corners; saying, “This is the boundary limit,” letters should be inscribed. Some lazy people, saying, “We will burn the boundary,” set fire; the stones burn, not the boundary.

The boundary is not only established on the ground but also on stone slabs, in huts, caves, terraces, and mountain peaks. When establishing it on stone slabs, a line should be carved or a hole dug on the stone slab, but a marker should not be made. Instead, marker stones should be placed and announced. At the conclusion of the proclamation, the boundary descends to the ground as the base and water as the limit. The marker stones do not remain in their original place, so a line should be drawn around them, or stones should be placed at the four corners, and letters should be carved, saying, “This is the boundary limit.” Some foolish people set fire, thinking, “We will burn the boundary,” but only the stones burn, not the boundary.

Kuṭigehepi bhittiṃ akittetvā ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāsaṭṭhānaṃ antokaritvā pāsāṇanimittāni ṭhapetvā sīmā sammannitabbā, antokuṭṭameva sīmā hoti. Sace antokuṭṭe ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso natthi, pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sammannitabbā. Sace evampi nappahoti, bahi nibbodakapatanaṭṭhānepi nimittāni ṭhapetvā sammannitabbā. Evaṃ sammatāya pana sabbaṃ kuṭigehaṃ sīmaṭṭhameva hoti.

In a hut too, the wall should not be designated; a space for twenty-one monks should be included within, marker rocks placed, and the boundary agreed upon; the boundary is only within the walls. If there is not space for twenty-one monks within the walls, marker rocks should be placed at the porch. If even that is insufficient, they may be placed outside at the dripping line. When agreed upon thus, the entire hut counts as within the boundary.

Also in a hut, without marking the wall, having made the space for twenty-one bhikkhus inside, marker stones should be placed, and the boundary should be agreed upon; the inside of the hut itself is the boundary. If there is not space for twenty-one bhikkhus inside the hut, marker stones should be placed in front, and it should be agreed upon. If even this is not sufficient, markers should be placed outside, even in the place where water falls, and it should be agreed upon. But when it is agreed upon in this way, the entire hut is within the boundary.

In huts, without marking the walls, space for twenty-one monks should be enclosed, and marker stones should be placed to establish the boundary. The inside of the hut becomes the boundary. If there is no space for twenty-one monks inside the hut, a marker stone should be placed at the entrance and the boundary established. If even this is not possible, markers should be placed outside in a dry, level area and the boundary established. When established in this way, the entire hut becomes part of the boundary.

Catubhittiyaleṇepi bandhantehi kuṭṭaṃ akittetvā pāsāṇāva kittetabbā, anto okāse asati pamukhepi nimittāni ṭhapetabbāni, evaṃ leṇassa anto ca bahi ca sīmā hoti.

In a cave with four walls too, when binding, the wall should not be designated; only rocks should be designated. If there is no space within, markers should be placed at the porch. Thus, both inside and outside the cave become the boundary.

Also when establishing it in a cave with four walls, without marking the wall, the stones should be designated; if there is not space inside, markers should be placed even in front; thus, both the inside and the outside of the cave are the boundary.

In caves with four walls, without marking the walls, only stones should be announced as markers. If there is no space inside, markers should be placed at the entrance. Thus, the inside and outside of the cave become the boundary.

Uparipāsādepi bhittiṃ akittetvā antopāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sīmā sammannitabbā. Sace nappahoti, pamukhepi pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sammannitabbā. Evaṃ sammatā uparipāsādeyeva hoti, heṭṭhā na otarati. Sace pana bahūsu thambhesu tulānaṃ upari katapāsādassa heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭo yathā nimittānaṃ anto hoti, evaṃ uṭṭhahitvā tulārukkhehi ekasambandho ṭhito, heṭṭhāpi otarati, ekathambhapāsādassa pana uparitale baddhā sīmā. Sace thambhamatthake ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso hoti, heṭṭhā otarati. Sace pāsādabhittito niggatesu niyyūhakādīsu pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sīmaṃ bandhanti, pāsādabhitti antosīmāya hoti. Heṭṭhā panassā otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

In an upper mansion too, the wall should not be designated; rocks should be placed within and the boundary agreed upon. If that is insufficient, rocks may be placed at the porch. When agreed upon thus, it is only in the upper mansion and does not descend below. If the lower level of a mansion built on many beams and pillars is connected by beams and trees so that the wall is within the markers, it descends below. In a single-pillar mansion, a boundary bound in the upper level remains there. If there is space for twenty-one monks at the top of the pillar, it descends below. If they bind a boundary by placing rocks on projections outside the mansion’s wall, the wall is within the boundary. Whether it descends below or not should be understood as stated.

Also on the upper floor of a palace, without marking the wall, stones should be placed inside the palace, and the boundary should be agreed upon. If this is not sufficient, stones should be placed even in front, and it should be agreed upon. When it is agreed upon in this way, it is only on the upper floor of the palace; it does not extend below. But if, in a palace built on many pillars above beams, the wall on the lower level rises up so that it is inside the markers, and it is connected as one with the beams, it also extends below. For a palace with one pillar, the boundary is established on the upper level. If there is space for twenty-one bhikkhus on the top of the pillar, it extends below. If they establish the boundary by placing stones on projections and so on extending from the palace wall, the palace wall is within the boundary. Whether it extends below or not should be understood as previously stated.

On upper terraces, without marking the walls, marker stones should be placed inside and the boundary established. If this is not possible, a marker stone should be placed at the entrance and the boundary established. When established in this way, the upper terrace becomes the boundary, and it does not descend below. However, if the lower floor of a multi-pillared terrace is connected to the upper floor by beams, the boundary descends below. In the case of a single-pillared terrace, the boundary established on the upper floor does not descend below. If the pillar’s top has space for twenty-one monks, the boundary descends below. If the boundary is established by placing stones on the terrace walls or on projecting beams, the terrace walls become part of the boundary. Whether the boundary descends below or not should be understood as previously explained.

Heṭṭhāpāsāde kittentehipi bhitti ca rukkhatthambhā ca na kittetabbā, bhittilagge pana pāsāṇatthambhe kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ kittitā sīmā heṭṭhāpāsādassa pariyantathambhānaṃ antoyeva hoti. Sace pana heṭṭhāpāsādassa kuṭṭo uparimatalena sambaddho hoti, uparipāsādampi abhiruhati. Sace pāsādassa bahi nibbodakapatanaṭṭhāne nimittāni karonti, sabbo pāsādo sīmaṭṭho hoti.

When designating in a lower mansion too, neither the wall nor wooden pillars should be designated; but a rock pillar may be designated at the wall’s edge. A boundary designated thus is only within the perimeter pillars of the lower mansion. If the lower mansion’s wall is connected to the upper level, it extends to the upper mansion. If they make markers outside at the dripping line, the entire mansion counts as within the boundary.

When designating it on the lower floor of a palace, the wall and the wooden pillars should not be designated, but it is permissible to designate the stone pillars attached to the wall. The boundary designated in this way is only inside the boundary pillars of the lower floor of the palace. But if the wall of the lower floor of the palace is connected to the upper level, it extends up to the upper floor of the palace. If they make the markers in the place where water falls outside the palace, the entire palace is within the boundary.

When marking the lower terrace, walls and tree pillars should not be marked, but stones on the wall tops or pillars may be marked. The boundary marked in this way includes only the inner area of the lower terrace’s boundary pillars. If the lower terrace’s wall is connected to the upper floor, it also ascends to the upper terrace. If markers are placed outside the terrace in a dry, level area, the entire terrace becomes part of the boundary.

Pabbatamatthake talaṃ hoti ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāsārahaṃ, tattha piṭṭhipāsāṇe viya sīmaṃ bandhanti, heṭṭhāpabbatepi teneva paricchedena sīmā otarati. Tālamūlakapabbatepi upari sīmā baddhā heṭṭhā otarateva. Yo pana vitānasaṇṭhāno hoti, upari ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso atthi, heṭṭhā natthi, tassupari baddhā sīmā heṭṭhā na otarati. Evaṃ mudiṅgasaṇṭhāno vā hotu paṇavasaṇṭhāno vā, yassa heṭṭhā vā majjhe vā sīmappamāṇaṃ natthi, tassa upari baddhā sīmā heṭṭhā na otarati. Yassa pana dve kūṭāni āsanne ṭhitāni, ekassapi upari sīmappamāṇaṃ nappahoti, tassa kūṭantaraṃ cinitvā vā pūretvā vā ekābaddhaṃ katvā upari sīmā sammannitabbā. Eko sappaphaṇasadiso pabbato, tassa upari sīmappamāṇassa atthitāya sīmaṃ bandhanti, tassa ce heṭṭhā ākāsapabbhāraṃ hoti, sīmā na otarati. Sace panassa vemajjhe sīmappamāṇo susirapāsāṇo hoti, otarati, so ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭhoyeva hoti. Athāpissa heṭṭhāleṇassa kuṭṭo aggakoṭiṃ āhacca tiṭṭhati , otarati, heṭṭhā ca upari ca sīmāyeva hoti. Sace pana heṭṭhā uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato antoleṇaṃ hoti, bahi sīmā na otarati. Athāpi uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa orato bahi leṇaṃ hoti, anto sīmā na otarati. Athāpi upari sīmāparicchedo khuddako, heṭṭhā leṇaṃ mahantaṃ sīmāparicchedamatikkamitvā ṭhitaṃ, sīmā upariyeva hoti, heṭṭhā na otarati. Yadi pana leṇaṃ khuddakaṃ sabbapacchimasīmāparimāṇaṃ, upari sīmā mahatī naṃ ajjhottharitvā ṭhitā, sīmā otarati. Atha leṇaṃ atikhuddakaṃ sīmappamāṇaṃ na hoti, sīmā upariyeva hoti, heṭṭhā na otarati. Sace tato upaḍḍhaṃ bhijjitvā patati, sīmappamāṇaṃ cepi hoti, bahi patitaṃ asīmā. Apatitaṃ pana yadi sīmappamāṇaṃ, sīmā hotiyeva.

On a mountain peak, there is a flat area suitable for twenty-one monks; they bind a boundary there as on a flat rock, and it descends to the lower mountain with the same extent. In a mountain with a palm-root base, a boundary bound above descends below. But one shaped like a canopy, with space for twenty-one monks above but not below, when bound above, does not descend. Whether shaped like a drum or a cymbal, if there is no boundary-sized space below or in the middle, a boundary bound above does not descend. If it has two peaks close together and neither has enough space for a boundary alone, the space between should be filled or connected to make it one, and the boundary agreed upon above. A snake-hood-shaped mountain, if it has boundary-sized space above, is bound there; if there is an empty space below, the boundary does not descend. If there is a hollow rock of boundary size in the middle, it descends, and that rock counts as within the boundary. If the cave’s wall below touches the upper edge, it descends, and both below and above are the boundary. If the cave below is beyond the upper boundary’s edge inwardly, the outer boundary does not descend. If the cave is outward from the upper boundary’s edge inwardly, the inner boundary does not descend. If the upper boundary’s edge is small and the cave below is large, exceeding the boundary’s edge, the boundary remains above and does not descend. If the cave is small, fully within the last boundary’s extent, and the boundary above is large, encompassing it, it descends. If the cave is too small for a boundary, the boundary remains above and does not descend. If half of it breaks and falls, even if it is boundary-sized, the fallen part outside is unbound; the unfallen part, if boundary-sized, remains the boundary.

On a mountaintop, there is a level area suitable for twenty-one bhikkhus; there, they establish the boundary as on a rock surface; the boundary extends down to the lower mountain with the same limits. Even on a mountain with a base like a palm tree, the boundary established above extends below. But for one that is shaped like a canopy, there is space for twenty-one bhikkhus above, but not below; the boundary established above it does not extend below. Thus, whether it is shaped like a mudiṅga drum or a paṇava drum, if there is not a boundary-size area below or in the middle, the boundary established above it does not extend below. But if two peaks are situated close together, and on one of them there is not enough space for a boundary-size area, having built up or filled in the space between the peaks, making it one, the boundary should be agreed upon above. There is a mountain like a cobra’s hood; because there is a boundary-size area above it, they establish a boundary; if there is an open space below it, the boundary does not extend down. But if in its middle there is a porous rock of boundary-size, it extends down, and that rock is within the boundary. And if the wall of a cave below touches the top edge, it extends down, and both below and above are the boundary. But if, below, the inner cave is within the outer limit of the upper boundary, the boundary does not extend outside. And if, below the outer limit of the upper boundary, there is a cave outside, the boundary does not extend inside. And if the upper boundary limit is small, and below, the cave is large, extending beyond the boundary limit, the boundary is only above, it does not extend below. But if the cave is small, the size of the outermost boundary, and the boundary above is large, extending over it, the boundary extends down. But if the cave is very small, not of boundary-size, the boundary is only above, it does not extend below. If half of it breaks off and falls, and if it is of boundary-size, what has fallen outside is not the boundary. But if what has not fallen is of boundary-size, it is the boundary.

On mountain peaks, if there is a level area suitable for twenty-one monks, the boundary is established as on stone slabs, and it descends below the mountain. Similarly, on a mountain with a level base, the boundary established above descends below. However, if the mountain is shaped like a canopy, with space for twenty-one monks above but none below, the boundary established above does not descend below. Whether the mountain is shaped like a mortar or a drum, if there is no space below or in the middle for the boundary, the boundary established above does not descend below. If a mountain has two peaks close together, and there is not enough space on either peak for the boundary, the space between the peaks should be filled or covered, and the boundary established above. If a mountain is shaped like a snake’s hood, with enough space above for the boundary, and below is a sheer cliff, the boundary does not descend below. However, if there is a hole in the middle of the mountain suitable for a boundary marker, the boundary descends, and the stone becomes part of the boundary. If the wall of a lower cave reaches the upper peak, the boundary descends, and both the lower and upper areas become part of the boundary. If the lower area is outside the upper boundary’s limit, the boundary does not descend below. If the upper boundary’s limit is small, and the lower cave is large, exceeding the boundary’s limit, the boundary remains above and does not descend below. If the cave is small and does not exceed the boundary’s limit, the boundary descends. If the cave is too small to accommodate the boundary’s limit, the boundary remains above and does not descend below. If half of it breaks and falls, and the boundary’s limit is still intact, the fallen part is outside the boundary, but the unbroken part remains within the boundary.

Khaṇḍasīmā ca nīcavatthukā hoti, taṃ pūretvā uccavatthukaṃ karonti, sīmāyeva. Sīmāya gehaṃ karonti, sīmaṭṭhakameva hoti. Sīmāya pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyeva. Ogho sīmāmaṇḍalaṃ ottharitvā gacchati, sīmāmāḷake aṭṭaṃ bandhitvā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sīmāya heṭṭhā umaṅganadī hoti, iddhimā bhikkhu tattha nisīdati. Sace sā nadī paṭhamaṃ gatā, sīmā pacchā baddhā, kammaṃ na kopeti. Atha paṭhamaṃ sīmā baddhā, pacchā nadī gatā, kammaṃ kopeti, heṭṭhāpathavītale ṭhito pana kopetiyeva.

A small boundary on low ground, when filled and raised, remains the boundary. If they build a house in the boundary, it counts as within the boundary. If they dig a pond in the boundary, it remains the boundary. If a flood covers the boundary area, it is permissible to perform acts by setting up a platform in the boundary hall. If there is an underground river below the boundary and a monk with psychic powers sits there, if the river flowed first and the boundary was bound later, it does not obstruct acts. If the boundary was bound first and the river flowed later, it obstructs acts; one standing on the ground below always obstructs.

And the sub-boundary is a low-lying area; filling it, they make it a high-lying area; it is still the boundary. They build a house on the boundary; it is within the boundary. They dig a pond on the boundary; it is still the boundary. A flood flows over the boundary area; it is permissible to build a platform on the boundary-hall and perform an act. There is a tunnel-river below the boundary; a bhikkhu with psychic powers sits there. If that river flowed first, and the boundary was established later, it does not invalidate the act. But if the boundary was established first, and the river flowed later, it invalidates the act; but one standing on the earth level below invalidates it.

A fragment boundary is low; if it is filled and raised, it becomes the boundary. If a house is built within the boundary, it becomes part of the boundary. If a pond is dug within the boundary, it becomes part of the boundary. A flood covering the boundary circle does not invalidate acts performed within the boundary pavilion. If a river flows below the boundary, a monk with psychic powers may sit there. If the river flows first and the boundary is established later, the act is not invalidated. However, if the boundary is established first and the river flows later, the act is invalidated, especially if the monk is standing on the ground below.

Sīmāmāḷake vaṭarukkho hoti, tassa sākhā vā tato niggatapāroho vā mahāsīmāya pathavītalaṃ vā tatthajātarukkhādīni vā āhacca tiṭṭhati, mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, te vā sākhāpārohā chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbā. Anāhacca ṭhitasākhādīsu āruḷhabhikkhū hatthapāsaṃ ānetabbā. Evaṃ mahāsīmāya jātarukkhassa sākhā vā pāroho vā vuttanayeneva sīmāmāḷake patiṭṭhāti, vuttanayeneva sīmaṃ sodhetvā vā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, te vā sākhāpārohā chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbā. Sace māḷake kamme kariyamāne koci bhikkhu māḷakassa anto pavisitvā vehāsaṃ ṭhitasākhāya nisīdati, pādā vāssa bhūmigatā honti, nivāsanapārupanaṃ vā bhūmiṃ phusati, kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Pāde pana nivāsanapārupanañca ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ kammaṃ vaṭṭati, idañca lakkhaṇaṃ purimanayepi veditabbaṃ. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tatra ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, hatthapāsameva ānetabbo. Sace antosīmato pabbato abbhuggacchati, tatraṭṭho bhikkhu hatthapāsaṃ ānetabbo. Iddhiyā antopabbataṃ paviṭṭhepi eseva nayo. Bajjhamānā eva hi sīmā pamāṇarahitaṃ padesaṃ na otarati, baddhāya sīmāya jātaṃ yaṃ kiñci yattha katthaci ekasambandhena gataṃ sīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti.

In the boundary hall, there is a banyan tree; its branches or shoots growing from it touch the ground of the large boundary or trees growing there. Either the large boundary should be cleared and acts performed, or the branches and shoots should be cut and kept outside. Monks climbing un-touching branches should be brought within arm’s reach. If branches or shoots of a tree growing in the large boundary touch the boundary hall as stated, the boundary should be cleared and acts performed as stated, or the branches and shoots cut and kept outside. If, while acts are being performed in the hall, a monk enters the hall and sits on a branch in the air, with his feet touching the ground or his robes touching the ground, acts cannot be performed. But if he lifts his feet and robes, acts may be performed; this characteristic should also be understood in the previous case. The difference is that there, lifting does not permit acts; they must be brought within arm’s reach. If a mountain rises within the boundary, a monk there should be brought within arm’s reach. The same applies to one entering the mountain with psychic power. For a boundary being bound does not extend to an unqualified area; whatever arises in a bound boundary, connected anywhere, counts as within the boundary.

There is a banyan tree on the boundary-hall; its branch or a root extending from it touches the earth level of the great boundary or trees and so on that have grown there; either the great boundary should be cleared and the act performed, or those branches and roots should be cut and made to be outside. Bhikkhus who have climbed on branches and so on that have not touched should be brought within hand’s reach. Thus, a branch or root of a tree that has grown on the great boundary stands on the boundary-hall in the same way as stated; either the boundary should be cleared as stated and the act performed, or those branches and roots should be cut and made to be outside. If, while an act is being performed in the hall, a certain bhikkhu enters inside the hall and sits on a branch that is in the air, or his feet are on the ground, or his lower robe or upper robe touches the ground, it is not permissible to perform the act. But it is permissible to perform the act after having made him lift up his feet and his lower robe and upper robe; and this characteristic should be understood in the previous method as well. But this is the difference: there, it is not permissible to perform the act after having made him lift up; he should be brought within hand’s reach. If a mountain rises up from within the boundary, a bhikkhu standing there should be brought within hand’s reach. The same principle applies to one who has entered inside the mountain through psychic power. For a boundary being established does not extend over an area without measure; whatever is born connected in any way to a boundary that has been established goes to the count of the boundary.

If there is a banyan tree in the boundary pavilion, and its branches or shoots extend beyond the boundary, or if trees growing from it reach the ground or other trees, the large boundary should be cleared, or the branches and shoots should be cut and placed outside. If the branches or shoots do not reach beyond, monks sitting on them should be brought within a hand’s reach. Similarly, if a tree growing within the large boundary has branches or shoots extending into the boundary pavilion, they should be cleared, or the branches and shoots should be cut and placed outside. If, during an act in the pavilion, a monk enters the pavilion and sits on a branch in the air, or if his feet touch the ground or his robe touches the ground, the act cannot be performed. However, if his feet and robe are lifted, the act can be performed, and this rule should be understood as previously explained. The difference here is that lifting is not allowed; only bringing within a hand’s reach is permitted. If a mountain rises within the boundary, a monk standing there should be brought within a hand’s reach. The same applies if a monk with psychic powers enters the mountain. The boundary, while binding, does not extend to an immeasurable area. Anything born within the boundary, wherever it goes, remains part of the boundary.

Tiyojanaparamaṃ pana sīmaṃ sammannantena majjhe ṭhatvā yathā catūsupi disāsu diyaḍḍhadiyaḍḍhayojanaṃ hoti, evaṃ sammannitabbā. Sace pana majjhe ṭhatvā ekekadisato tiyojanaṃ karonti, chayojanaṃ hotīti na vaṭṭati. Caturassaṃ vā tikoṇaṃ vā sammannantena yathā koṇato koṇaṃ tiyojanaṃ hoti, evaṃ sammannitabbā. Sace hi yena kenaci pariyantena kesaggamattampi tiyojanaṃ atikkāmeti, āpattiñca āpajjati, sīmā ca asīmā hoti.

When agreeing upon a boundary up to three yojanas, standing in the middle, it should be agreed upon so that it is one and a half yojanas in each of the four directions. If they make it three yojanas in each direction from the middle, it becomes six yojanas, which is not permissible. When agreeing upon a square or triangle, it should be done so that from corner to corner it is three yojanas. If it exceeds three yojanas by even a hair’s breadth at any edge, an offense is incurred, and the boundary becomes unbound.

But when agreeing upon a boundary that is up to three yojanas, standing in the middle, it should be agreed upon so that there are one and a half yojanas in each of the four directions. But if, standing in the middle, they make it three yojanas in each direction, it becomes six yojanas, which is not permissible. When agreeing upon a square or triangular boundary, it should be agreed upon so that it is three yojanas from corner to corner. For if it exceeds three yojanas by even a hair’s breadth by any boundary, he incurs an offense, and the boundary is not a boundary.

A boundary should not exceed three yojanas in any direction. When establishing it, one should stand in the center and ensure that it extends one and a half yojanas in each of the four directions. If one stands in the center and extends three yojanas in each direction, it becomes six yojanas, which is invalid. When establishing a square or triangular boundary, it should be established so that from corner to corner, it is three yojanas. If it exceeds three yojanas by even a hair’s breadth, an offense is committed, and the boundary becomes invalid.

164. “Na, bhikkhave, nadīpārasīmā sammannitabbā, yo sammanneyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 140) vacanato nadīpārasīmā na sammannitabbā. Yatra pana dhuvanāvā vā dhuvasetu vā abhimukhatittheyeva atthi, evarūpaṃ nadīpārasīmaṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yatthassa dhuvanāvā vā dhuvasetu vā, evarūpaṃ nadīpārasīmaṃ sammannitu”nti hi vuttaṃ. Sace dhuvanāvā vā dhuvasetu vā abhimukhatitthe natthi, īsakaṃ uddhaṃ abhiruhitvā adho vā orohitvā atthi, evampi vaṭṭati. Karavikatissatthero pana “gāvutamattabbhantarepi vaṭṭatī”ti āha.

164. From the statement, “Monks, a boundary across a river should not be agreed upon; one who agrees upon it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 140), a boundary across a river should not be agreed upon. But where there is a permanent boat or permanent bridge at the facing ford, such a boundary across a river may be agreed upon. It is said, “I allow, monks, where there is a permanent boat or permanent bridge, to agree upon such a boundary across a river.” If there is no permanent boat or bridge at the facing ford but slightly upstream or downstream, it is permissible too. The Elder Karavikatissa said, “Even within a quarter yojana is permissible.”

164. Because it is said, “Bhikkhus, a boundary beyond a river should not be agreed upon; whoever would agree upon it, incurs an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 140), a boundary beyond a river should not be agreed upon. But where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge at the very same crossing, it is permissible to agree upon such a boundary beyond a river. For it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge, to agree upon such a boundary beyond a river.” If there is no permanent boat or permanent bridge at the very same crossing, but there is one slightly upstream or downstream, even this is permissible. But Karavika Tissa Thera said, “Even within a gāvuta is permissible.”

164. “Monks, a boundary should not be established across a river. Whoever establishes one commits a minor offense” (Mahāva. 140). Therefore, a boundary should not be established across a river. However, if there is a permanent boat or bridge directly opposite, such a boundary may be established. “I allow, monks, the establishment of a boundary across a river where there is a permanent boat or bridge,” it is said. If there is no permanent boat or bridge directly opposite, but one exists slightly upstream or downstream, it is also permissible. The Elder Karavikatissa said, “Even within a gāvuta (about two miles) is permissible.”

Imañca pana nadīpārasīmaṃ sammannantena ekasmiñca tīre ṭhatvā uparisote nadītīre nimittaṃ kittetvā tato paṭṭhāya attānaṃ parikkhipantena yattakaṃ paricchedaṃ icchati, tassa pariyosāne adhosotepi nadītīre nimittaṃ kittetvā paratīre sammukhaṭṭhāne nadītīre nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ. Tato paṭṭhāya yattakaṃ paricchedaṃ icchati, tassa vasena yāva uparisote paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittassa sammukhā nadītīre nimittaṃ, tāva kittetvā paccāharitvā paṭhamakittitanimittena saddhiṃ ghaṭetabbaṃ. Atha sabbanimittānaṃ anto ṭhite bhikkhū hatthapāsagate katvā kammavācāya sīmā sammannitabbā. Nadiyā ṭhitā anāgatāpi kammaṃ na kopenti, sammutipariyosāne ṭhapetvā nadiṃ nimittānaṃ anto paratīre ca orimatīre ca ekasīmā hoti, nadī pana baddhasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Visuṃ nadīsīmā eva hi sā.

When agreeing upon this boundary across a river, standing on one bank, a marker should be designated on the riverbank upstream, then, encompassing oneself, as much area as desired should be marked, and at its end, a marker should be designated on the riverbank downstream. Then, on the opposite bank, a marker should be designated on the riverbank directly opposite, and from there, as much area as desired should be marked until a marker on the riverbank opposite the first upstream marker, then brought back and connected with the first designated marker. Then, with all monks within the markers on both banks kept within arm’s reach, the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal recitation. Those standing in the river who do not come do not obstruct acts. At the conclusion of the agreement, except for the river, the area within the markers on both the near and far banks becomes one boundary; the river does not count as a bound boundary. It is indeed a separate river boundary.

But when agreeing upon this boundary beyond a river, standing on one bank, having designated a marker on the riverbank upstream, then, going around oneself, at the end of whatever limit one desires, a marker should be designated on the riverbank downstream. Then, on the opposite bank, at the corresponding place, a marker should be designated on the riverbank. Then, going along whatever limit one desires, up to the marker on the riverbank upstream corresponding to the marker designated first, a marker should be designated. Then, turning back, it should be connected with the marker designated first. Then, having made the bhikkhus standing inside all the markers be within hand’s reach, the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal act. Those standing in the river, even if they do not come, do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the agreement, excluding the river, inside the markers, both on the opposite bank and on this bank, it is one boundary; but the river is not included in the established boundary. For that is a separate river boundary.

When establishing this river boundary, one should stand on one bank, announce the marker on the upper bank, and then proceed to mark the desired area. At the end, a marker should be announced on the lower bank, and a marker should be announced on the opposite bank directly opposite the first marker. Then, starting from there, the desired area should be marked, and the markers should be connected to the first marker. After all markers are placed within, the monks should be brought within a hand’s reach, and the boundary should be established with the proclamation. Monks standing in the river do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the establishment, the river is included within the markers, and both banks become one boundary, but the river itself is not counted as part of the boundary. It is a separate river boundary.

Sace antonadiyaṃ dīpako hoti, taṃ antosīmāya kātukāmena purimanayeneva attanā ṭhitatīre nimittāni kittetvā dīpakassa orimante ca pārimante ca nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ. Atha paratīre nadiyā orimatīre nimittassa sammukhaṭṭhāne nimittaṃ kittetvā tato paṭṭhāya purimanayeneva yāva uparisote paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittassa sammukhā nimittaṃ, tāva kittetabbaṃ. Atha dīpakassa pārimante ca orimante ca nimittaṃ kittetvā paccāharitvā paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittena saddhiṃ ghaṭetabbaṃ. Atha dvīsu tīresu dīpakesu ca bhikkhū sabbe hatthapāsagate katvā kammavācāya sīmā sammannitabbā, nadiyaṃ ṭhitā anāgacchantāpi kammaṃ na kopenti, sammutipariyosāne ṭhapetvā nadiṃ nimittānaṃ anto tīradvayañca dīpako ca ekasīmā hoti, nadī pana nadīsīmāyeva.

If there is an island in the river and they wish to include it within the boundary, on the bank where they stand, markers should be designated as before, then on the near and far sides of the island, markers should be designated. Then, on the opposite bank, a marker should be designated on the riverbank directly opposite the near-side marker, and from there, as before, up to a marker on the riverbank opposite the first upstream marker, it should be designated. Then, markers on the far and near sides of the island should be designated, brought back, and connected with the first designated marker. Then, with monks on both banks and the island all kept within arm’s reach, the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal recitation. Those standing in the river who do not come do not obstruct acts. At the conclusion of the agreement, except for the river, the area within the markers on both banks and the island becomes one boundary; the river remains a river boundary.

If there is an island in the middle of the river, wishing to make it within the boundary, in the same way as before, having designated markers on the bank where one is standing, a marker should be designated on the near side and the far side of the island. Then, on the opposite bank, at the place corresponding to the marker on the near bank of the river, a marker should be designated. Then, going along as before, up to the marker upstream corresponding to the marker designated first, a marker should be designated. Then, having designated a marker on the far side and the near side of the island, turning back, it should be connected with the marker designated first. Then, having made all the bhikkhus on the two banks and the islands be within hand’s reach, the boundary should be agreed upon with the formal act; those standing in the river, even if they do not come, do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the agreement, excluding the river, inside the markers, the two banks and the island are one boundary; but the river is a river boundary.

If there is an island within the river, and one wishes to include it within the boundary, one should stand on the near bank, announce the markers, and then announce markers on both sides of the island. Then, on the opposite bank, a marker should be announced directly opposite the first marker, and the markers should be connected as before. After announcing the markers on both sides of the island, they should be connected to the first marker. Then, with all monks on both banks and the island within a hand’s reach, the boundary should be established with the proclamation. Monks standing in the river do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the establishment, the river is included within the markers, and both banks and the island become one boundary, but the river itself remains a separate river boundary.

Sace pana dīpako vihārasīmāparicchedato uddhaṃ vā adho vā adhikataro hoti, atha vihārasīmāparicchedanimittassa ujukameva sammukhībhūte dīpakassa orimante nimittaṃ kittetvā tato paṭṭhāya dīpakasikharaṃ parikkhipantena puna dīpakassa orimante nimittasammukhe pārimante nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ. Tato paraṃ purimanayeneva paratīre sammukhanimittamādiṃ katvā paratīre nimittāni ca dīpakassa pārimantaorimante nimittāni ca kittetvā paṭhamakittitanimittena saddhiṃ ghaṭanā kātabbā. Evaṃ kittetvā sammatā sīmā pabbatasaṇṭhānā hoti. Sace pana dīpako vihārasīmāparicchedato uddhampi adhopi adhikataro hoti, purimanayeneva dīpakassa ubhopi sikharāni parikkhipitvā nimittāni kittentena nimittaghaṭanā kātabbā. Evaṃ kittetvā sammatā sīmā mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā hoti. Sace dīpako vihārasīmāparicchedassa anto khuddako hoti, sabbapaṭhamena nayena dīpake nimittāni kittetabbāni. Evaṃ kittetvā sammatā sīmā paṇavasaṇṭhānā hoti. Evaṃ tāva sīmābandhanaṃ veditabbaṃ.

But if an island extends beyond the monastery sīma boundary either upward or downward to a greater extent, then, having announced a marker directly facing the monastery sīma boundary marker on the near side of the island, and then encircling the island’s peak, another marker should be announced on the far side of the island directly facing the near-side marker. Thereafter, following the previous method, starting with a marker directly opposite on the farther shore, markers on the farther shore and those on the far and near sides of the island should be announced, and they should be joined with the first announced marker. When announced thus, the agreed sīma takes the shape of a mountain. If the island extends beyond the monastery sīma boundary both upward and downward to a greater extent, following the previous method, encircling both peaks of the island, the markers should be announced and joined. When announced thus, the agreed sīma takes the shape of a drum. If the island is small and within the monastery sīma boundary, the markers should be announced for the island by the very first method. When announced thus, the agreed sīma takes the shape of a cymbal. Thus, the binding of a sīma should first be understood.

If, however, a peak is higher or lower than the boundary of the monastery, then a marker should be made at the near edge of the peak directly in line with the boundary marker of the monastery. From there, encircling the peak’s summit, another marker should be made at the far edge of the peak, directly in line with the marker on the near edge. After that, following the previous method, establish the facing marker and other markers on the far bank, and the markers on the far and near edges of the peak, and connect them with the first marker made. The boundary thus established and agreed upon will have the shape of a mountain. If the peak is both higher and lower than the boundary of the monastery, follow the previous method, encircling both summits of the peak and establishing markers, and then connect the markers. The boundary thus established and agreed upon will have the shape of a mudiṅga drum. If the peak is within the boundary of the monastery and is small, markers should be made on the peak according to the very first method. The boundary thus established and agreed upon will have the shape of a paṇava drum. Thus should the boundary-making be understood.

If, however, the island (dīpaka) is larger than the boundary marked for the monastery (vihārasīmāpariccheda) either above or below, then, after marking a sign (nimitta) on the near side of the island opposite the straight boundary marker of the monastery, one should proceed to encircle the peak of the island. Then, on the near side of the island opposite the sign, another sign should be marked on the far side. After that, following the previous method, signs should be established on the opposite shore, and the signs on the far and near sides of the island should be marked. The connection (ghaṭanā) should then be made with the first marked sign. When marked in this way, the agreed-upon boundary (sīmā) takes the shape of a mountain. If the island is larger than the monastery boundary both above and below, both peaks of the island should be encircled, and the signs should be marked accordingly. When marked in this way, the agreed-upon boundary takes the shape of a mound. If the island is small and lies within the monastery boundary, the signs should be marked on the island following the first method. When marked in this way, the agreed-upon boundary takes the shape of a drum. Thus, the establishment of the boundary (sīmābandhana) should be understood in this way.

165. Evaṃ baddhā pana sīmā kadā asīmā hotīti? Yadā saṅgho sīmaṃ samūhanati, tadā asīmā hoti. Kathaṃ panesā samūhanitabbāti? “Sīmaṃ , bhikkhave, sammannantena paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsasīmā sammannitabbā, pacchā ticīvarena avippavāso sammannitabbo. Sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, samūhanantena paṭhamaṃ ticīvarena avippavāso samūhantabbo, pacchā samānasaṃvāsasīmā samūhantabbā”ti vacanato paṭhamaṃ avippavāso samūhanitabbo, pacchā sīmā samūhanitabbāti. Kathaṃ? Byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –

165. Now, when does a sīma thus bound become no sīma? When the Saṅgha removes the sīma, then it becomes no sīma. How should it be removed? From the statement, “Monks, when agreeing on a sīma, first the samānasaṃvāsasīmā should be agreed upon, then the ticīvarena avippavāsa; monks, when removing a sīma, first the ticīvarena avippavāsa should be removed, then the samānasaṃvāsasīmā,” it follows that first the avippavāsa should be removed, then the sīma. How? A competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha:

165. When does a boundary thus established become a non-boundary? When the Saṅgha revokes the boundary, then it becomes a non-boundary. And how should it be revoked? Because it is said, “Monks, when formally agreeing upon a boundary, first the boundary of common residence should be formally agreed upon, afterwards, the non-residence with the three robes. Monks, when revoking a boundary, first the non-residence with the three robes should be revoked, afterwards the boundary of common residence should be revoked,” (Mahāva. 145) first the non-residence should be revoked, and afterwards the boundary should be revoked. How? A competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha:

165. When does such an established boundary (sīmā) become non-existent (asīmā)? It becomes non-existent when the Sangha abolishes the boundary. How should it be abolished? According to the statement: “Monks, when establishing a boundary, first the common residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsasīmā) should be established, and afterward the non-separation boundary (ticīvarena avippavāso) should be established. Monks, when abolishing a boundary, first the non-separation boundary should be abolished, and afterward the common residence boundary should be abolished.” Thus, first the non-separation boundary should be abolished, and then the boundary should be abolished. How? A competent and capable monk should announce to the Sangha:

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yo so saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāso sammato, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho taṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ samūhaneyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. That ticīvarena avippavāsa which was agreed upon by the Saṅgha—if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha remove that ticīvarena avippavāsa. This is the motion.

“Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me. That non-residence with the three robes which was formally agreed upon by the Saṅgha, if it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should revoke that non-residence with the three robes. This is the announcement.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha should abolish the non-separation boundary established by the Sangha. This is the motion (ñatti).

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yo so saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāso sammato, saṅgho taṃ ticīrena avippavāsaṃ samūhanati. Yassāyasmato khamati etassa ticīvarena avippavāsassa samugghāto, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. That ticīvarena avippavāsa which was agreed upon by the Saṅgha—the Saṅgha removes that ticīvarena avippavāsa. Whoever agrees with the removal of this ticīvarena avippavāsa should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me. That non-residence with the three robes which was formally agreed upon by the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha now revokes that non-residence with the three robes. If any venerable one approves of the revocation of this non-residence with the three robes, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. The Sangha abolishes the non-separation boundary established by the Sangha. Whoever agrees to the abolition of this non-separation boundary should remain silent. Whoever disagrees should speak.

“Samūhato so saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāso, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 145) –

“That ticīvarena avippavāsa has been removed by the Saṅgha; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it” (mahāva. 145)—

“That non-residence 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)

“The non-separation boundary has been abolished by the Sangha. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I hold it.” (Mahāva. 145)

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ samūhaneyya samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. That sīma which was agreed upon by the Saṅgha as samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā—if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha remove that sīma, samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā. This is the motion.

“Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me. That boundary which was formally agreed upon by the Saṅgha as a boundary of common residence, with one uposatha, if it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should revoke that boundary, the common residence, the one uposatha. This is the announcement.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha should abolish the boundary established by the Sangha for common residence and the observance of the Uposatha. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ samūhanati samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ. Yassāyasmato khamati etissā sīmāya samānasaṃvāsāya ekūposathāya samugghāto, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. That sīma which was agreed upon by the Saṅgha as samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā—the Saṅgha removes that sīma, samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā. Whoever agrees with the removal of this sīma, samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā, should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me. That boundary which was formally agreed upon by the Saṅgha as a boundary of common residence, with one uposatha, the Saṅgha now revokes that boundary, the common residence, the one uposatha. If any venerable one approves of the revocation of this boundary, of the common residence, of the one uposatha, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. The Sangha abolishes the boundary established by the Sangha for common residence and the observance of the Uposatha. Whoever agrees to the abolition of this boundary for common residence and the observance of the Uposatha should remain silent. Whoever disagrees should speak.

“Samūhatā sā sīmā saṅghena samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 146) –

“That sīma, samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā, has been removed by the Saṅgha; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it” (mahāva. 146)—

“That boundary has been revoked by the Saṅgha, the common residence, the one uposatha. It is approved by the Saṅgha; therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.” (Mahāva. 146)

“The boundary has been abolished by the Sangha for common residence and the observance of the Uposatha. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I hold it.” (Mahāva. 146)

Samūhanantena pana bhikkhunā vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tatridaṃ vattaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) – khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhatvā avippavāsasīmā na samūhantabbā, tathā avippavāsasīmāya ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmāpi. Khaṇḍasīmāya pana ṭhitena khaṇḍasīmāva samūhanitabbā, tathā itarāya ṭhitena itarā. Sīmaṃ nāma dvīhi kāraṇehi samūhananti pakatiyā khuddakaṃ puna āvāsavaḍḍhanatthāya mahatiṃ vā kātuṃ, pakatiyā mahatiṃ puna aññesaṃ vihārokāsadānatthāya khuddakaṃ vā kātuṃ. Tattha sace khaṇḍasīmañca avippavāsasīmañca jānanti, samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ ajānantā avippavāsaṃyeva jānantā cetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇaupaosathāgārādīsu nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesu ṭhatvā appeva nāma samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissanteva. Sace bandheyyuṃ, sīmāsambhedaṃ katvā vihāraṃ avihāraṃ kareyyuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā. Ye pana ubhopi na jānanti, te neva samūhanituṃ, na bandhituṃ sakkhissanti. Ayañhi sīmā nāma kammavācāya vā asīmā hoti sāsanantaradhānena vā, na ca sakkā sīmaṃ ajānantehi kammavācā kātuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā, sādhukaṃ pana ñatvāyeva samūhanitabbā ceva bandhitabbā cāti. Ayaṃ tāva baddhasīmāya vinicchayo.

But a monk removing it should know the procedure. Here is the procedure (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144): One should not remove an avippavāsasīmā while standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, nor a khaṇḍasīmā while standing in an avippavāsasīmā. However, a khaṇḍasīmā should be removed by one standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, and the other by one standing in the other. A sīma is removed for two reasons: one naturally small is made larger to expand the dwelling, or one naturally large is made smaller to give space for another monastery. If they know both the khaṇḍasīmā and the avippavāsasīmā, they can both remove and bind it. Knowing the khaṇḍasīmā but not the avippavāsasīmā, they can still remove and bind it. Not knowing the khaṇḍasīmā but knowing only the avippavāsasīmā, they might manage to remove it by standing in places free of doubt like the cetiya courtyard, bodhi courtyard, or uposatha hall, but they cannot bind it again. If they did bind it, they would confuse the sīma and make the monastery no monastery, so it should not be removed. Those who know neither can neither remove nor bind it. For a sīma becomes no sīma either by a formal act or by the disappearance of the teaching, and it is not possible for those ignorant of the sīma to perform the formal act. Thus, it should not be removed; it should be well understood before being removed or bound. This is the ruling on a bound sīma.

But the monk revoking it should know the procedure. The procedure is this (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 144): Standing in a partial boundary, the boundary of non-residence should not be revoked, and similarly, standing in the boundary of non-residence, the partial boundary should not be revoked. But standing in a partial boundary, only the partial boundary should be revoked, and similarly, standing in the other, the other should be revoked. A boundary is revoked for two reasons: either because the original is small, to make it larger again for the purpose of increasing the dwelling places, or because the original is large, to make it smaller again for the purpose of giving space for other monasteries. In that case, if they know both the partial boundary and the boundary of non-residence, they will be able both to revoke and to establish. But knowing the partial boundary and not knowing the boundary of non-residence, they will still be able both to revoke and to establish. Those who do not know the partial boundary but only know the boundary of non-residence, standing in places free from obstruction, such as the courtyard of a cetiya, the courtyard of a Bodhi tree, or an uposatha hall, may perhaps be able to revoke, but they will certainly not be able to re-establish. If they were to establish, they would create a confusion of boundaries and make a monastery a non-monastery; therefore, it should not be revoked. But those who do not know both will be able neither to revoke nor to establish. For a boundary becomes a non-boundary either by a formal act or by the disappearance of the teaching, and it is not possible for those who do not know the boundary to perform a formal act; therefore, it should not be revoked. But it should be revoked and established only after knowing it properly. This is the determination concerning an established boundary.

When abolishing the boundary, a monk should know the proper procedure. Here is the procedure (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144): A partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) should not be abolished while standing in the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), and similarly, the non-separation boundary should not be abolished while standing in the partial boundary. When standing in the partial boundary, only the partial boundary should be abolished, and when standing in the other, only the other should be abolished. A boundary is abolished for two reasons: either to make a small boundary larger for the purpose of expanding the residence, or to make a large boundary smaller for the purpose of providing space for other monasteries. If one knows both the partial boundary and the non-separation boundary, one is capable of both abolishing and re-establishing the boundary. If one knows the partial boundary but not the non-separation boundary, one is still capable of both abolishing and re-establishing the boundary. If one does not know the partial boundary but knows the non-separation boundary, one may attempt to abolish the boundary while standing in places like the cetiya courtyard, bodhi tree courtyard, or Uposatha hall, but one is not capable of re-establishing it. If one were to re-establish it, one would cause a breach in the boundary and render the monastery invalid. Therefore, it should not be abolished. Those who do not know either boundary are not capable of abolishing or re-establishing it. A boundary becomes non-existent either through the recitation of the kammavācā or through the disappearance of the dispensation, and it is not possible for those who do not know the boundary to perform the kammavācā. Therefore, it should not be abolished, but it should be abolished and re-established only after thorough understanding. This is the analysis of an established boundary.

166. Abaddhasīmā pana gāmasīmā sattabbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmāti tividhā. Tattha yāvatā ekaṃ gāmakhettaṃ, ayaṃ gāmasīmā nāma, gāmaggahaṇena cettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) nagarampi nigamampi gahitameva hoti. Tattha yattake padese tassa tassa gāmassa gāmabhojakā baliṃ labhanti, so padeso appo vā hotu mahanto vā, gāmasīmātveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Nagaranigamasīmāsupi eseva nayo. Yampi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakhette ekaṃ padesaṃ “ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotū”ti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci deti, sopi visuṃgāmasīmā hotiyeva, tasmā sā ca itarā ca pakatigāmanagaranigamasīmā baddhasīmāsadisāyeva honti, kevalaṃ pana ticīvaravippavāsaparihāraṃ na labhanti.

166. An unbound sīma is threefold: gāmasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmā, and udakukkhepasīmā. Here, as far as a single village field extends, this is called gāmasīmā, and by the term “village” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), a town or market town is also included. In whatever area the village overseers collect taxes, whether small or large, it is reckoned as a gāmasīmā. The same applies to town and market-town sīmas. Even if a king designates a part of a single village field, saying, “Let this be a separate village,” and gives it to someone, that too becomes a separate gāmasīmā. Thus, it and the others—natural village, town, and market-town sīmas—are like bound sīmas, except they do not receive the exemption from separation of the three robes.

166. An unestablished boundary, however, is threefold: the village boundary, the boundary of seven abbhantaras, and the water-toss boundary. Of these, as far as a single village field extends, this is called a village boundary. Here, by the term “village” (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), a city or a market town is also included. The area where the village headmen of that village collect taxes, whether it is small or large, is considered a village boundary. The same principle applies to the boundaries of cities and market towns. Even if, in a single village field, the king demarcates a certain area, saying, “Let this be a separate village,” and gives it to someone, that also becomes a separate village boundary. Therefore, both that and the other natural village, city, and market town boundaries are similar to established boundaries, except that they do not receive the exemption from residence with the three robes.

166. Unestablished boundaries (abaddhasīmā) are of three kinds: village boundary (gāmasīmā), seven-abbhantara boundary (sattabbhantarasīmā), and water-throwing boundary (udakukkhepasīmā). Among these, the area encompassed by a single village field is called the village boundary. Here, by the term “village,” cities and towns are also included (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). In whatever area the village headmen receive taxes for that village, whether small or large, it is considered a village boundary. The same applies to city and town boundaries. Even if a king demarcates a portion of a single village field as a separate village and grants it to someone, it is still considered a separate village boundary. Thus, both this and the ordinary village, city, and town boundaries are similar to established boundaries, except that they do not provide the exemption from separation regarding the three robes.

Agāmake pana araññe samantā sattabbhantarā sattabbhantarasīmā nāma. Tattha agāmakaṃ nāma araññaṃ viñjhāṭavīādīsu vā samuddamajjhe vā macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathe dīpakesu labbhati. Samantā sattabbhantarāti majjhe ṭhitānaṃ sabbadisāsu sattabbhantarā vinibbedhena cuddasa honti. Tattha ekaṃ abbhantaraṃ aṭṭhavīsatihatthappamāṇaṃ hoti. Ayañca sīmā parisavasena vaḍḍhati , tasmā samantā parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya abbhantaraparicchedo kātabbo. Sace pana dve saṅghā visuṃ uposathaṃ karonti, dvinnaṃ sattabbhantarānaṃ antare aññamekaṃ abbhantaraṃ upacāratthāya ṭhapetabbaṃ.

In a non-village wilderness, all around within seven abbhantaras is called sattabbhantarasīmā. Here, a non-village wilderness is found in desolate forests, dense jungles, or islands in the middle of the sea beyond the path of fishermen. All around within seven abbhantaras means fourteen abbhantaras when divided, for those standing in the center in all directions. Here, one abbhantara is twenty-eight handspans. This sīma expands with the assembly, so the abbhantara boundary should be determined from the edge of the assembly. If two saṅghas perform the uposatha separately, one abbhantara should be left between the two sattabbhantaras as a buffer.

In a non-village forest, extending seven abbhantaras in all directions, is the boundary of seven abbhantaras. Here, non-village means forest, and it is found in places like the Vindhyā forest or in the middle of the ocean, on islands in the paths inaccessible to fishermen. Extending seven abbhantaras in all directions means that, for those standing in the middle, there are fourteen in all directions, by piercing through. Here, one abbhantara is twenty-eight cubits in length. And this boundary increases according to the assembly; therefore, the measurement of the abbhantaras should be made from the edge of the assembly all around. But if two Saṅghas perform the uposatha separately, another abbhantara should be established between the two seven-abbhantaras for the purpose of defining the space.

In uninhabited forest areas, the area within seven abbhantaras (intervals) all around is called the seven-abbhantara boundary. Here, uninhabited forest refers to areas like dense forests, the middle of the ocean, or islands in the path of fishermen. Seven abbhantaras all around means fourteen intervals in all directions from the middle. One abbhantara is twenty-eight handbreadths in length. This boundary expands with the assembly, so the interval should be measured from the edge of the assembly. If two Sanghas perform the Uposatha separately, an additional interval should be set between the two seven-abbhantara boundaries for the sake of proximity.

167. Yā panesā “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā, sabbo samuddo asīmo, sabbo jātassaro asīmo”ti (mahāva. 147) evaṃ nadīādīnaṃ baddhasīmabhāvaṃ paṭikkhipitvā puna “nadiyā vā, bhikkhave, samudde vā jātassare vā yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā”ti (mahāva. 147) vuttā, ayaṃ udakukkhepasīmā nāma. Tattha nadī nadīnimitte vuttalakkhaṇāva, samuddopi pākaṭoyeva. Yo pana yena kenaci khaṇitvā akato sayaṃjāto sobbho samantato āgatena udakena pūrito tiṭṭhati, yattha nadiyaṃ vuttappakāre vassakāle udakaṃ santiṭṭhati, ayaṃ jātassaro nāma. Yopi nadiṃ vā samuddaṃ vā bhinditvā nikkhantaudakena khato sobbho etaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ pāpuṇāti, ayampi jātassaroyeva. Etesu nadīādīsu yaṃ ṭhānaṃ thāmamajjhimassa purisassa samantato udakukkhepena paricchinnaṃ, ayaṃ udakukkhepasīmā nāma.

167. That which is stated, “Monks, every river is no sīma, every sea is no sīma, every natural lake is no sīma” (mahāva. 147), rejecting the bound-sīma status of rivers and so forth, and then, “Monks, in a river, sea, or natural lake, as far as a man of average strength can throw water all around, that is the samānasaṃvāsā and ekūposathā there” (mahāva. 147)—this is called udakukkhepasīmā. Here, a river has the characteristics stated for a river marker, and the sea is obvious. A natural lake is one not dug by anyone but formed naturally, filled with water coming from all sides, where, as stated for a river, water stands in the rainy season—this is a jātassara. Even a pond dug by diverting water from a river or sea, if it meets this characteristic, is also a jātassara. In these—river, sea, or lake—the area bounded all around by the water-throw of a man of average strength is called an udakukkhepasīmā.

167. But that which is said, “All rivers, monks, are non-boundaries; all oceans are non-boundaries; all natural lakes are non-boundaries” (Mahāva. 147), thus rejecting the status of established boundaries for rivers and so on, and then, “In a river, monks, or in an ocean, or in a natural lake, that which is a water-toss all around by a man of medium strength, that is there the common residence, the one uposatha” (Mahāva. 147), this is called the water-toss boundary. Here, a river is as described by the characteristics mentioned for a river; and an ocean is also well-known. But whatever is not made by digging by anyone, a self-originated depression that is filled with water coming from all around, where water remains during the rainy season in the manner described for a river, this is called a natural lake. Even a depression dug by breaking through a river or an ocean, filled with the water that flows out, which attains this characteristic, is also a natural lake. In these rivers and so on, the area that is encompassed by a water-toss all around by a man of medium strength, this is the water-toss boundary.

167. Regarding the statement, “All rivers, monks, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147), which denies the establishment of boundaries for rivers, etc., it is further said, “Monks, in a river, ocean, or natural lake, the area within a water-throw’s distance in all directions from a man of average strength is the common residence and Uposatha boundary” (Mahāva. 147). This is called the water-throwing boundary. Here, a river is as defined earlier, and the ocean is well-known. A natural lake is one that is naturally formed by water flowing from all sides and remains full. In rivers, etc., the area within a water-throw’s distance in all directions from a man of average strength is called the water-throwing boundary.

Kathaṃ pana udakukkhepo kātabboti? Yathā akkhadhuttā dāruguḷaṃ khipanti, evaṃ udakaṃ vā vālukaṃ vā hatthena gahetvā thāmamajjhimena purisena sabbathāmena khipitabbaṃ. Yattha evaṃ khittaṃ udakaṃ vā vālukā vā patati, ayameko udakukkhepo, tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopeti. Yāva parisā vaḍḍhati, tāva sīmāpi vaḍḍhati, parisapariyantato udakukkhepoyeva pamāṇaṃ, ayaṃ pana etesaṃ nadīādīnaṃ antoyeva labbhati, na bahi. Tasmā nadiyā vā jātassare vā yattakaṃ padesaṃ pakativassakāle catūsu māsesu udakaṃ ottharati, samudde yasmiṃ padese pakativīciyo osaritvā saṇṭhahanti, tato paṭṭhāya kappiyabhūmi, tattha ṭhatvā uposathādikammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, dubbuṭṭhikāle vā gimhe vā nadījātassaresu sukkhesupi sā eva kappiyabhūmi. Sace pana sukkhe jātassare vāpiṃ vā khaṇanti, vappaṃ vā karonti, taṃ ṭhānaṃ gāmakhettaṃ hoti. Yā panesā “kappiyabhūmī”ti vuttā, tato bahi udakukkhepasīmā na gacchati, anto gacchati, tasmā tesaṃ anto parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya samantā udakukkhepaparicchedo kātabbo, ayamettha saṅkhepo.

How should the water-throw be done? Just as gamblers throw a wooden ball, water or sand should be taken in hand and thrown with full strength by a man of average strength. Where the water or sand thus thrown lands is one water-throw; standing within a hand’s reach of it disrupts the act. As the assembly grows, the sīma grows; the water-throw from the edge of the assembly is the measure. This is found only within these—river and so forth—not outside. Thus, in a river or natural lake, the area covered by water in the natural rainy season for four months, and in the sea, the area where natural waves recede and settle, from there onward is permissible ground. Standing there, it is allowable to perform acts like the uposatha. Even in times of drought or summer when rivers and lakes dry up, that remains the permissible ground. If a pond or field is dug in a dry natural lake, that area becomes a village field. That which was called “permissible ground” does not extend beyond it as an udakukkhepasīmā but does within it. Thus, the boundary should be determined all around by the water-throw from the edge of the assembly within them—this is the summary here.

But how should the water-toss be done? Just as gamblers throw a wooden ball, so water or sand should be taken in the hand and thrown with full strength by a man of medium strength. Where the water or sand thus thrown falls, that is one water-toss; standing within its inner hand-span invalidates the act. As the assembly increases, so does the boundary; the water-toss from the edge of the assembly is the measure. But this is obtained only within these rivers and so on, not outside. Therefore, in a river or a natural lake, the area that is covered by water during the four months of the normal rainy season, or in the ocean, the area where the normal waves recede and settle, from that point is suitable ground; standing there, it is proper to perform acts such as the uposatha. Even during times of drought or in the summer, when the rivers and natural lakes are dry, that same ground is suitable. But if, in a dry natural lake, they dig a well or make a bank, that place becomes a village field. That which is called “suitable ground,” the water-toss boundary does not go beyond that; it goes within. Therefore, within them, from the edge of the assembly all around, the measurement of the water-toss should be made; this is the summary here.

How should the water-throw be performed? Just as gamblers throw dice, so should a man of average strength throw water or sand with full force. Where the thrown water or sand falls is one water-throw. If one stands beyond the reach of the hand, the act is invalid. As the assembly expands, so does the boundary. The measure of the boundary is the water-throw from the edge of the assembly. However, this is only applicable within rivers, etc., not outside. Therefore, in rivers or natural lakes, wherever water naturally covers during the four months of the rainy season, or in the ocean where the natural waves recede, that is the permissible area. Standing there, it is allowable to perform the Uposatha and other acts. Even in times of drought or summer, when rivers or natural lakes dry up, the same permissible area remains. If, however, a natural lake is dug or a field is made in a dry natural lake, that place becomes a village field. The term “permissible area” applies only within, not outside. Therefore, the water-throw should be measured from the edge of the assembly. This is the summary.

Ayaṃ pana vitthāro – sace nadī nātidīghā hoti, pabhavato paṭṭhāya yāva mukhadvārā sabbattha saṅgho nisīdati, udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthi, sakalāpi nadī etesaṃyeva bhikkhūnaṃ pahoti . Yaṃ pana mahāsumattherena vuttaṃ “yojanaṃ pavattamānāyeva nadī, tatrāpi upari aḍḍhayojanaṃ pahāya heṭṭhā aḍḍhayojane kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti, taṃ mahāpadumatthereneva paṭikkhittaṃ. Bhagavatā hi “timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā yattha katthaci uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā antaravāsako temiyatī”ti (pāci. 692) idaṃ nadiyā pamāṇaṃ vuttaṃ, na yojanaṃ vā aḍḍhayojanaṃ vā, tasmā yā imassa suttassa vasena pubbe vuttalakkhaṇā nadī, tassā pabhavato paṭṭhāya saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace panettha bahū bhikkhū visuṃ visuṃ kammaṃ karonti, sabbehi attano ca aññesañca udakukkhepaparicchedassa antarā añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo, tato adhikaṃ vaṭṭatiyeva, ūnaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Jātassarasamuddepi eseva nayo.

Now, the detail: If a river is not too long, and the Saṅgha sits from its source to its mouth, there is no need for an udakukkhepasīmā act; the entire river suffices for those monks. But what the Elder Mahāsoma said, “Even a river flowing a yojana—there, abandoning the upper half-yojana, it is allowable to perform the act in the lower half-yojana”—was rejected by the Elder Mahāpaduma. For the Blessed One stated the measure of a river as, “Where a bhikkhunī crossing anywhere, covering the three circles, wets her inner robe” (pāci. 692), not a yojana or half-yojana. Thus, in a river with the characteristics stated earlier, it is allowable to perform Saṅgha acts from its source. If many monks perform acts separately there, all must leave another water-throw between their own and others’ boundaries as a sīma buffer—more than this is allowable, less is not, it is said. The same applies to a natural lake and sea.

But this is the detail: If the river is not very long, and the Saṅgha sits everywhere from the source to the mouth, there is no need for the water-toss boundary; the entire river is sufficient for these monks. But what was said by the elder Mahāsumatthera, “A river flowing for a league, even there, leaving half a league above, in the lower half-league it is proper to perform the act,” that was rejected by the elder Mahāpadumatthera. For the Blessed One said, “Covering the three circles, wherever, while crossing, a nun’s lower garment gets wet” (Pāci. 692); this is the measure of a river that was stated, not a league or half a league. Therefore, whatever river has the previously mentioned characteristics according to this sutta, it is proper to perform the Saṅgha act from its source. But if many monks perform the act separately here, all of them should establish another water-toss between their own and the others’ water-toss measurements for the purpose of a boundary interval; more than that is proper, but less is not, it is said. The same principle applies to natural lakes and oceans.

Here is the detailed explanation: If a river is not too long, the Sangha can sit anywhere from its source to its mouth, and there is no need for a water-throwing boundary. The entire river suffices for the monks. However, what the great elder Sumatta said, “Even in a river flowing for a yojana, it is allowable to perform acts in the lower half-yojana, leaving aside the upper half-yojana,” has been refuted by the great elder Padumatta. The Buddha said, “When a nun’s undergarment gets wet while crossing a river, the river’s measure is three timaṇḍalas,” (Pāci. 692), not a yojana or half-yojana. Therefore, according to this sutta, the river described earlier is one where acts can be performed from its source. If many monks perform acts separately here, each should set an additional water-throw between their own and others’ water-throw boundaries to mark the separation. More than this is allowable, but less is not. The same applies to natural lakes and oceans.

Nadiyā pana “kammaṃ karissāmā”ti gatehi sace nadī paripuṇṇā hoti samatittikā, udakasāṭikaṃ nivāsetvā antonadiyaṃyeva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace na sakkonti, nāvāyapi ṭhatvā kātabbaṃ. Gacchantiyā pana nāvāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Udakukkhepamattameva hi sīmā. Taṃ nāvā sīghameva atikkamati, evaṃ sati aññissā sīmāya ñatti, aññissā anusāvanā hoti, tasmā nāvaṃ arittena vā ṭhapetvā pāsāṇe vā lambetvā antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe vā bandhitvā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Antonadiyaṃ baddhaaṭṭakepi antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhepi ṭhitehi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana rukkhassa sākhā vā tato nikkhantapāroho vā bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito, sīmaṃ vā sodhetvā sākhaṃ vā chinditvā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Bahinadītīre jātarukkhassa antonadiyaṃ paviṭṭhasākhāya vā pārohe vā nāvaṃ bandhitvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, karontehi sīmā vā sodhetabbā, chinditvā vāssa bahipatiṭṭhitabhāvo nāsetabbo. Nadītīre pana khāṇukaṃ koṭṭetvā tattha baddhanāvāya na vaṭṭatiyeva. Nadiyaṃ setuṃ karonti, sace antonadiyaṃyeva setu ca setupādā ca honti, setumhi ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana setu vā setupādā vā bahitīre patiṭṭhitā, kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, sīmaṃ sodhetvā kātabbaṃ. Atha setupādā anto, setu pana ubhinnampi tīrānaṃ upariākāse ṭhito, vaṭṭati.

In a river, if monks go to perform an act and the river is full to the brim, they should wear a water-robe and perform the act within the river. If they cannot, it may be done standing in a boat. But it is not allowable to do it in a moving boat. Why? Because the sīma is only the extent of a water-throw, and a boat quickly exceeds it, resulting in the motion being in one sīma and the proclamation in another. Thus, the boat should be stopped with an oar, hung on a rock, or tied to a tree growing in the river, and the act performed. It is allowable to do it standing on a platform or tree growing in the river. But if a branch or shoot from that tree is established on the riverbank outside, or in a monastery or village sīma, the sīma must be purified, or the branch cut, before performing the act. Tying a boat to a branch or shoot of a tree on the riverbank outside and performing the act in the river is not allowable; if done, the sīma must be purified or its external establishment removed by cutting. Driving a stake on the riverbank and tying a boat there is certainly not allowable. If a bridge is built in the river, and both the bridge and its supports are entirely within the river, it is allowable to perform the act standing on the bridge. If the bridge or its supports are established on the bank outside, it is not allowable to perform the act; it must be done after purifying the sīma. If the supports are within but the bridge spans both banks in the air, it is allowable.

But if, having gone to a river, saying, “We will perform the act,” the river is full, up to the banks, having put on a water-cloth, the act should be performed within the river itself. If they are not able, it should be performed standing even on a boat. But it is not proper to perform it on a moving boat. Why? Because the boundary is only the measure of a water-toss. The boat quickly passes that; if this is so, the announcement is in one boundary, and the recitation is in another. Therefore, having stopped the boat with an oar, or having hung it on a rock, or having tied it to a tree growing within the river, the act should be performed. It is proper to perform it standing even on a raft tied within the river, or on a tree growing within the river. But if a branch of the tree, or a root extending from it, is established on the bank of the river outside, in a monastery boundary or a village boundary, having purified the boundary or having cut the branch, the act should be performed. It is not proper to perform the act having tied the boat to a branch or root of a tree growing on the bank outside the river, extending into the river; if they perform it, the boundary should be purified, or its state of being established outside should be eliminated by cutting. But it is certainly not proper on a boat tied to a stake driven into the bank of the river. They make a bridge on the river; if the bridge and the bridge supports are within the river itself, it is proper to perform the act standing on the bridge. But if the bridge or the bridge supports are established on the bank outside, it is not proper to perform the act; it should be performed after purifying the boundary. But if the supports are within, and the bridge is above the space of both banks, it is proper.

Regarding rivers, if monks go to perform an act and the river is full to the brim, they should wear a water robe and perform the act within the river. If they cannot do so, they should perform it while standing on a boat. However, it is not allowable to perform the act while the boat is moving. Why? Because the boundary is only a water-throw. The boat quickly passes beyond it, and thus the motion (ñatti) would belong to one boundary, and the proclamation (anusāvanā) to another. Therefore, the boat should be anchored or tied to a rock or a tree within the river, and the act should be performed. It is allowable to perform the act while standing on a platform or a tree within the river. If the tree’s branch or a shoot extending from it is rooted on the far bank of the river or within the monastery or village boundary, the boundary should be cleared or the branch cut before performing the act. It is not allowable to tie a boat to a tree branch or shoot extending into the river from the far bank and perform the act. If done, the boundary should be cleared or the branch cut to remove its connection to the far bank. It is not allowable to tie a boat to a stump on the riverbank. If a bridge is built across the river, and the bridge and its supports are within the river, it is allowable to perform the act while standing on the bridge. If the bridge or its supports are on the far bank, it is not allowable to perform the act unless the boundary is cleared. If the bridge supports are within the river, but the bridge spans both banks, it is allowable.

Antonadiyaṃ pāsāṇo vā dīpako vā hoti, tattha yattakaṃ padesaṃ pubbe vuttappakāre pakativassakāle vassānassa catūsu māsesu udakaṃ ottharati, so nadīsaṅkhyameva gacchati. Ativuṭṭhikāle oghena otthatokāso na gahetabbo. So hi gāmasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchati. Nadito mātikaṃ nīharantā nadiyaṃ āvaraṇaṃ karonti, taṃ ce ottharitvā vā vinibbijjhitvā vā udakaṃ gacchati, sabbattha pavattanaṭṭhāne kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana āvaraṇena vā koṭṭakabandhanena vā sotaṃ pacchindati, udakaṃ nappavattati, appavattanaṭṭhāne kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, āvaraṇamattakepi kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace koci āvaraṇappadeso pubbe vuttapāsāṇadīpakappadeso viya udakena ajjhottharīyati, tattha vaṭṭati. So hi nadīsaṅkhyameva gacchati. Nadiṃ vināsetvā taḷākaṃ karonti, heṭṭhā pāḷibaddhā udakaṃ āgantvā taḷākaṃ pūretvā tiṭṭhati, ettha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, upari pavattanaṭṭhāne heṭṭhā ca chaḍḍitodakaṃ nadiṃ otaritvā sandanaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya vaṭṭati. Deve avassante hemantagimhesu vā sukkhanadiyāpi vaṭṭati, nadito nīhaṭamātikāya na vaṭṭati. Sace sā kālantarena bhijjitvā nadī hoti, vaṭṭati. Kāci nadī uppatitvā gāmanigamasīmaṃ ottharitvā pavattati, nadīyeva hoti, kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana vihārasīmaṃ ottharati, vihārasīmātveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati.

If there is a rock or island in the river, the area covered by water in the natural rainy season for four months, as stated earlier, is reckoned as part of the river. An area flooded only in excessive rain should not be taken; it is reckoned as a gāmasīmā. If a dam is built to divert a channel from the river, and water flows over or through it, it is allowable to perform the act in all flowing areas. But if the current is blocked by a dam or barrier and water does not flow, it is not allowable to perform the act in the non-flowing area, nor even at the dam itself. If some dammed area is flooded with water like the rock or island mentioned earlier, it is allowable there; it is reckoned as part of the river. If a river is turned into a pond by damming below, with water entering and filling it, it is not allowable to perform the act there; it is allowable in the upper flowing area and from where the discarded water enters the river and flows onward. In a dry river during no rain, winter, or summer, it is allowable; in a channel diverted from the river, it is not allowable. If that channel later breaks and becomes a river, it is allowable. Some rivers rise and flow over a village or market-town sīma; it remains a river, and it is allowable to perform the act there. But if it covers a monastery sīma, it is reckoned as a vihārasīmā.

If there is a rock or an island within the river, the area that is covered by water during the four months of the rainy season in the normal manner as previously described, that is considered a river. The area covered by the flood during a time of excessive rain should not be taken. For that is considered a village boundary. Those who draw irrigation channels from the river make a dam in the river; if the water goes over or through that, it is proper to perform the act everywhere in the place where it flows. But if the flow is cut off by the dam or by the construction of an enclosure, and the water does not flow, it is not proper to perform the act in the place where it does not flow; it is not proper to perform it even on the dam alone. If any part of the dam is submerged by water like the previously mentioned rock or island area, it is proper there. For that is considered a river. They destroy the river and make a tank; the water, held back below, comes and fills the tank and remains; here it is not proper to perform the act. Above, in the place where it flows, and below, from the place where the discarded water flows into the river and runs, it is proper. Even in a river that is dry during the winter and summer when the rains do not fall, it is proper; it is not proper in an irrigation channel drawn from the river. If it breaks in the course of time and becomes a river, it is proper. If a river rises up and flows over a village or market town boundary, it is a river; it is proper to perform the act. But if it flows over a monastery boundary, it is considered a monastery boundary.

If there is a rock or an island within the river, the area covered by water during the four months of the rainy season is considered part of the river. During excessive flooding, the flooded area should not be taken as part of the river. It is considered part of the village boundary. Those who divert water from the river to make a barrier should perform the act wherever the water flows. If the barrier or a dam stops the flow, the act should not be performed where the water does not flow. It is not allowable to perform the act even on the barrier itself. If any part of the barrier is naturally covered by water, as described for rocks and islands, it is allowable. Such a place is considered part of the river. If a river is destroyed to make a pond, and water flows from below to fill the pond, it is not allowable to perform the act there. It is allowable only where the water flows above or where the discarded water rejoins the river. Even in the dry season, when no rain falls, it is allowable to perform the act in a dry river. It is not allowable to perform the act on soil taken from the river. If the soil later erodes and forms a river, it is allowable. Some rivers overflow and cover village or town boundaries, and they remain rivers. It is allowable to perform acts there. If a river overflows into a monastery boundary, it is considered part of the monastery boundary.

Samuddepi kammaṃ karontehi yaṃ padesaṃ uddhaṃ vaḍḍhanaudakaṃ vā pakativīci vā vegena āgantvā ottharati, tattha kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yasmiṃ pana padese pakativīciyo osaritvā saṇṭhahanti, so udakantato paṭṭhāya anto samuddo nāma, tattha ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace ūmivego bādhati, nāvāya vā aṭṭake vā ṭhatvā kātabbaṃ. Tesu vinicchayo nadiyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Samudde piṭṭhipāsāṇo hoti, taṃ kadāci ūmiyo āgantvā ottharanti, kadāci na ottharanti, tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. So hi gāmasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchati. Sace pana vīcīsu āgatāsupi anāgatāsupi pakatiudakeneva ottharīyati, vaṭṭati. Dīpako vā pabbato vā hoti, so ce dūre hoti macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathe, araññasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchati. Tesaṃ gamanapariyantassa orato pana gāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, tattha gāmasīmaṃ asodhetvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Samuddo gāmasīmaṃ vā nigamasīmaṃ vā ottharitvā tiṭṭhati, samuddova hoti, tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana vihārasīmaṃ ottharati, vihārasīmātveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati.

In the sea, when performing an act, the area covered by rising water or natural waves coming with force is not allowable for the act. But where natural waves recede and settle, from there inward is considered within the sea; the act should be performed standing there. If wave force hinders, it may be done standing in a boat or on a platform. The ruling here should be understood as stated for a river. If there is a rock ridge in the sea, sometimes covered by incoming waves and sometimes not, it is not allowable to perform the act there; it is reckoned as a gāmasīmā. But if it is covered by natural water whether waves come or not, it is allowable. If there is an island or mountain far off, beyond the path of fishermen, it is reckoned as an araññasīmā. But from the limit of their travel inward, it is reckoned as a gāmasīmā; it is not allowable to perform the act there without purifying the gāmasīmā. If the sea covers a village or market-town sīma and remains, it is still the sea, and it is allowable to perform the act there. But if it covers a monastery sīma, it is reckoned as a vihārasīmā.

Even in the ocean, those performing the act should not perform it in the area that is covered by the rising tide or by a normal wave coming with force. But in the area where the normal waves recede and settle, from the edge of the water, that is called the inner ocean; standing there, the act should be performed. If the force of the waves is troublesome, it should be performed standing on a boat or a raft. The determination concerning them should be understood in the same way as described for a river. There is a rock on the surface of the ocean; sometimes the waves come and cover it, sometimes they do not cover it; it is not proper to perform the act there. For that is considered a village boundary. But if it is covered by the normal water even when the waves come and when they do not come, it is proper. If there is an island or a mountain, and if it is far away, in the paths inaccessible to fishermen, it is considered a forest boundary. But within the limit of their path, it is considered a village boundary; there, it is not proper to perform the act without purifying the village boundary. The ocean flows over a village boundary or a market town boundary and remains; it is the ocean; it is proper to perform the act there. But if it flows over a monastery boundary, it is considered a monastery boundary.

Regarding the ocean, when performing an act, it is not allowable to do so where the rising tide or natural waves cover the area. Where the natural waves recede and settle, that is considered the inner ocean, and it is allowable to perform the act there. If the wave force is strong, the act should be performed while standing on a boat or a platform. The analysis for these is the same as for rivers. In the ocean, there are submerged rocks. Sometimes waves cover them, and sometimes they do not. It is not allowable to perform the act there. Such places are considered part of the village boundary. If the waves, whether coming or going, naturally cover the area, it is allowable. If there is an island or a mountain far from the path of fishermen, it is considered part of the forest boundary. Within the path, it is considered part of the village boundary. There, the village boundary should be cleared before performing the act. If the ocean covers a village or town boundary, it remains the ocean, and it is allowable to perform acts there. If the ocean covers a monastery boundary, it is considered part of the monastery boundary.

Jātassare kammaṃ karontehi yattha pubbe vuttappakāre vassakāle vasse pacchinnamatte pivituṃ vā hatthapāde vā dhovituṃ udakaṃ na hoti, sukkhati, ayaṃ na jātassaro, gāmakhettasaṅkhyameva gacchati, tattha kammaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Yattha pana vuttappakāre vassakāle udakaṃ santiṭṭhati, ayameva jātassaro. Tassa yattake padese vassānaṃ cātumāse udakaṃ tiṭṭhati, tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace gambhīraṃ udakaṃ, aṭṭakaṃ bandhitvā tattha ṭhitehipi jātassarassa antojātarukkhamhi baddhaaṭṭakepi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Piṭṭhipāsāṇadīpakesu panettha nadiyaṃ vuttasadisova vinicchayo. Samavassadevakāle pahonakajātassaro pana cepi dubbuṭṭhikakāle vā gimhahemantesu vā sukkhati, nirudako hoti, tattha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ “sabbo jātassaro sukkho anodako gāmakhettaṃyeva bhajatī”ti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Sace panettha udakatthāya āvāṭaṃ vā pokkharaṇīādīni vā khaṇanti, taṃ ṭhānaṃ ajātassaro hoti, gāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Lābutipusakādivappe katepi eseva nayo. Sace pana naṃ pūretvā thalaṃ vā karonti, ekasmiṃ disābhāge pāḷiṃ bandhitvā sabbameva naṃ mahātaḷākaṃ vā karonti, sabbopi ajātassaro hoti, gāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Loṇīpi jātassarasaṅkhyameva gacchati. Vassike cattāro māse udakaṭṭhānokāse kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Ayaṃ abaddhasīmāya vinicchayo.

In a natural lake, when performing an act, where, as stated earlier, in the rainy season with interrupted rain there is not enough water to drink or wash hands and feet, and it dries up—this is not a jātassara; it is reckoned as a village field, and the act should not be performed there. But where water stands in the rainy season as stated, that alone is a jātassara. In the area where water stands for the four months of the rains, it is allowable to perform the act. If the water is deep, it may be done standing on a tied platform or a platform tied to a tree growing in the lake. For rock ridges and islands here, the ruling is as stated for a river. Even a sufficient natural lake drying up in drought, summer, or winter, becoming waterless, is allowable for a Saṅgha act. What is said in the Andhaka Commentary, “Every dry, waterless natural lake becomes a village field”—should not be accepted. If a pit or lotus pond is dug there for water, that area is no longer a jātassara and is reckoned as a gāmasīmā. The same applies if a field of gourds or jasmine is made. If it is filled and turned into dry land, or a dam is built on one side to make it all a large pond, it is entirely no jātassara and is reckoned as a gāmasīmā. A salt lake is also reckoned as a jātassara. It is allowable to perform the act in the water-standing area during the four rainy months. This is the ruling on an unbound sīma.

Those performing the act in a natural lake should not perform the act where, as previously described, during the rainy season, after the rain has stopped, there is no water to drink or to wash the hands and feet, and it is dry; this is not a natural lake, it is considered a village field; the act should not be performed there. But where, as described, water remains during the rainy season, this is a natural lake. In whatever area of it water remains during the four months of the rains, it is proper to perform the act there. If the water is deep, having built a raft and standing there, or even on a raft tied to a tree growing within the natural lake, it is proper to perform the act. Here, the determination concerning surface rocks and islands is similar to that described for a river. But a natural lake that is sufficient during a time of normal rain, even if it dries up during a time of drought or during the summer and winter, and becomes without water, it is proper to perform the Saṅgha act there. What is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, “Every natural lake that is dry and without water partakes of the nature of a village field,” should not be accepted. But if, for the purpose of water, they dig a pit or a pond and so on there, that place is not a natural lake; it is considered a village boundary. The same principle applies to the planting of gourds, watermelons, and so on. But if, having filled it and made it level, or having built a bank on one side, they make it all into a large tank, it is all not a natural lake; it is considered a village boundary. Even a salt pan is considered a natural lake. It is proper to perform the act in the place where water remains during the four months of the rainy season. This is the determination concerning an unestablished boundary.

Regarding natural lakes, when performing an act, if there is no water during the rainy season to drink or wash hands and feet, it is not a natural lake. It is considered part of the village field, and no act should be performed there. Where water remains during the four months of the rainy season, that is a natural lake. It is allowable to perform the act in the area where water remains during the four months of the rainy season. If the water is deep, a platform should be built, and the act should be performed while standing on it or on a tree within the lake. The analysis for submerged rocks and islands is the same as for rivers. In times of equal rainfall, even if a natural lake dries up during drought or summer, it is allowable to perform Sangha acts there. What is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, “A completely dry natural lake without water is considered part of the village field,” should not be accepted. If, however, a pit or pond is dug for water, that place is not a natural lake and is considered part of the village boundary. The same applies to small ponds made for lotus flowers, etc. If the lake is filled and turned into land, or if a dam is built on one side and the entire area is made into a large pond, it is no longer a natural lake and is considered part of the village boundary. Salt lakes are also considered natural lakes. It is allowable to perform acts in water-covered areas during the four months of the rainy season. This is the analysis of unestablished boundaries.

Thus, in the Collection of Determinations of Discipline Extracted from the Texts,

25. Uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayakathā

25. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Uposatha and Pavāraṇā

25. Discourse on the Determination of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā

25. Discussion on Uposatha and Pavāraṇā Determination

168. Uposathapavāraṇāti ettha (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) divasavasena tayo uposathā cātuddasiko pannarasiko sāmaggīuposathoti. Tattha hemantagimhavassānānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ tatiyasattamapakkhesu dve dve katvā cha cātuddasikā, sesā pannarasikāti evaṃ ekasaṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathā. Idaṃ tāva pakaticārittaṃ. Tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Purimavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ pana pubbakattikapuṇṇamā, tesaṃyeva sace bhaṇḍanakārakehi upaddutā pavāraṇaṃ paccukkaḍḍhanti, atha kattikamāsassa kāḷapakkhacātuddaso vā pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vā pacchimavassaṃvuṭṭhānañca pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā eva vāti ime tayo pavāraṇādivasāpi honti. Idampi pakaticārittameva. Tathārūpapaccaye sati dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānaṃ purimesu cātuddasesupi pavāraṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yadā pana kosambakakkhandhake (mahāva. 451 ādayo) āgatanayena bhinne bhikkhusaṅghe osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusmiṃ saṅgho tassa vatthussa vūpasamāya saṅghasāmaggiṃ karoti, tadā tāvadeva uposatho kātabbo. “Pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”nti vacanato ṭhapetvā cātuddasapannarase aññopi yo koci divaso uposathadivaso nāma hoti, vassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ pana kattikamāsabbhantare ayameva sāmaggīpavāraṇādivaso nāma hoti. Iti imesu tīsu divasesu uposatho kātabbo. Karontena pana sace cātuddasiko hoti, “ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace sāmaggīuposatho hoti, “ajjuposatho sāmaggī”ti vattabbaṃ. Pannarasiyaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ āgatanayeneva “ajjuposatho pannaraso”ti vattabbaṃ.

168. Uposatha and Pavāraṇā—Here (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), by day, there are three uposathas: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sāmaggīuposatha. Among them, in the three seasons—winter, summer, and rains—taking two each in the third and seventh fortnights, there are six cātuddasika; the rest are pannarasika. Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four uposathas. This is the natural custom. When such conditions arise, it is allowable to perform the uposatha on another fourteenth as well. For those who completed the prior rains retreat, there is the full moon of the prior Kattika; if they are troubled by quarrel-makers who retract the pavāraṇā, then there is the fourteenth of the dark fortnight of Kattika month, or the full moon of the final Kattika for those who completed the final rains retreat—this full moon of the final Kattika is also a pavāraṇā day. These three are also pavāraṇā days by natural custom. When such conditions arise, it is allowable to perform the pavāraṇā on the fourteenths before the two Kattika full moons as well. When, as in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (mahāva. 451 and following), the Saṅgha, split and expelled, resolves that matter for the Saṅgha’s unity, the uposatha should be performed immediately. From the statement, “The pātimokkha should be recited,” any day other than the fourteenth or fifteenth, excluding those, is called an uposatha day. For those who completed the rains retreat within the Kattika month, this is indeed the sāmaggīpavāraṇā day. Thus, the uposatha should be performed on these three days. When performing it, if it is the fourteenth, it should be said, “Today is the uposatha, the fourteenth.” If it is the sāmaggīuposatha, it should be said, “Today is the uposatha, the sāmaggī.” On the fifteenth, as per the method stated in the Pali, it should be said, “Today is the uposatha, the fifteenth.”

168. Uposathapavāraṇāti ettha (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) There are three uposathas based on the day: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sāmaggīuposatha. Among them, during the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons of winter, summer, and rain, there are two of each, making six cātuddasikā (fourteenth-day uposathas), and the rest are pannarasikā (fifteenth-day uposathas), thus making twenty-four uposathas in a year. This is the regular practice. If there is a particular reason, it is permissible to perform the uposatha on another fourteenth day. The ending of the first rains retreat is the full moon of Pubbakattika. If, for those very monks, the pavāraṇā is postponed due to quarrels, then the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight of the month of Kattika, or the full moon of Pacchimakattika, and also the ending of the later rains retreat is the full moon of Pacchimakattika – these are the three days of pavāraṇā. This, too, is the regular practice. If there is a particular reason, it is permissible to perform the pavāraṇā on the fourteenth days before the two full moons of Kattika. When, as described in the Kosambakakkhandhaka (mahāva. 451 ādayo), the bhikkhusaṅgha is divided, and after that monk has been reinstated, the Saṅgha performs the saṅghasāmaggi (communal harmony) for the resolution of that matter, then the uposatha should be performed immediately. Because it is said, “The Pātimokkha should be recited,” apart from the fourteenth and fifteenth days, any other day is called an uposatha day. However, the ending of the rains retreat within the month of Kattika is the day of this very sāmaggīpavāraṇā. Thus, the uposatha should be performed on these three days. When performing it, if it is the fourteenth day, one should say, “Today is the fourteenth-day uposatha.” If it is the sāmaggīuposatha, one should say, “Today is the sāmaggīuposatha.” On the fifteenth day, however, one should say, as stated in the Pāli, “Today is the fifteenth-day uposatha.”

168. Uposathapavāraṇāti: Here (in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Nidānavannanā), there are three types of Uposatha observed by day: the fourteenth-day Uposatha, the fifteenth-day Uposatha, and the Uposatha of harmony. Among these, during the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons—winter, summer, and the rainy season—there are six fourteenth-day Uposathas, and the rest are fifteenth-day Uposathas. Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four Uposathas. This is the general practice. When such conditions arise, it is permissible to observe the Uposatha on another fourteenth day. However, for those who have completed the earlier rains retreat, if they are harassed by troublemakers and postpone the Pavāraṇā, then the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight of the month of Kattika or the full moon of the later Kattika, or the completion of the later rains retreat on the full moon of the later Kattika—these three days are also suitable for Pavāraṇā. This too is the general practice. When such conditions arise, it is permissible to perform Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth day of either of the two Kattika full moons. But when, as described in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 451, etc.), the Sangha is divided and the monks are reconciled, the Sangha should immediately perform the Uposatha to restore harmony. From the statement, “The Pātimokkha should be recited,” it is understood that apart from the fourteenth and fifteenth days, any other day can also be called an Uposatha day. However, the day of completing the rains retreat within the month of Kattika is specifically called the day of harmony and Pavāraṇā. Thus, the Uposatha should be observed on these three days. When observing it, if it is the fourteenth-day Uposatha, one should say, “Today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha.” If it is the Uposatha of harmony, one should say, “Today is the Uposatha of harmony.” For the fifteenth day, following the Pāli text, one should say, “Today is the fifteenth-day Uposatha.”

169. Saṅghe uposatho (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), gaṇe uposatho, puggale uposathoti evaṃ kārakavasena aparepi tayo uposathā vuttā, kattabbākāravasena pana suttuddeso pārisuddhiuposatho adhiṭṭhānuposathoti aparepi tayo uposathā. Tattha suttuddeso nāma “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiādinā nayena vutto pātimokkhuddeso. Ye panitare dve uposathā, tesu pārisuddhiuposatho tāva aññesañca santike aññamaññañca ārocanavasena duvidho. Tattha yvāyaṃ aññesaṃ santike karīyati, sopi pavāritānañca appavāritānañca santike karaṇavasena duvidho. Tattha mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritānaṃ santike pacchimikāya upagatena vā anupagatena vā chinnavassena vā cātumāsiniyaṃ pana pavāritānaṃ santike anupagatena vā chinnavassena vā kāyasāmaggiṃ datvā “parisuddho ahaṃ bhante, parisuddhoti maṃ dhārethā”ti tikkhattuṃ vatvā kātabbo. Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāle āvāsikehi uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkhe avuṭṭhitāya vā ekaccāya vuṭṭhitāya vā sabbāya vā vuṭṭhitāya parisāya ye aññe samasamā vā thokatarā vā āgacchanti, tehi tesaṃ santike vuttanayeneva pārisuddhi ārocetabbā.

169. There is the uposatha of the Saṅgha, the uposatha of a group, and the uposatha of an individual—thus, by performer, three more uposathas are stated (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā). By the manner of performance, there are three more: suttuddesa, pārisuddhiuposatha, and adhiṭṭhānuposatha. Here, suttuddesa is the recitation of the pātimokkha stated by the method, “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs,” and so forth. The other two uposathas: First, the pārisuddhiuposatha is twofold—performed in the presence of others and among one another. That performed in the presence of others is also twofold: in the presence of those who have done pavāraṇā and those who have not. Here, in the presence of those who have done the mahāpavāraṇā, one who has approached or not approached the final retreat, or one whose rains retreat is broken, or in the presence of those who have done the pavāraṇā of the four months, one who has not approached or whose rains retreat is broken, giving physical unity, should say three times, “I am pure, venerable sirs; hold me as pure,” and perform it. Except on the pavāraṇā day, at another time, when the resident monks have merely recited the pātimokkha, whether the assembly has not yet risen, some have risen, or all have risen, those others who arrive—equal or fewer in number—should announce their pārisuddhi in their presence by the stated method.

169. There are three other uposathas mentioned based on the doer: the Saṅgha uposatha, the group uposatha, and the individual uposatha. Based on the manner of performance, there are also three other uposathas: the recitation of the rule (suttuddeso), the uposatha of purity (pārisuddhiuposatho), and the uposatha of determination (adhiṭṭhānuposatho). Among these, suttuddeso refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, as stated in the passage beginning, “May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me.” Of the other two uposathas, the pārisuddhiuposatho is of two kinds: proclaiming purity in the presence of others and proclaiming it to each other. The type done in the presence of others is also of two kinds: done in the presence of those who have completed the pavāraṇā and those who have not. In the presence of those who have completed the pavāraṇā at the great pavāraṇā, whether one has attended the later retreat or not, or whether one has broken the rains retreat, or in the presence of those who have completed the pavāraṇā during the four-month period, whether one has not attended or has broken the rains retreat, one should give physical agreement and say three times, “I am pure, venerable sirs, consider me pure.” However, apart from the day of pavāraṇā, at any other time, when the Pātimokkha has just been recited by the resident monks, whether the assembly has not yet risen, or some have risen, or all have risen, if others of equal or slightly greater number arrive, they should proclaim their purity in their presence in the manner stated above.

169. The Uposatha observed by the Sangha (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Nidānavannanā), the Uposatha observed by a group, and the Uposatha observed by an individual—these are three types of Uposatha described in terms of the performers. In terms of the manner of observance, there are three more types: the Uposatha of recitation, the Uposatha of purity, and the Uposatha of determination. Among these, the Uposatha of recitation refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, beginning with “May the Sangha listen to me, venerable ones.” The other two Uposathas are the Uposatha of purity and the Uposatha of determination. The Uposatha of purity is of two kinds: declaring one’s purity to others and mutually declaring purity. When declaring purity to others, it is further divided into two: declaring purity to those who have completed Pavāraṇā and those who have not. For those who have completed the great Pavāraṇā, whether they have arrived at the final stage or not, or for those who have broken the rains, or for those who have completed the four months, whether they have arrived or not, or for those who have broken the rains, one should physically join them and say three times, “I am pure, venerable ones, consider me pure.” Apart from the day of Pavāraṇā, if the Pātimokkha has been recited by the resident monks and some have not left, or if some or all have left, and others of equal or lesser number arrive, they should declare their purity to them in the same manner.

Yo panāyaṃ aññamaññaṃ ārocanavasena karīyati, so ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā karaṇavasena ca aṭṭhapetvā karaṇavasena ca duvidho. Tattha yasmiṃ āvāse tayo bhikkhū viharanti, tesu uposathadivase sannipatitesu ekena bhikkhunā “suṇantu me āyasmantā, ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti vā “pannaraso”ti vā vatvā “yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, mayaṃ aññamaññaṃ pārisuddhiuposathaṃ kareyyāmā”ti ñattiyā ṭhapitāya therena bhikkhunā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “parisuddho ahaṃ, āvuso, parisuddhoti maṃ dhārethā”ti tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ. Itarehi “bhante”ti vatvā evameva vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā kātabbo. Yatra pana dve bhikkhū viharanti, tatra ñattiṃ aṭṭhapetvā vuttanayeneva pārisuddhi ārocetabbāti ayaṃ pārisuddhiuposatho.

That performed among one another is twofold: with a motion established and without a motion established. Where three monks dwell in a residence, when they gather on the uposatha day, one monk should say, “Listen to me, venerables; today is the uposatha, the fourteenth,” or “the fifteenth,” and, “When it is suitable for the venerables, let us perform the pārisuddhiuposatha among one another.” Having established the motion, the elder monk, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, sitting in a squatting position, raising his hands in añjali, should say three times, “I am pure, friends; hold me as pure.” The others should say, “Venerable sir,” and do likewise. Thus, it is performed with a motion established. Where two monks dwell, without establishing a motion, the pārisuddhi should be announced by the stated method—this is the pārisuddhiuposatha.

The type that is done by proclaiming to each other is of two kinds: with the establishment of a formal motion (ñatti) and without establishing a formal motion. When three monks are dwelling in a residence, and they have assembled on the uposatha day, one monk should say, “May the venerable sirs listen to me, today is the fourteenth-day uposatha” or “the fifteenth-day uposatha,” and then, “If it is agreeable to the venerable sirs, let us perform the pārisuddhiuposatha to each other.” After the ñatti has been established, the senior monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in the kneeling posture, raise his joined hands, and say three times, “I am pure, friend, consider me pure.” The others should say, “Venerable sir,” and then say the same. Thus, the ñatti should be established. Where two monks are dwelling, the purity should be proclaimed in the manner stated above, without establishing a ñatti. This is the pārisuddhiuposatho.

The Uposatha of mutual declaration is also of two kinds: with or without a formal motion. When three monks reside in a monastery, on the Uposatha day, after gathering, one monk should say, “Venerable ones, listen to me, today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha” or “the fifteenth-day Uposatha,” and then propose, “If it is agreeable to the venerable ones, let us mutually declare the Uposatha of purity.” After the motion is made, the senior monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in a kneeling position, raise his joined palms, and say three times, “I am pure, friend, consider me pure.” The others should respond, “Venerable one,” and repeat the same. This is how it should be done with a formal motion. When only two monks reside together, the declaration of purity should be made without a formal motion, following the same procedure. This is the Uposatha of purity.

Sace pana ekova bhikkhu hoti, sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyaṃ katvā aññesaṃ anāgamanaṃ ñatvā “ajja me uposatho cātuddaso”ti vā “pannaraso”ti vā vatvā “adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vattabbaṃ. Ayaṃ adhiṭṭhānuposathoti evaṃ kattabbākāravasena tayo uposathā veditabbā. Ettāvatā nava uposathā dīpitā honti. Tesu divasavasena pannarasiko, kārakavasena saṅghuposatho, kattabbākāravasena suttuddesoti evaṃ tilakkhaṇasampanne uposathe pavattamāne uposathaṃ akatvā tadahuposathe aññaṃ abhikkhukaṃ nānāsaṃvāsakehi vā sabhikkhukaṃ āvāsaṃ vā anāvāsaṃ vā vāsatthāya aññatra saṅghena aññatra antarāyā gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ hoti.

If there is only one monk, having done all preliminary duties and knowing no others will come, he should say, “Today is my uposatha, the fourteenth,” or “the fifteenth,” and, “I determine it.” This is the adhiṭṭhānuposatha. Thus, by the manner of performance, three uposathas should be understood. To this extent, nine uposathas are indicated. Among them, if the uposatha with the three qualities—by day the fifteenth, by performer the Saṅgha uposatha, by manner the suttuddesa—is being held, and one goes elsewhere to a place without monks, or with monks of a different communion, or to a residence or non-residence for dwelling, except with the Saṅgha or due to an obstacle, without performing the uposatha on that day, it is a dukkaṭa.

If, however, there is only one monk, he should perform all the preliminary duties, and realizing that no others have come, he should say, “Today is my fourteenth-day uposatha” or “fifteenth-day uposatha,” and then, “I determine.” This is the adhiṭṭhānuposatho. Thus, three uposathas should be understood based on the manner of performance. With this, nine uposathas have been explained. Among them, when the uposatha is being performed with the three characteristics – being the fifteenth day based on the day, being a Saṅgha uposatha based on the doer, and being a recitation of the rule (suttuddeso) based on the manner of performance – if someone, without performing the uposatha, goes on that uposatha day to another place, whether inhabited or uninhabited by monks, or where there are monks of different affiliations, or to another dwelling or non-dwelling place for the purpose of staying, except with the Saṅgha or due to an obstacle, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

If there is only one monk, after completing all the preliminary duties and knowing that others will not come, he should say, “Today is my fourteenth-day Uposatha” or “the fifteenth-day Uposatha,” and then declare, “I determine it.” This is the Uposatha of determination. Thus, in terms of the manner of observance, there are three types of Uposatha. In this way, nine types of Uposatha have been explained. Among these, the fifteenth-day Uposatha, the Sangha Uposatha, and the Uposatha of recitation are endowed with the three characteristics. If one does not observe the Uposatha on the day it is due and goes to another monastery inhabited by different monks or to an uninhabited place, except with the Sangha’s permission or without any obstacle, it is an offense of wrongdoing.

170. Uposathakaraṇatthaṃ sannipatite saṅghe bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatena sannipātaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā kāyasāmaggiṃ adentena chando dātabbo. Yopi gilāno vā hoti kiccapasuto vā, tenapi pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandopi dātabbo. Kathaṃ? Ekassa bhikkhuno santike “chandaṃ dammi, chandaṃ me hara, chandaṃ me ārocehī”ti ayamattho kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo, evaṃ dinno hoti chando. Akatuposathena gilānena vā kiccapasutena vā pārisuddhi dātabbā. Kathaṃ? Ekassa bhikkhuno santike “pārisuddhiṃ dammi, pārisuddhiṃ me hara , pārisuddhiṃ me ārocehī”ti ayamattho kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo, evaṃ dinnā hoti pārisuddhi. Taṃ pana dentena chandopi dātabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandampi dātuṃ, santi saṅghassa karaṇīya”nti (mahāva. 165). Tattha pārisuddhidānaṃ saṅghassapi attanopi uposathakaraṇaṃ sampādeti, na avasesaṃ saṅghakiccaṃ, chandadānaṃ saṅghasseva uposathakaraṇañca sesakiccañca sampādeti, attano panassa uposatho akatoyeva hoti, tasmā pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandopi dātabbo. Pubbe vuttaṃ pana suddhikacchandaṃ vā pārisuddhiṃ vā imaṃ vā chandapārisuddhiṃ ekena bahūnampi āharituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana so antarāmagge aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ passitvā yesaṃ tena chando vā pārisuddhi vā gahitā, tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ deti, tasseva āgacchati. Itarā pana biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhi nāma hoti, sā na āgacchati, tasmā sayameva sannipātaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ārocetabbaṃ. Sace pana sañcicca nāroceti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, chandapārisuddhi pana tasmiṃ hatthapāsaṃ upagatamatteyeva āgatā hoti.

170. At a Saṅgha gathered for the uposatha, one who has performed the uposatha outside and comes to the gathering place without giving physical unity should give consent. Even one who is sick or engaged in duties, when giving pārisuddhi, should also give consent. How? In the presence of one monk, the meaning, “I give consent; carry my consent; announce my consent,” should be expressed by body, speech, or both—this is how consent is given. One who has not performed the uposatha, whether sick or engaged in duties, should give pārisuddhi. How? In the presence of one monk, the meaning, “I give pārisuddhi; carry my pārisuddhi; announce my pārisuddhi,” should be expressed by body, speech, or both—this is how pārisuddhi is given. When giving it, consent should also be given. It is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, one giving pārisuddhi on the uposatha day to also give consent, as there are duties for the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 165). Here, giving pārisuddhi completes the uposatha for both the Saṅgha and oneself, but not all remaining Saṅgha duties; giving consent completes the Saṅgha’s uposatha and remaining duties, but one’s own uposatha remains undone. Thus, one giving pārisuddhi should also give consent. As stated earlier, one may bring the pure consent or pārisuddhi, or this consent-and-pārisuddhi, for many. If along the way he meets another monk and gives the consent-and-pārisuddhi of those whose consent or pārisuddhi he took, as well as his own, it reaches only him. The other, like a cat’s chain, is called consent-and-pārisuddhi and does not reach; thus, he should go to the gathering place himself and announce it. If he intentionally does not announce it, he incurs a dukkaṭa, but the consent-and-pārisuddhi reaches as soon as it comes within hand’s reach.

170. When the Saṅgha has assembled for the purpose of performing the uposatha, one who has performed the uposatha outside and then comes to the place of assembly should give his consent (chanda) without giving physical agreement. One who is sick or engaged in duties should also give his purity (pārisuddhi) and his consent. How? In the presence of a monk, one should make known this intention by body, speech, or both: “I give my consent, take my consent, proclaim my consent.” Thus, the consent is given. A sick person, or one engaged in duties, who has not performed the uposatha, should give his purity. How? In the presence of a monk, one should make known this intention by body, speech, or both: “I give my purity, take my purity, proclaim my purity.” Thus, the purity is given. When giving it, one should also give one’s consent. This has been stated by the Blessed One: “Monks, I allow one who is giving his purity on that uposatha day to also give his consent, as there are duties of the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 165). Here, giving purity completes the performance of the uposatha for the Saṅgha and for oneself, but not the remaining duties of the Saṅgha. Giving consent completes the performance of the uposatha and the remaining duties for the Saṅgha, but for oneself, the uposatha remains unperformed. Therefore, one who is giving his purity should also give his consent. It is permissible for one person to bring the mere consent (suddhikacchanda), the purity, or both the consent and purity mentioned earlier, for many. If, however, on the way, he sees another monk and gives the consent or purity of those for whom he had taken it, as well as his own consent and purity, it reaches that monk. But the other consent and purity are called biḷālasaṅkhalikā (cat’s chain) consent and purity, and they do not arrive. Therefore, one should go to the place of assembly oneself and proclaim it. If one intentionally does not proclaim it, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. However, the consent and purity are considered to have arrived as soon as they have reached within hand’s reach.

170. When the Sangha has gathered to observe the Uposatha, if someone observes the Uposatha outside and then comes to the gathering place, they should give their consent by physically joining. If a monk is ill or occupied with duties, he should also give his consent by declaring his purity. How? To one monk, he should convey, “I give my consent, carry my consent, inform my consent,” either physically, verbally, or both. Thus, the consent is given. If a monk who has not observed the Uposatha is ill or occupied with duties, he should declare his purity. How? To one monk, he should convey, “I give my purity, carry my purity, inform my purity,” either physically, verbally, or both. Thus, purity is given. When giving purity, consent should also be given. For the Blessed One has said, “I allow, monks, on the day of the Uposatha, when giving purity, to also give consent, as there are duties for the Sangha” (Mahāvagga 165). Here, giving purity completes the Uposatha observance for oneself but not the remaining Sangha duties, while giving consent completes both the Uposatha observance and the remaining duties for the Sangha, but one’s own Uposatha remains unobserved. Therefore, when giving purity, consent should also be given. Previously, it was stated that one can bring the consent or purity of many through one. However, if on the way one meets another monk who has taken the consent or purity of others, and one gives both one’s own and their consent and purity, it is valid. Otherwise, it is like a cat’s chain of consent and purity and is invalid. Therefore, one should go to the gathering place and inform it oneself. If one intentionally does not inform it, it is an offense of wrongdoing. However, consent and purity are considered given when they reach the vicinity of the gathering place.

171. Pārivāsiyena pana chandadānena yaṃ kiñci saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tattha (pāci. aṭṭha. 1167) catubbidhaṃ pārivāsiyaṃ parisapārivāsiyaṃ rattipārivāsiyaṃ chandapārivāsiyaṃ ajjhāsayapārivāsiyanti. Tesu parisapārivāsiyaṃ nāma bhikkhū kenacideva karaṇīyena sannipatitā honti, atha megho vā uṭṭheti, ussāraṇā vā karīyati, manussā vā ajjhottharantā āgacchanti, bhikkhū “anokāsā mayaṃ, aññattha gacchāmā”ti chandaṃ avissajjetvāva uṭṭhahanti. Idaṃ parisapārivāsiyaṃ. Kiñcāpi parisapārivāsiyaṃ, chandassa pana avissaṭṭhattā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

171. With consent given by one under probation, no Saṅgha act may be performed. Here (pāci. aṭṭha. 1167), probation is fourfold: parisapārivāsiya, rattipārivāsiya, chandapārivāsiya, and ajjhāsayapārivāsiya. Among them, parisapārivāsiya is when monks gather for some purpose, and then a cloud rises, or an eviction occurs, or people come overwhelming them, and the monks, saying, “We have no space; let’s go elsewhere,” rise without releasing consent. This is parisapārivāsiya. Though it is parisapārivāsiya, since consent was not released, it is allowable to perform the act.

171. A pārivāsiya (a monk undergoing probation), however, cannot perform any Saṅgha act by giving consent. In this regard (pāci. aṭṭha. 1167), there are four kinds of pārivāsiya: parisapārivāsiya (assembly pārivāsiya), rattipārivāsiya (night pārivāsiya), chandapārivāsiya (consent pārivāsiya), and ajjhāsayapārivāsiya (intention pārivāsiya). Among them, parisapārivāsiya means that the monks have assembled for some duty, and then a storm cloud arises, or there is an expulsion, or people come crowding in, and the monks think, “We have no space, let us go elsewhere,” and they get up without releasing their consent. This is parisapārivāsiya. Although it is parisapārivāsiya, because the consent has not been released, it is permissible to perform the act.

171. When a probationer gives consent, no Sangha act can be performed. Here (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 1167), probation is of four kinds: assembly probation, night probation, consent probation, and intention probation. Among these, assembly probation refers to when monks have gathered for some business, and then a cloud arises, or there is an alarm, or people come crowding in, and the monks rise without dismissing the consent, saying, “We are not free, let us go elsewhere.” This is assembly probation. Even though it is assembly probation, since consent has not been dismissed, the act can still be performed.

Puna bhikkhū “uposathādīni karissāmā”ti rattiṃ sannipatitvā “yāva sabbe sannipatanti, tāva dhammaṃ suṇissāmā”ti ekaṃ ajjhesanti, tasmiṃ dhammakathaṃ kathenteyeva aruṇo uggacchati. Sace “cātuddasikaṃ uposathaṃ karissāmā”ti nisinnā, pannarasoti kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pannarasikaṃ kātuṃ nisinnā, pāṭipade anuposathe uposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, aññaṃ pana saṅghakiccaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Idaṃ rattipārivāsiyaṃ nāma.

Again, monks gather at night, saying, “We will perform the uposatha and so forth,” and, “Until all gather, we will listen to Dhamma,” and request one monk. While he speaks Dhamma, the dawn rises. If they sat to perform the fourteenth uposatha, it is allowable to do it as the fifteenth. If they sat to perform the fifteenth, it is not allowable to perform the uposatha on the first day after, which is not an uposatha day, but other Saṅgha duties may be performed. This is called rattipārivāsiya.

Again, monks assemble at night, thinking, “We will perform the uposatha and other duties,” and then they think, “While all are assembling, we will listen to the Dhamma,” and they invite one monk. While he is giving a Dhamma talk, dawn breaks. If they had sat down thinking, “We will perform the fourteenth-day uposatha,” it is permissible to perform it as the fifteenth-day uposatha. If they had sat down to perform the fifteenth-day uposatha, it is not permissible to perform the uposatha on the first day of the fortnight, which is not an uposatha day, but it is permissible to perform other Saṅgha duties. This is called rattipārivāsiya.

Again, monks may gather at night, thinking, “We will observe the Uposatha, etc.,” and while waiting for all to gather, they listen to the Dhamma. While they are listening to the Dhamma, dawn breaks. If they had intended to observe the fourteenth-day Uposatha, they may observe the fifteenth-day Uposatha. If they had intended to observe the fifteenth-day Uposatha, they cannot observe the Uposatha on the following day, but they can perform other Sangha acts. This is called night probation.

Puna bhikkhū “kiñcideva abbhānādisaṅghakammaṃ karissāmā”ti nisinnā honti, tatreko nakkhattapāṭhako bhikkhu evaṃ vadati “ajja nakkhattaṃ dāruṇaṃ, mā imaṃ karothā”ti. Te tassa vacanena chandaṃ vissajjetvā tattheva nisinnā honti. Athañño āgantvā “nakkhattaṃ patimānentaṃ, attho bālaṃ upaccagā”ti (jā. 1.1.49) vatvā “kiṃ nakkhattena, karothā”ti vadati. Idaṃ chandapārivāsiyañceva ajjhāsayapārivāsiyañca. Etasmiṃ pārivāsiye puna chandapārisuddhiṃ anānetvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati.

Again, monks sit, saying, “We will perform some Saṅgha act like reinstatement,” and one monk skilled in astrology says, “Today’s constellation is harsh; do not do it.” Listening to him, they release consent and remain there. Then another comes and says, “One awaiting a constellation, need exceeds the fool” (jā. 1.1.49), and, “What of constellations? Do it.” This is both chandapārivāsiya and ajjhāsayapārivāsiya. In this probation, without bringing consent-and-pārisuddhi again, it is not allowable to perform the act.

Again, monks sit down thinking, “We will perform some Saṅgha act, such as rehabilitation.” Then, a monk who is an astrologer says, “Today the constellation is unfavorable, do not perform this.” Due to his words, they release their consent and remain seated there. Then another monk arrives and says, “‘The fool misses the good opportunity, while waiting for the constellation’” (jā. 1.1.49), and then, “What is the use of the constellation? Perform it.” This is both chandapārivāsiya and ajjhāsayapārivāsiya. In this pārivāsiya, it is not permissible to perform the act without bringing the consent and purity again.

Again, monks may be seated, intending to perform some Sangha act like rehabilitation, etc., and a monk skilled in astrology says, “Today the constellation is unfavorable, do not perform it.” They dismiss the consent based on his words and remain seated. Then another arrives and says, “The constellation has passed, the fool has missed the opportunity,” and says, “What does the constellation matter? Perform it.” This is called consent probation and intention probation. In this probation, if consent and purity are not brought, the act cannot be performed.

172. Sace koci bhikkhu gilāno na sakkoti chandapārisuddhiṃ dātuṃ, so mañcena vā pīṭhena vā saṅghamajjhaṃ ānetabbo. Sace gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ evaṃ hoti “sace kho mayaṃ gilānaṃ ṭhānā cāvessāma, ābādho vā abhivaḍḍhissati, kālakiriyā vā bhavissatī”ti, na so bhikkhu ṭhānā cāvetabbo, saṅghena tattha gantvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace bahū tādisā gilānā honti, saṅghena paṭipāṭiyā ṭhatvā sabbe hatthapāse kātabbā. Sace dūre honti, saṅgho nappahoti, taṃ divasaṃ uposatho na kātabbo. Na tveva vaggena saṅghena uposatho kātabbo, kareyya ce, dukkaṭaṃ.

172. If a monk is sick and cannot give consent-and-pārisuddhi, he should be brought to the midst of the Saṅgha on a bed or chair. If the monks attending the sick think, “If we move the sick one from this place, his illness will worsen or he will die,” he should not be moved; the Saṅgha should go there and perform the uposatha. If there are many such sick monks, the Saṅgha should stand in order, keeping all within hand’s reach. If they are far and the Saṅgha cannot manage, the uposatha should not be performed that day. But a divided Saṅgha should not perform the uposatha; if it does, it is a dukkaṭa.

172. If a monk is sick and unable to give his consent and purity, he should be brought to the midst of the Saṅgha on a bed or a seat. If the monks attending to the sick monk think, “If we move the sick monk from his place, his illness will worsen, or he will die,” that monk should not be moved from his place. The Saṅgha should go there and perform the uposatha. If there are many such sick monks, the Saṅgha should stand in order and make them all within hand’s reach. If they are far away and the Saṅgha is unable, the uposatha should not be performed on that day. However, the uposatha should not be performed by an incomplete Saṅgha. If they do, it is a dukkaṭa offense.

172. If a monk is ill and cannot give consent and purity, he should be brought into the midst of the Sangha on a bed or a chair. If the attending monks think, “If we move the patient, his illness may worsen, or he may die,” the monk should not be moved, and the Sangha should go there to observe the Uposatha. If there are many such patients, the Sangha should stand in order and perform the act within the reach of all. If they are far away and the Sangha cannot go, the Uposatha should not be observed on that day. Nor should a divided Sangha observe the Uposatha; if they do, it is an offense of wrongdoing.

Sace (mahāva. aṭṭha. 149) ekasmiṃ vihāre catūsu bhikkhūsu vasantesu ekassa chandapārisuddhiṃ āharitvā tayo pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karonti, tīsu vā vasantesu ekassa chandapārisuddhiṃ āharitvā dve pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti, adhammena vaggaṃ uposathakammaṃ hoti. Sace pana cattāropi sannipatitvā pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karonti, tayo vā dve vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti, adhammena samaggaṃ nāma hoti. Sace catūsu janesu ekassa pārisuddhiṃ āharitvā tayo pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti, tīsu vā janesu ekassa pārisuddhiṃ āharitvā dve pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karonti, dhammena vaggaṃ nāma hoti. Sace pana cattāro ekattha vasantā sabbe sannipatitvā pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti, tayo pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karonti, dve aññamaññaṃ pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karonti, dhammena samaggaṃ nāma hoti.

If (mahāva. aṭṭha. 149) in one monastery four monks dwell, and three perform the pārisuddhiuposatha after bringing one’s consent-and-pārisuddhi, or three dwell and two recite the pātimokkha after bringing one’s consent-and-pārisuddhi, it is an unrighteous divided uposatha act. If all four gather and perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, or three or two recite the pātimokkha, it is an unrighteous united act. If among four persons, three recite the pātimokkha after bringing one’s pārisuddhi, or among three, two perform the pārisuddhiuposatha after bringing one’s pārisuddhi, it is a righteous divided act. If four dwelling together all gather and recite the pātimokkha, three perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, or two perform the pārisuddhiuposatha among one another, it is a righteous united act.

If (mahāva. aṭṭha. 149) four monks are residing in a monastery, and after bringing the consent and purity of one, three perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, or if three are residing, and after bringing the consent and purity of one, two recite the Pātimokkha, it is an incomplete uposatha act done unlawfully (adhammena vaggaṃ). If, however, all four assemble and perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, or three or two recite the Pātimokkha, it is called unlawfully complete (adhammena samaggaṃ). If, out of four people, after bringing the purity of one, three recite the Pātimokkha, or out of three people, after bringing the purity of one, two perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, it is called lawfully incomplete (dhammena vaggaṃ). If, however, four residing together all assemble and recite the Pātimokkha, or three perform the pārisuddhiuposatha, or two perform the pārisuddhiuposatha to each other, it is called lawfully complete (dhammena samaggaṃ).

If (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 149) in one monastery, four monks reside, and they bring the consent and purity of one and observe the Uposatha of purity with three, or if three reside and they bring the consent and purity of one and two recite the Pātimokkha, it is an illegal divided Uposatha act. If all four gather and observe the Uposatha of purity, or if three or two recite the Pātimokkha, it is called an illegal harmonious act. If among four individuals, they bring the purity of one and three recite the Pātimokkha, or among three individuals, they bring the purity of one and two observe the Uposatha of purity, it is called a legal divided act. If all four reside together, gather, and recite the Pātimokkha, or if three observe the Uposatha of purity, and two mutually observe the Uposatha of purity, it is called a legal harmonious act.

173. Pavāraṇākammesu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212) pana sace ekasmiṃ vihāre pañcasu bhikkhūsu vasantesu ekassa pavāraṇaṃ āharitvā cattāro gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, catūsu vā tīsu vā vasantesu ekassa pavāraṇaṃ āharitvā tayo vā dve vā saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, sabbametaṃ adhammena vaggaṃ pavāraṇākammaṃ. Sace pana sabbepi pañca janā ekato sannipatitvā gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, cattāro vā tayo vā dve vā vasantā ekato sannipatitvā saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, sabbametaṃ adhammena samaggaṃ pavāraṇākammaṃ. Sace pañcasu janesu ekassa pavāraṇaṃ āharitvā cattāro saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, catūsu vā tīsu vā ekassa pavāraṇaṃ āharitvā tayo vā dve vā gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, sabbametaṃ dhammena vaggaṃ pavāraṇākammaṃ. Sace pana sabbepi pañca janā ekato sannipatitvā saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, cattāro vā tayo vā ekato sannipatitvā gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārenti, dve aññamaññaṃ pavārenti, ekako vasanto adhiṭṭhānapavāraṇaṃ karoti, sabbametaṃ dhammena samaggaṃ nāma pavāraṇākammanti.

173. In pavāraṇā acts (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212), if in one monastery five monks dwell and four perform pavāraṇā with a group motion after bringing one’s pavāraṇā, or four or three dwell and three or two perform pavāraṇā with a Saṅgha motion after bringing one’s pavāraṇā, all this is an unrighteous divided pavāraṇā act. If all five gather and perform pavāraṇā with a group motion, or four, three, or two dwelling together perform pavāraṇā with a Saṅgha motion, all this is an unrighteous united pavāraṇā act. If among five, four perform pavāraṇā with a Saṅgha motion after bringing one’s pavāraṇā, or among four or three, three or two perform pavāraṇā with a group motion after bringing one’s pavāraṇā, all this is a righteous divided pavāraṇā act. If all five gather and perform pavāraṇā with a Saṅgha motion, or four or three gather and perform pavāraṇā with a group motion, or two perform pavāraṇā among one another, or one dwelling alone performs an adhiṭṭhāna pavāraṇā, all this is a righteous united pavāraṇā act.

173. In the case of pavāraṇā acts (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212), if five monks are residing in a monastery, and after bringing the pavāraṇā of one, four establish a gaṇañatti (motion before a group) and perform the pavāraṇā, or if four or three are residing, and after bringing the pavāraṇā of one, three or two establish a saṅghañatti (motion before the Saṅgha) and perform the pavāraṇā, all of this is an incomplete pavāraṇā act done unlawfully (adhammena vaggaṃ). If, however, all five people assemble together and establish a gaṇañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, or if four, three, or two are residing, and they assemble together and establish a saṅghañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, all of this is a complete pavāraṇā act done lawfully (adhammena samaggaṃ). If, out of five people, after bringing the pavāraṇā of one, four establish a saṅghañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, or if out of four or three, after bringing the pavāraṇā of one, three or two establish a gaṇañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, all of this is an incomplete pavāraṇā act done lawfully (dhammena vaggaṃ). If, however, all five people assemble together and establish a saṅghañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, or four or three assemble together and establish a gaṇañatti and perform the pavāraṇā, or two perform the pavāraṇā to each other, or one person residing alone performs the adhiṭṭhānapavāraṇā (determination pavāraṇā), all of this is called a complete pavāraṇā act done lawfully (dhammena samaggaṃ).

173. In Pavāraṇā acts (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 212), if in one monastery, five monks reside, and they bring the Pavāraṇā of one and four make the group motion and perform Pavāraṇā, or if four or three reside and they bring the Pavāraṇā of one and three or two make the Sangha motion and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is an illegal divided Pavāraṇā act. If all five gather and make the group motion and perform Pavāraṇā, or if four, three, or two reside together and make the Sangha motion and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is an illegal harmonious Pavāraṇā act. If among five individuals, they bring the Pavāraṇā of one and four make the Sangha motion and perform Pavāraṇā, or among four or three, they bring the Pavāraṇā of one and three or two make the group motion and perform Pavāraṇā, all this is a legal divided Pavāraṇā act. If all five gather and make the Sangha motion and perform Pavāraṇā, or if four or three gather and make the group motion and perform Pavāraṇā, and two mutually perform Pavāraṇā, or one residing alone performs the determination Pavāraṇā, all this is called a legal harmonious Pavāraṇā act.

Ettha sace cātuddasikā hoti, “ajja me pavāraṇā cātuddasī”ti, sace pannarasikā, “ajja me pavāraṇā pannarasī”ti evaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Pavāraṇaṃ dentena pana “pavāraṇaṃ dammi, pavāraṇaṃ me hara, mamatthāya pavārehī”ti kāyena vā vācāya vā kāyavācāhi vā ayamattho viññāpetabbo. Evaṃ dinnāya (mahāva. aṭṭha. 213) pavāraṇāya pavāraṇāhārakena saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ pavāretabbaṃ “tisso, bhante, bhikkhu saṅghaṃ pavāreti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatu taṃ, bhante, saṅgho anukampaṃ upādāya, passanto paṭikarissati. Dutiyampi, bhante…pe… tatiyampi, bhante, tisso bhikkhu saṅghaṃ pavāreti…pe… paṭikarissatī”ti. Sace pana vuḍḍhataro hoti, “āyasmā, bhante, tisso”ti vattabbaṃ. Evañhi tena tassatthāya pavāritaṃ hoti. Pavāraṇaṃ dentena pana chandopi dātabbo, chandadānaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Idhāpi chandadānaṃ avasesakammatthāya. Tasmā sace pavāraṇaṃ dento chandaṃ deti, vuttanayena āhaṭāya pavāraṇāya tena ca bhikkhunā saṅghena ca pavāritameva hoti. Atha pavāraṇameva deti, na chandaṃ, tassa ca pavāraṇāya ārocitāya saṅghena ca pavārite sabbesaṃ suppavāritaṃ hoti, aññaṃ pana kammaṃ kuppati. Sace chandameva deti, na pavāraṇaṃ, saṅghassa pavāraṇā ca sesakammāni ca na kuppanti, tena pana bhikkhunā appavāritaṃ hoti, pavāraṇādivase pana bahisīmāya pavāraṇaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā āgatenapi chando dātabbo tena saṅghassa pavāraṇākammaṃ na kuppati.

Here, if it is the fourteenth, it should be determined, “Today is my pavāraṇā, the fourteenth”; if the fifteenth, “Today is my pavāraṇā, the fifteenth.” When giving pavāraṇā, the meaning, “I give pavāraṇā; carry my pavāraṇā; perform pavāraṇā for me,” should be expressed by body, speech, or both. When given thus (mahāva. aṭṭha. 213), the one bringing the pavāraṇā should approach the Saṅgha and perform pavāraṇā thus: “The monk Tissa, venerable sirs, performs pavāraṇā before the Saṅgha with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected; let the Saṅgha, out of compassion, speak of it, venerable sirs; seeing it, he will make amends. For the second time, venerable sirs… for the third time, venerable sirs, the monk Tissa performs pavāraṇā… he will make amends.” If he is senior, it should be said, “The venerable Tissa, venerable sirs.” Thus, it is performed for his sake. When giving pavāraṇā, consent should also be given; giving consent should be understood as stated earlier. Here too, giving consent is for remaining acts. Thus, if one giving pavāraṇā also gives consent, with the pavāraṇā brought as stated and performed by that monk and the Saṅgha, it is well-performed. If he gives only pavāraṇā, not consent, and with that pavāraṇā announced and performed by the Saṅgha, it is well-performed for all, but other acts are disrupted. If he gives only consent, not pavāraṇā, the Saṅgha’s pavāraṇā and remaining acts are not disrupted, but he remains unperformed. Even one coming after determining pavāraṇā outside the sīma on the pavāraṇā day should give consent, so the Saṅgha’s pavāraṇā act is not disrupted.

Here, if it is the fourteenth day, one should determine, “Today is my fourteenth-day pavāraṇā.” If it is the fifteenth day, one should determine, “Today is my fifteenth-day pavāraṇā.” One who is giving the pavāraṇā should make known this intention by body, speech, or both body and speech: “I give my pavāraṇā, take my pavāraṇā, perform the pavāraṇā for my sake.” When the pavāraṇā has been given in this way (mahāva. aṭṭha. 213), the one who is bringing the pavāraṇā should approach the Saṅgha and perform the pavāraṇā thus: “Three times, venerable sir, the monk invites the Saṅgha to admonish him, whether for what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the Saṅgha, venerable sir, speak to him out of compassion. Seeing it, he will make amends. A second time, venerable sir… (repeat)… A third time, venerable sir, the monk invites the Saṅgha… (repeat)… he will make amends.” If he is older, one should say, “The venerable āyasmā Tisso.” For thus, the pavāraṇā has been performed for his sake by that monk. One who is giving the pavāraṇā should also give his consent. The giving of consent should be understood as stated earlier. Here, too, the giving of consent is for the purpose of other acts. Therefore, if the one giving the pavāraṇā gives his consent, then with the pavāraṇā brought in the manner stated, both that monk and the Saṅgha have completed the pavāraṇā. If he gives only the pavāraṇā and not the consent, and when his pavāraṇā has been proclaimed and the Saṅgha has performed the pavāraṇā, the pavāraṇā is well completed for all, but any other act is invalidated. If he gives only the consent and not the pavāraṇā, the Saṅgha’s pavāraṇā and other acts are not invalidated, but that monk has not completed the pavāraṇā. Even one who has come on the day of pavāraṇā after determining the pavāraṇā outside the boundary should give his consent, so that the Saṅgha’s pavāraṇā act is not invalidated.

Here, if it is the fourteenth day, one should determine, “Today is my fourteenth-day Pavāraṇā,” and if it is the fifteenth day, “Today is my fifteenth-day Pavāraṇā.” When giving Pavāraṇā, one should convey, “I give Pavāraṇā, carry my Pavāraṇā, perform Pavāraṇā on my behalf,” either physically, verbally, or both. Thus, the Pavāraṇā is given. When the Pavāraṇā is given (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 213), the Pavāraṇā bearer should approach the Sangha and perform Pavāraṇā as follows: “Venerable ones, the monk Tisso invites the Sangha to Pavāraṇā regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please, venerable ones, out of compassion, speak, and he will make amends. For the second time… For the third time, venerable ones, the monk Tisso invites the Sangha… and he will make amends.” If he is senior, one should say, “Venerable one, Tisso.” Thus, the Pavāraṇā is performed for his sake. When giving Pavāraṇā, consent should also be given, and the method of giving consent is as previously explained. Here too, giving consent is for the remaining acts. Therefore, if one gives consent while giving Pavāraṇā, the Pavāraṇā is considered given by both the monk and the Sangha. If one only gives Pavāraṇā and not consent, the Pavāraṇā is considered given when informed to the Sangha, and all are well-invited, but other acts are disrupted. If one only gives consent and not Pavāraṇā, the Sangha’s Pavāraṇā and remaining acts are not disrupted, but that monk remains uninvited. On the day of Pavāraṇā, if one determines Pavāraṇā outside the boundary and then comes, consent should still be given, and the Sangha’s Pavāraṇā act is not disrupted.

Sace purimikāya pañca bhikkhū vassaṃ upagatā, pacchimikāyapi pañca, purimehi ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārite pacchimehi tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo, na ekasmiṃ uposathagge dve ñattiyo ṭhapetabbā. Sacepi pacchimikāya upagatā cattāro tayo dve eko vā hoti, eseva nayo. Atha purimikāya cattāro, pacchimikāyapi cattāro tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Athāpi purimikāya tayo, pacchimikāyapi tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Idañhettha lakkhaṇaṃ.

If five monks enter the rains retreat in the prior period, and five in the final period, after the prior ones perform pavāraṇā with a motion, the final ones should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha in their presence; two motions should not be established in one uposatha hall. Even if four, three, two, or one enter in the final period, the same applies. If four in the prior and four, three, two, or one in the final, the same applies. If three in the prior and three, two, or one in the final, the same applies. This is the characteristic here.

If five monks entered the rains retreat during the first period and five during the later period, after those who entered during the first period have established a ñatti and performed the pavāraṇā, those who entered during the later period should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha in their presence. Two ñattis should not be established in one uposatha hall. The same principle applies if four, three, two, or one monk entered during the later period. If four entered during the first period, and four, three, two, or one entered during the later period, the same principle applies. Even if three entered during the first period, and three, two, or one entered during the later period, the same principle applies. This is the rule here.

If five monks have entered the rains retreat earlier and five later, the earlier ones should make the motion and perform Pavāraṇā, and the later ones should observe the Uposatha of purity in their presence. Two motions should not be made on the same Uposatha day. If the later ones are four, three, two, or one, the same applies. If the earlier ones are four and the later ones are four, three, two, or one, the same applies. If the earlier ones are three and the later ones are three, two, or one, the same applies. This is the characteristic here.

Sace purimikāya upagatehi pacchimikāya upagatā thokatarā ceva honti samasamā ca, saṅghapavāraṇāya ca gaṇaṃ pūrenti, saṅghapavāraṇāvasena ñatti ṭhapetabbā. Sace pana pacchimikāya eko hoti, tena saddhiṃ te cattāro honti, catunnaṃ saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Gaṇañattiyā pana so gaṇapūrako hoti, tasmā gaṇavasena ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā purimehi pavāretabbaṃ, itarena tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabboti. Purimikāya dve, pacchimikāya dve vā eko vā eseva nayo. Purimikāya eko pacchimikāya ekoti ekena ekassa santike pavāretabbaṃ, ekena pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Sace purimehi vassūpagatehi pacchā vassūpagatā ekenapi adhikatarā honti, paṭhamaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitvā pacchā thokatarehi tesaṃ santike pavāretabbaṃ.

If those entering in the prior period are fewer or equal to those entering in the final period and complete a group for a Saṅgha pavāraṇā, a motion should be established for a Saṅgha pavāraṇā. But if there is one in the final period, making four with them, it is not allowable for four to perform pavāraṇā with a Saṅgha motion. With a group motion, he completes the group, so the prior ones should perform pavāraṇā with a group motion, and the other should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha in their presence. If two in the prior and two or one in the final, the same applies. If one in the prior and one in the final, one should perform pavāraṇā in the other’s presence, and one should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha. If those entering the rains retreat earlier are exceeded by even one entering later, the pātimokkha should be recited first, and then the fewer should perform pavāraṇā in their presence.

If those who entered the rains retreat during the later period are fewer than or equal to those who entered during the first period, and they complete the quorum for the Saṅgha pavāraṇā, the ñatti should be established based on the Saṅgha pavāraṇā. If, however, there is only one who entered during the later period, and together with him they are four, it is not permissible to establish a saṅghañatti for four. However, he is a quorum-filler for a gaṇañatti. Therefore, the ñatti should be established based on the group, and those who entered during the first period should perform the pavāraṇā. The other monk should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha in their presence. If two entered during the first period, and two or one entered during the later period, the same principle applies. If one entered during the first period and one during the later period, one should perform the pavāraṇā in the presence of the other, and one should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha. If those who entered the rains retreat earlier are more numerous, even by one, than those who entered later, the Pātimokkha should be recited first, and then the fewer ones should perform the pavāraṇā in their presence.

If the earlier entrants are more numerous and the later entrants are fewer or equal, and they complete the Sangha for Pavāraṇā, the Sangha motion should be made. If the later entrants are one, making four with the earlier ones, the Sangha motion cannot be made for four. However, the group motion can be made, and the earlier ones should perform Pavāraṇā, while the later one should observe the Uposatha of purity in their presence. If the earlier ones are two and the later ones are two or one, the same applies. If the earlier ones are one and the later ones are one, they should perform Pavāraṇā in each other’s presence, and one should observe the Uposatha of purity. If the earlier entrants are more numerous than the later entrants, first the Pātimokkha should be recited, and then the fewer later ones should perform Pavāraṇā in their presence.

Kattikāya cātumāsinipavāraṇāya pana sace paṭhamavassūpagatehi mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritehi pacchā upagatā adhikatarā vā samasamā vā honti, pavāraṇāñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretabbaṃ. Tehi pavārite pacchā itarehi pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Atha mahāpavāraṇāyaṃ pavāritā bahū honti, pacchā vassūpagatā thokā vā eko vā, pātimokkhe uddiṭṭhe pacchā tesaṃ santike tena pavāretabbaṃ. Kiṃ panetaṃ pātimokkhaṃ sakalameva uddisitabbaṃ, udāhu ekadesampīti? Ekadesampi uddisituṃ vaṭṭati. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –

In the Kattika four-month pavāraṇā, if those entering the first rains retreat, having performed the mahāpavāraṇā, are exceeded or equaled by those entering later, they should perform pavāraṇā with a pavāraṇā motion. After they perform pavāraṇā, the others should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha later. If many performed the mahāpavāraṇā, and few or one entered the rains retreat later, after reciting the pātimokkha, they should perform pavāraṇā in their presence. But should the entire pātimokkha be recited, or just a part? It is allowable to recite even a part. It is said by the Blessed One:

In the case of the cātumāsini pavāraṇā (four-month pavāraṇā) in Kattika, if those who entered the rains retreat first and have performed the mahāpavāraṇā (great pavāraṇā) are later joined by more or an equal number of monks, the pavāraṇāñatti should be established, and they should perform the pavāraṇā. After they have performed the pavāraṇā, the others should perform the pārisuddhiuposatha. If those who performed the mahāpavāraṇā are many, and those who entered the rains retreat later are few or only one, after the Pātimokkha has been recited, they should perform the pavāraṇā in their presence. Should this Pātimokkha be recited in its entirety, or only a part of it? It is permissible to recite even a part of it. This has been stated by the Blessed One:

For the Pavāraṇā of the four months in Kattika, if the earlier entrants have performed the great Pavāraṇā and the later entrants are more numerous or equal, the Pavāraṇā motion should be made and Pavāraṇā performed. After they have performed Pavāraṇā, the others should observe the Uposatha of purity. If many have performed the great Pavāraṇā and the later entrants are fewer or one, after the Pātimokkha has been recited, they should perform Pavāraṇā in their presence. Should the entire Pātimokkha be recited, or only a part? Even a part can be recited. For the Blessed One has said:

“Pañcime, bhikkhave, pātimokkhuddesā, nidānaṃ uddisitvā avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ, ayaṃ paṭhamo pātimokkhuddeso. Nidānaṃ uddisitvā cattāri pārājikāni uddisitvā avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ, ayaṃ dutiyo pātimokkhuddeso. Nidānaṃ uddisitvā cattāri pārājikāni uddisitvā terasa saṅghādisese uddisitvā avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ, ayaṃ tatiyo pātimokkhuddeso. Nidānaṃ uddisitvā cattāri pārājikāni uddisitvā terasa saṅghādisese uddisitvā dve aniyate uddisitvā avasesaṃ bhutena sāvetabbaṃ, ayaṃ catuttho pātimokkhuddeso. Vitthāreneva pañcamo”ti (māhāva. 150).

“Monks, there are these five recitations of the pātimokkha: Having recited the nidāna, the rest should be announced as heard—this is the first recitation of the pātimokkha. Having recited the nidāna and the four pārājika, the rest should be announced as heard—this is the second recitation of the pātimokkha. Having recited the nidāna, the four pārājika, and the thirteen saṅghādisesa, the rest should be announced as heard—this is the third recitation of the pātimokkha. Having recited the nidāna, the four pārājika, the thirteen saṅghādisesa, and the two aniyata, the rest should be announced as heard—this is the fourth recitation of the pātimokkha. The fifth is in full detail” (mahāva. 150).

“There are, monks, these five recitations of the Pātimokkha. After reciting the introduction, the rest should be announced by the rule. This is the first recitation of the Pātimokkha. After reciting the introduction and reciting the four pārājikas, the rest should be announced by the rule. This is the second recitation of the Pātimokkha. After reciting the introduction, reciting the four pārājikas, and reciting the thirteen saṅghādisesas, the rest should be announced by the rule. This is the third recitation of the Pātimokkha. After reciting the introduction, reciting the four pārājikas, reciting the thirteen saṅghādisesas, and reciting the two aniyatas, the rest should be announced as having happened. This is the fourth recitation of the Pātimokkha. The fifth is in full detail” (mahāva. 150).

“Monks, there are these five ways of reciting the Pātimokkha: (1) reciting the introduction and announcing the rest as heard, this is the first way; (2) reciting the introduction and the four Pārājikas and announcing the rest as heard, this is the second way; (3) reciting the introduction, the four Pārājikas, and the thirteen Saṅghādisesas and announcing the rest as heard, this is the third way; (4) reciting the introduction, the four Pārājikas, the thirteen Saṅghādisesas, and the two Aniyatas and announcing the rest as heard, this is the fourth way; (5) reciting everything in detail, this is the fifth way” (Mahāvagga 150).

Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 150) nidānaṃ uddisitvā avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbanti “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī”ti imaṃ nidānaṃ uddisitvā “uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ, tatthāyasmante pucchāmi kaccittha parisuddhā. Dutiyampi pucchāmi…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmi. Sutā kho panāyasmantehi cattāro pārājikā dhammā …pe… avivadamānehi sikkhitabba”nti evaṃ avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ. Etena nayena sesāpi cattāro pātimokkhuddesā veditabbā.

Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 150), having recited the nidāna, the rest should be announced as heard means reciting the nidāna, “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs… it becomes comfortable for him when revealed,” and then, “The nidāna has been recited, venerables; I ask you there, are you pure in this? I ask a second time… thus I hold it. The four pārājika dhammas have been heard by the venerables… they should be trained in without dispute”—thus the rest should be announced as heard. By this method, the other four recitations of the pātimokkha should be understood.

There (mahāva. aṭṭha. 150), after reciting the introduction, the rest should be announced by the rule means that after reciting this introduction, “May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me… (repeat)… it is proper if it has been made known,” one should announce the rest by the rule thus: “The introduction, friends, has been recited. In this regard, I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time I ask… (repeat)… Thus I hold this. The four pārājika rules, friends, have been heard by the venerable sirs… (repeat)… one should train oneself without dispute.” In this way, the other four recitations of the Pātimokkha should also be understood.

Here (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 150), reciting the introduction and announcing the rest as heard means reciting, “May the Sangha listen to me… it is declared for ease,” and then saying, “Venerable ones, the introduction has been recited. I ask the venerable ones, are you pure in this matter? For the second time… For the third time… Thus, it is understood. Venerable ones, you have heard the four Pārājika rules… you should train in them without dispute,” and thus announcing the rest as heard. In this way, the other four ways of reciting the Pātimokkha should be understood.

174. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sati antarāye saṃkhittena pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ. Na, bhikkhave, asati antarāye saṃkhittena pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, yo uddiseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 150) vacanato pana vinā antarāyā saṃkhittena pātimokkhaṃ na uddisitabbaṃ. Tatrime antarāyā – rājantarāyo corantarāyo agyantarāyo udakantarāyo manussantarāyo amanussantarāyo vāḷantarāyo sarīsapantarāyo jīvitantarāyo brahmacariyantarāyoti.

174. From the statement, “I allow, monks, when there is an obstacle, to recite the pātimokkha briefly. Monks, without an obstacle, the pātimokkha should not be recited briefly; whoever recites it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 150), the pātimokkha should not be recited briefly without an obstacle. These are the obstacles: danger from kings, danger from thieves, danger from fire, danger from water, danger from humans, danger from non-humans, danger from wild animals, danger from creeping creatures, danger to life, and danger to the holy life.

174. Because it is said, “Monks, I allow the Pātimokkha to be recited in brief when there is an obstacle. Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief when there is no obstacle. Whoever recites it, commits a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 150), the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief without an obstacle. These are the obstacles: danger from kings, danger from thieves, danger from fire, danger from water, danger from humans, danger from non-humans, danger from wild animals, danger from creeping things, danger to life, danger to the holy life.

174. “I allow, monks, when there is an obstacle, to recite the Pātimokkha in brief. Monks, when there is no obstacle, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief; whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (Mahāvagga 150). Thus, without an obstacle, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief. These are the obstacles: a royal obstacle, a thief obstacle, a fire obstacle, a water obstacle, a human obstacle, a non-human obstacle, a wild animal obstacle, a snake obstacle, a life obstacle, or an obstacle to the holy life.

Tattha sace bhikkhūsu uposathaṃ karissāmāti nisinnesu rājā āgacchati, ayaṃ rājantarāyo. Corā āgacchanti, ayaṃ corantarāyo. Davaḍāho āgacchati, āvāse vā aggi uṭṭhāti, ayaṃ agyantarāyo. Megho vā uṭṭheti, ogho vā āgacchati, ayaṃ udakantarāyo. Bahū manussā āgacchanti, ayaṃ manussantarāyo. Bhikkhuṃ yakkho gaṇhāti, ayaṃ amanussantarāyo. Byagghādayo caṇḍamigā āgacchanti, ayaṃ vāḷantarāyo. Bhikkhuṃ sappādayo ḍaṃsanti, ayaṃ sarīsapantarāyo. Bhikkhu gilāno vā hoti, kālaṃ vā karoti, verino vā taṃ māretukāmā gaṇhanti, ayaṃ jīvitantarāyo. Manussā ekaṃ vā bahū vā bhikkhū brahmacariyā cāvetukāmā gaṇhanti, ayaṃ brahmacariyantarāyo. Evarūpesu antarāyesu saṃkhittena pātimokkho uddisitabbo, paṭhamo vā uddeso uddisitabbo. Ādimhi dve tayo cattāro vā. Ettha dutiyādīsu uddesesu yasmiṃ apariyosite antarāyo hoti, sopi suteneva sāvetabbo. Nidānuddese pana aniṭṭhite sutena sāvetabbaṃ nāma natthi.

Here, if while monks sit to perform the uposatha a king arrives, this is danger from kings. If thieves arrive, this is danger from thieves. If a forest fire approaches or a fire arises in the residence, this is danger from fire. If a cloud rises or a flood comes, this is danger from water. If many people arrive, this is danger from humans. If a yakkha seizes a monk, this is danger from non-humans. If fierce animals like tigers approach, this is danger from wild animals. If snakes and the like bite, this is danger from creeping creatures. If a monk is sick, dies, or enemies wishing to kill him seize him, this is danger to life. If people seize one or many monks to make them fall from the holy life, this is danger to the holy life. In such obstacles, the pātimokkha should be recited briefly, or the first recitation should be done—two, three, or four at the start. Here, in the second and subsequent recitations, if an obstacle occurs before completion, that too should be announced as heard. But if the nidāna recitation is unfinished, there is no announcing as heard.

Here, if the king arrives while the monks are seated intending to perform the Uposatha, this is a king-danger. If robbers arrive, this is a robber-danger. If a wildfire approaches, or a fire breaks out in the dwelling, this is a fire-danger. If a storm cloud arises, or a flood comes, this is a water-danger. If many people arrive, this is a people-danger. If a yakkha seizes a monk, this is a non-human-danger. If fierce animals like tigers and so on arrive, this is a wild-beast-danger. If snakes and other creatures bite a monk, this is a creeping-creature-danger. If a monk is ill, or dies, or enemies seize him intending to kill him, this is a life-danger. If people seize one or many monks intending to make them abandon the holy life, this is a holy-life-danger. In such dangers, the Pātimokkha should be recited in brief, or the first section should be recited. Or two, three, or four sections at the beginning. Here, in the case of the second and subsequent sections, if a danger arises before a section is completed, that section should also be recited just by the text (suttanta). But if the introduction (Nidāna) is not completed, there is no reciting it by the text.

Here, if while the bhikkhus are seated intending to perform the Uposatha, a king arrives, this is called the obstacle of a king. If thieves arrive, this is called the obstacle of thieves. If a forest fire arises or a fire breaks out in the monastery, this is called the obstacle of fire. If a storm cloud arises or a flood comes, this is called the obstacle of water. If many people arrive, this is called the obstacle of people. If a yakkha seizes a bhikkhu, this is called the obstacle of non-humans. If fierce animals such as tigers arrive, this is called the obstacle of wild animals. If snakes or other creatures bite a bhikkhu, this is called the obstacle of reptiles. If a bhikkhu becomes ill or dies, or if enemies seize him intending to kill him, this is called the obstacle to life. If people seize one or many bhikkhus intending to make them abandon the holy life, this is called the obstacle to the holy life. In such obstacles, the Pātimokkha should be recited briefly, or the first recitation should be done. At the beginning, two, three, or four [verses] should be recited. Here, in the second and subsequent recitations, if an obstacle arises before the recitation is completed, it should be announced by the one who heard it. However, during the introductory recitation, if it is not completed, there is no need to announce it.

Pavāraṇākammepi sati antarāye dvevācikaṃ ekavācikaṃ samānavassikaṃ vā pavāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 234) ñattiṃ ṭhapentenapi “yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho dvevācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti vattabbaṃ. Ekavācike “ekavācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti, samānavassikepi “samānavassikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti vattabbaṃ. Ettha ca bahūpi samānavassā ekato pavāretuṃ labhanti. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ajja pavāraṇā pannarasī, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho pavāreyyā”ti imāya pana sabbasaṅgāhikāya ñattiyā ṭhapitāya tevācikaṃ dvevācikaṃ ekavācikañca pavāretuṃ vaṭṭati, samānavassikaṃ na vaṭṭati. “Tevācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti vutte pana tevācikameva vaṭṭati, aññaṃ na vaṭṭati. “Dvevācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti vutte dvevācikaṃ tevācikañca vaṭṭati, ekavācikañca samānavassikañca na vaṭṭati. “Ekavācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti vutte pana ekavācikadvevācikatevācikāni vaṭṭanti, samānavassikameva na vaṭṭati. “Samānavassika”nti vutte sabbaṃ vaṭṭati.

In pavāraṇā acts too, when there is an obstacle, it is allowable to perform a two-statement, one-statement, or same-rains pavāraṇā. Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 234), even when establishing the motion, it should be said, “If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha perform a two-statement pavāraṇā.” For a one-statement, “May it perform a one-statement pavāraṇā”; for same-rains, “May it perform a same-rains pavāraṇā.” Here, many with the same rains may perform pavāraṇā together. With the all-inclusive motion, “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs; today is the pavāraṇā, the fifteenth; if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha perform pavāraṇā,” it is allowable to perform a three-statement, two-statement, or one-statement pavāraṇā, but not a same-rains one. If “three-statement” is said, only three-statement is allowable, not others. If “two-statement” is said, two-statement and three-statement are allowable, but not one-statement or same-rains. If “one-statement” is said, one-statement, two-statement, and three-statement are allowable, but not same-rains. If “same-rains” is said, all are allowable.

Even in the Pavāraṇā ceremony, if there is a danger, it is permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations, one declaration, or with those of equal standing in years of ordination. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 234), even when setting forth the motion (ñatti), one should say, “If it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations.” In the case of one declaration, one should say, “…should perform the Pavāraṇā with one declaration,” and in the case of those of equal standing, one should say, “…should perform the Pavāraṇā with those of equal standing.” And here, even many of equal standing can perform the Pavāraṇā together. But when this all-inclusive motion is set forth: “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha hear me. Today is the Pavāraṇā, the fifteenth day. If it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should perform the Pavāraṇā,” it is permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā with three declarations, two declarations, or one declaration, but it is not permissible with those of equal standing. But when it is said, “…should perform the Pavāraṇā with three declarations,” only the three-declaration form is permissible, nothing else. When it is said, “…should perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations,” both the two-declaration and the three-declaration forms are permissible, but the one-declaration form and the form with those of equal standing are not permissible. But when it is said, “…should perform the Pavāraṇā with one declaration,” the one-declaration, two-declaration, and three-declaration forms are permissible, but only the form with those of equal standing is not permissible. When “with those of equal standing” is said, everything is permissible.

Even in the case of the Pavāraṇā ceremony, if an obstacle arises, it is permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations, one declaration, or with those of the same year. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 234), even if one sets aside the motion, it should be said, “If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations.” In the case of one declaration, it should be said, “May perform the Pavāraṇā with one declaration,” and in the case of those of the same year, it should be said, “May perform the Pavāraṇā with those of the same year.” Here, even many of the same year can perform the Pavāraṇā together. “Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. Today is the Pavāraṇā day on the fifteenth. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha perform the Pavāraṇā.” However, if this general motion is set aside, it is permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā with three declarations, two declarations, or one declaration, but not with those of the same year. If it is said, “May perform the Pavāraṇā with three declarations,” then only the three declarations are permissible, and nothing else. If it is said, “May perform the Pavāraṇā with two declarations,” then two declarations and three declarations are permissible, but one declaration and those of the same year are not. If it is said, “May perform the Pavāraṇā with one declaration,” then one declaration, two declarations, and three declarations are permissible, but those of the same year are not. If it is said, “With those of the same year,” then all are permissible.

175. Kena pana pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbanti? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, therādhikaṃ pātimokkha”nti (mahāva. 154) vacanato therena vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yo tattha bhikkhu byatto paṭibalo, tassādheyyaṃ pātimokkha”nti (mahāva. 155) vacanato navakatarena vā. Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 155) ca kiñcāpi navakatarassapi byattassa pātimokkhaṃ anuññātaṃ, atha kho ettha ayaṃ adhippāyo – sace therassa pañca vā cattāro vā tayo vā pātimokkhuddesā nāgacchanti, dve pana akhaṇḍā suvisadā vācuggatā honti, therāyattaṃva pātimokkhaṃ. Sace pana ettakampi visadaṃ kātuṃ na sakkoti, byattassa bhikkhuno āyatthaṃ hoti, tasmā sayaṃ vā uddisitabbaṃ, añño vā ajjhesitabbo. “Na, bhikkhave, saṅghamajjhe anajjhiṭṭhena pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, yo uddiseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 154) vacanato anajjhiṭṭhena pātimokkhaṃ na uddisitabbaṃ. Na kevalaṃ pātimokkhaṃyeva, dhammopi na bhāsitabbo “na, bhikkhave, saṅghamajjhe anajjhiṭṭhena dhammo bhāsitabbo, yo bhāseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 150) vacanato.

175. By whom should the pātimokkha be recited? From the statement, “I allow, monks, the pātimokkha to be based on the elder” (mahāva. 154), it should be recited by the elder; from, “I allow, monks, it to be entrusted to a monk there who is competent and capable” (mahāva. 155), it may be by a junior. Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 155), though it is allowed for a competent junior, the intent is this: If the elder does not recall five, four, or three recitations of the pātimokkha, but two are complete, clear, and well-memorized, the pātimokkha depends on the elder. If he cannot even make that much clear, it depends on a competent monk; thus, he should recite it himself or request another. From, “Monks, the pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Saṅgha by one not requested; whoever recites it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 154), it should not be recited by one not requested. Not only the pātimokkha, but also Dhamma should not be spoken, from, “Monks, Dhamma should not be spoken in the midst of the Saṅgha by one not requested; whoever speaks it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 150).

175. But by whom should the Pātimokkha be recited? According to the statement, “I allow, monks, the senior-most to recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 154), the Pātimokkha should be recited by the elder, or according to the statement, “I allow, monks, that the monk there who is learned and capable should request the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 155), by a junior monk. And here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 155), although the Pātimokkha is permitted even for a learned junior monk, this is the intention: if the elder does not know five, four, or three sections of the Pātimokkha, but two are perfectly clear and well-memorized, the Pātimokkha is dependent on the elder. But if he is unable to make even that much clear, it becomes dependent on a learned monk. Therefore, he should either recite it himself or request another. Because of the statement, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested. Whoever should recite it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 154), the Pātimokkha should not be recited by one who has not been requested. Not only the Pātimokkha, but also the Dhamma should not be spoken because of the statement, “Monks, the Dhamma should not be spoken in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested. Whoever should speak it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 150).

175. By whom should the Pātimokkha be recited? “I allow, bhikkhus, the senior bhikkhu to recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 154). Thus, the Pātimokkha should be recited by a senior bhikkhu. “I allow, bhikkhus, any bhikkhu who is competent and capable to take responsibility for the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 155). Thus, it may also be recited by a junior bhikkhu. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 155), although the Pātimokkha is allowed to be recited by a junior bhikkhu who is competent, the intention here is that if the senior bhikkhu does not get the opportunity to recite the Pātimokkha five, four, or three times, but two [recitations] are unbroken and clearly articulated, then the Pātimokkha should still be under the authority of the senior bhikkhu. However, if even this much clarity cannot be achieved, it is the duty of the competent bhikkhu. Therefore, he should either recite it himself or request another to do so. “Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested. Whoever recites it incurs an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 154). Thus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited by one who has not been requested. Not only the Pātimokkha, but the Dhamma should also not be taught. “Bhikkhus, the Dhamma should not be taught in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who has not been requested. Whoever teaches it incurs an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 150).

Ajjhesanā cettha saṅghena sammatadhammajjhesakāyattā vā saṅghatthe rāyattā vā, tasmā dhammajjhesake asati saṅghattheraṃ āpucchitvā vā tena yācito vā bhāsituṃ labhati. Saṅghattherenapi sace vihāre bahū dhammakathikā honti, vārapaṭipāṭiyā vattabbo. “Tvaṃ dhammaṃ bhaṇa, dhammadānaṃ dehī”ti vā vuttena tīhipi vidhīhi dhammo bhāsitabbo, “osārehī”ti vutto pana osāretumeva labhati, “kathehī”ti vutto kathetumeva, “sarabhaññaṃ bhaṇāhī”ti vutto sarabhaññameva. Saṅghattheropi ca uccatare āsane nisinno yācituṃ na labhati. Sace upajjhāyo ceva saddhivihāriko ca hoti, upajjhāyo ca naṃ uccāsane nisinno “bhaṇā”ti vadati, sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā bhaṇitabbaṃ. Sace panettha daharabhikkhū honti, “tesaṃ bhaṇāmī”ti bhaṇitabbaṃ. Sace vihāre saṅghatthero attanoyeva nissitake bhaṇāpeti, aññe madhurabhāṇakepi nājjhesati, so aññehi vattabbo – “bhante, asukaṃ nāma bhaṇāpemā”ti. Sace “bhaṇāpethā”ti vadati, tuṇhī vā hoti, bhaṇāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana paṭibāhati, na bhaṇāpetabbaṃ. Yadi pana anāgateyeva saṅghatthere dhammassavanaṃ āraddhaṃ, puna āgate ṭhapetvā āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi. Osāretvā pana kathentena āpucchitvā aṭṭhapetvāyeva vā kathetabbaṃ. Kathentassa puna āgatepi eseva nayo.

Request here depends on one appointed by the Saṅgha as a righteous requester or on the Saṅgha elder. Thus, if no righteous requester is present, one may speak after asking the Saṅgha elder or being requested by him. If there are many Dhamma speakers in the monastery, the elder should assign turns. If told, “Speak Dhamma; give the gift of Dhamma,” it should be spoken in all three ways; if told, “Conclude,” he may only conclude; if told, “Speak,” he may only speak; if told, “Recite with intonation,” he may only recite with intonation. The Saṅgha elder, while seated on a higher seat, cannot request. If there is both a preceptor and a co-resident, and the preceptor, seated on a higher seat, says, “Speak,” it should be spoken after determining it as recitation. If there are junior monks, it should be said, “I speak for them.” If the Saṅgha elder has only his own dependents speak in the monastery and does not request others who speak sweetly, he should be told by others, “Venerable sir, let so-and-so speak.” If he says, “Let him speak,” or remains silent, it is allowable to have him speak. If he objects, he should not be made to speak. If Dhamma listening began before the Saṅgha elder arrived, there is no need to ask upon his arrival, except to set it aside. After concluding and speaking, it should be spoken again only after asking and setting it aside. The same applies if another arrives while speaking.

Here, the request is either dependent on the Dhamma-reciter appointed by the Saṅgha, or dependent on the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha. Therefore, in the absence of a Dhamma-reciter, one may speak after taking leave of the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha, or having been requested by him. And if there are many Dhamma speakers in the monastery, the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha should assign them in turn. Or, having been told, “You speak the Dhamma, give the gift of the Dhamma,” the Dhamma should be spoken in all three ways. But one who has been told, “Expound,” is only allowed to expound. One who has been told, “Speak,” is only allowed to speak. One who has been told, “Recite in a melodious tone (sarabhañña),” should only recite in a melodious tone. And the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha, seated on a higher seat, is not allowed to request. If the preceptor and the co-resident are present, and the preceptor, seated on a high seat, says, “Recite,” one should establish the recitation and recite. If there are young monks here, one should recite saying, “I am reciting for them.” If the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha in the monastery only makes his own dependents recite, and does not request others who are sweet-voiced speakers, he should be told by others, “Venerable sir, let so-and-so recite.” If he says, “Make him recite,” or remains silent, it is permissible to make him recite. But if he objects, he should not be made to recite. But if the Dhamma listening has already begun with the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha not yet arrived, there is no need to stop and take leave upon his arrival. But one who has expounded after requesting and without stopping should expound. If he arrives after the speaker has started, the same procedure applies.

Here, the request can be made by the Saṅgha through a formally appointed Dhamma speaker, or by the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha. Therefore, in the absence of a Dhamma speaker, one may teach after informing the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha or after being requested by him. Even if the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha is present, if there are many Dhamma speakers in the monastery, they should be addressed in order. “You teach the Dhamma, give the gift of Dhamma,” or when told, “Withdraw,” one should withdraw; when told, “Speak,” one should speak; when told, “Recite the Sarabhañña,” one should recite the Sarabhañña. The senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha, even if seated on a higher seat, should not request [someone to teach]. If the preceptor and the pupil are both present, the preceptor, seated on a higher seat, may say, “Speak,” and one should speak after determining the recitation. If there are young bhikkhus present, one should say, “I will speak for them,” and then speak. If in the monastery the senior bhikkhu himself instructs his dependents to speak, and does not request others, even if they are eloquent speakers, others should say, “Venerable sir, we will instruct so-and-so to speak.” If he says, “Instruct them to speak,” or remains silent, it is permissible to instruct them to speak. However, if he objects, they should not be instructed to speak. If, however, the senior bhikkhu has already begun listening to the Dhamma in the future, when he arrives again, there is no need to inform him. After withdrawing, one who is speaking should inform him and then continue, or after informing him, one should continue. The same applies if the speaker arrives again.

Upanisinnakathāyampi saṅghattherova sāmī, tasmā tena sayaṃ vā kathetabbaṃ, añño vā bhikkhu “kathehī”ti vattabbo, no ca kho uccatare āsanne nisinnena, manussānaṃ pana “bhaṇāhī”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Manussā attano jānanakaṃ bhikkhuṃ pucchanti, tena theraṃ āpucchitvāpi kathetabbaṃ. Sace saṅghatthero “bhante, ime pañhaṃ pucchantī”ti puṭṭho “kathehī”ti vā bhaṇati, tuṇhī vā hoti, kathetuṃ vaṭṭati. Antaraghare anumodanādīsupi eseva nayo. Sace saṅghatthero “vihāre vā antaraghare vā maṃ anāpucchitvāpi katheyyāsī”ti anujānāti, laddhakappiyaṃ hoti, sabbattha vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Sajjhāyaṃ karontenāpi thero āpucchitabboyeva. Ekaṃ āpucchitvā sajjhāyantassa aparo āgacchati, puna āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi. Sacepi “vissamissāmī”ti ṭhapitassa āgacchati, puna ārabhantena āpucchitabbaṃ. Saṅghatthere anāgateyeva āraddhaṃ sajjhāyantassāpi eseva nayo. Ekena saṅghattherena “maṃ anāpucchāpi yathāsukhaṃ sajjhāyāhī”ti anuññāte yathāsukhaṃ sajjhāyituṃ vaṭṭati, aññasmiṃ pana āgate taṃ āpucchitvāva sajjhāyitabbaṃ.

In seated conversation too, the Saṅgha elder is the authority; thus, he should speak himself or tell another monk, “Speak,” but not while seated on a higher seat. It is allowable to tell people, “Speak.” If people ask a monk they know, he should speak after asking the elder. If the Saṅgha elder, when asked, “Venerable sir, they are asking a question,” says, “Speak,” or remains silent, it is allowable to speak. The same applies to blessings in the village. If the Saṅgha elder permits, “You may speak in the monastery or village without asking me,” it becomes permissible, and it is allowable to speak everywhere. Even when reciting, the elder should be asked. After asking one and reciting, if another arrives, there is no need to ask again. If another arrives after pausing to rest, recitation should resume after asking. The same applies if recitation began before the Saṅgha elder arrived. If one Saṅgha elder permits, “Recite as you wish without asking me,” it is allowable to recite freely; but if another arrives, he should be asked before reciting.

Even in informal Dhamma talks, the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha is the authority. Therefore, he should either speak himself, or another monk should be told, “Speak,” but not by one seated on a higher seat. But it is permissible to say to people, “Recite.” If people ask a monk they know, he should speak even after taking leave of the elder. If the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha, having been asked, “Venerable sir, these people are asking questions,” says, “Speak,” or remains silent, it is permissible to speak. The same procedure applies to giving blessings and so on within a house. If the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha gives permission, saying, “You may speak in the monastery or within a house even without taking leave of me,” it becomes permissible, and it is permissible to speak everywhere. Even one performing recitation should take leave of the elder. If another arrives while one is reciting after taking leave of one elder, there is no need to take leave again. Even if he arrives after one has stopped, intending to rest, one should take leave when starting again. The same procedure applies to one reciting with the recitation having already begun with the senior-most monk of the Saṅgha not yet arrived. When permission has been given by one senior-most monk of the Saṅgha, saying, “Recite as you please without taking leave of me,” it is permissible to recite as one pleases, but if another arrives, one should recite only after taking leave of him.

In the case of a seated discussion, the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha is the authority. Therefore, he should either speak himself or tell another bhikkhu, “Speak,” but not while seated on a higher seat. However, it is permissible for laypeople to say, “Speak.” Laypeople may ask a bhikkhu they know, and he should speak after informing the senior bhikkhu. If the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha is asked, “Venerable sir, they are asking these questions,” and he says, “Speak,” or remains silent, it is permissible to speak. The same applies in the case of sharing merit, etc., within a house. If the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha allows, “You may speak in the monastery or within a house without informing me,” it is permissible to speak in all cases. Even when reciting, the senior bhikkhu should be informed. If one has informed one person and is reciting, and another arrives, there is no need to inform again. If one has said, “I will rest,” and then someone arrives, one should inform again before beginning. The same applies if the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha has already begun reciting in the future. If one senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha allows, “You may recite as you wish without informing me,” it is permissible to recite as one wishes. However, if another arrives, one should inform him before reciting.

Yasmiṃ pana vihāre sabbeva bhikkhū bālā honti abyattā na jānanti pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Tehi bhikkhūhi eko bhikkhu sāmantā āvāsā sajjukaṃ pāhetabbo “gacchāvuso, saṃkhittena vā vitthārena vā pātimokkhaṃ pariyāpuṇitvā āgacchāhī”ti. Evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, tehi bhikkhūhi sabbeheva yattha tādisā bhikkhū honti, so āvāso uposathakaraṇatthāya anvaḍḍhamāsaṃ gantabbo, agacchantānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Idañca utuvasseyeva, vassāne pana purimikāya pātimokkhuddesakena vinā na vassaṃ upagacchitabbaṃ. Sace so vassūpagatānaṃ pakkamati vā vibbhamati vā kālaṃ vā karoti, aññasmiṃ satiyeva pacchimikāya vasituṃ vaṭṭati, asati aññattha gantabbaṃ, agacchantānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana pacchimikāya pakkamati vā vibbhamati vā kālaṃ vā karoti, māsadvayaṃ vasitabbaṃ.

If in a monastery all monks are foolish, incompetent, and do not know how to recite the pātimokkha, what should be done? Those monks should quickly send one monk to a nearby residence, saying, “Go, friend; learn the pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.” If he obtains it, that is well. If not, all those monks should go every half-month to a residence where such monks are, for the sake of the uposatha; if they do not go, it is a dukkaṭa. This applies only outside the rains; during the rains, one should not enter the prior rains retreat without a pātimokkha reciter. If he leaves, disrobes, or dies after they enter the rains, it is allowable to dwell in the final period only if another is present; if not, they should go elsewhere—failing to go incurs a dukkaṭa. If he leaves, disrobes, or dies in the final period, they should dwell for two months.

But in a monastery where all the monks are unlearned, uninstructed, and do not know how to recite the Pātimokkha, what should be done? Those monks should promptly send one monk to a nearby dwelling, saying, “Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha, either in brief or in full, and come back.” If this can be obtained, this is good. If it cannot be obtained, all those monks should go to a dwelling where there are such monks, for the purpose of performing the Uposatha, every half-month. Those who do not go incur an offense of wrong-doing. And this is only during the rains retreat. But during the rains, one should not enter the rains without a Pātimokkha reciter for the first half. If he leaves, or disrobes, or dies, after they have entered the rains, if another is available, it is permissible to reside for the second half. If not, they should go elsewhere. Those who do not go incur an offense of wrong-doing. But if he leaves, or disrobes, or dies, during the second half, they should reside for two months.

In a monastery where all the bhikkhus are ignorant, incompetent, and do not know how to recite the Pātimokkha, what should be done? Those bhikkhus should quickly send one bhikkhu to a neighboring monastery, saying, “Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.” If this is possible, it is good. If not, those bhikkhus should go every half-month to a monastery where such bhikkhus reside for the purpose of performing the Uposatha. If they do not go, they incur an offense. This applies only during the rainy season. In the rainy season, one should not enter the rains retreat without a Pātimokkha reciter. If that reciter leaves, disrobes, or dies during the rains retreat, one may spend the latter part of the rains retreat in another place if one is available. If not, one should go elsewhere. If one does not go, one incurs an offense. If the reciter leaves, disrobes, or dies during the latter part of the rains retreat, one should spend two months [there].

Yattha pana te bālā bhikkhū viharanti abyattā, sace tattha koci bhikkhu āgacchati bahussuto āgatāgamo dhammadharo vinayadharo mātikādharo paṇḍito byatto medhāvī lajjī kukkuccako sikkhākāmo, tehi bhikkhūhi so bhikkhu saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbo upalāpetabbo , upaṭṭhāpetabbo cuṇṇena mattikāya dantakaṭṭhena mukhodakena. No ce saṅgaheyyuṃ anuggaheyyuṃ upalāpeyyuṃ, upaṭṭhāpeyyuṃ cuṇṇena mattikāya dantakaṭṭhena mukhodakena, sabbesaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Idha neva therā, na daharā muccanti, sabbehi vārena upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Attano vāre anupaṭṭhahantassa āpatti. Tena pana mahātherānaṃ pariveṇasammajjanadantakaṭṭhadānādīni na sāditabbāni, evampi sati mahātherehi sāyaṃpātaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ āgantabbaṃ, tena pana tesaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā paṭhamataraṃ mahātherānaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ gantabbaṃ. Sacassa saddhiñcarā bhikkhū upaṭṭhākā atthi, “mayhaṃ upaṭṭhākā atthi, tumhe appossukkā viharathā”ti vattabbaṃ. Athāpissa saddhiñcarā natthi, tasmiṃyeva vihāre eko vā dve vā vattasampannā vadanti “mayaṃ therassa kattabbaṃ karissāma, avasesā phāsu viharantū”ti, sabbesaṃ anāpatti.

Where those foolish, incompetent monks dwell, if a monk arrives who is learned, versed in the tradition, a bearer of Dhamma, Vinaya, and summaries, wise, competent, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, those monks should support, assist, encourage, and attend to him with powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and mouthwash. If they do not support, assist, encourage, or attend to him with powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and mouthwash, it is a dukkaṭa for all. Here, neither elders nor juniors are exempt; all should attend in turn. For one not attending in his turn, there is an offense. But he should not accept sweeping the elders’ quarters, giving tooth-sticks, and so forth; even so, the elders should come morning and evening to attend him. Knowing their coming, he should attend to the elders first. If he has co-resident monks as attendants, he should say, “I have attendants; dwell at ease.” If he has no co-residents, and one or two dutiful monks in that monastery say, “We will do what is needed for the elder; let the rest dwell at ease,” there is no offense for all.

But where those unlearned, uninstructed monks are dwelling, if a monk arrives who is well-versed, has received the tradition, is a bearer of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, a bearer of the Mātikā, is wise, learned, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, those monks should receive that monk, support him, encourage him, and attend to him with tooth-cleaning powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and water for rinsing the mouth. If they do not receive him, support him, encourage him, and attend to him with tooth-cleaning powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and water for rinsing the mouth, there is an offense of wrong-doing for all of them. Here, neither the elders nor the juniors are exempt. All should attend to him in turn. There is an offense for one who does not attend to him during his turn. But he should not enjoy the sweeping of the elders’ quarters, the giving of tooth-sticks, and so on. Even so, the elders should come to attend to him in the evening and morning. But he, knowing of their arrival, should go to attend to the elders first. If he has attendant monks who serve him, he should say, “I have attendants. You may dwell at ease.” But if he has no attendants, and one or two monks who are accomplished in duties in that same monastery say, “We will perform the duties for the elder. Let the rest dwell at ease,” there is no offense for all of them.

In a place where those ignorant bhikkhus reside, if a bhikkhu arrives who is learned, versed in the Dhamma, Vinaya, and Mātikā, wise, competent, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, those bhikkhus should support him, assist him, serve him, and attend to him with toothwood, clay, and mouth-rinsing water. If they do not support, assist, serve, or attend to him with toothwood, clay, and mouth-rinsing water, they all incur an offense. Here, neither the seniors nor the juniors are exempt; all must attend to him by turns. If one does not attend to him in one’s turn, one incurs an offense. However, the senior bhikkhus should not be asked to sweep the cells, give toothwood, etc. Even so, the senior bhikkhus should come in the evening to attend to him. Knowing of their arrival, one should go first to attend to the senior bhikkhus. If a bhikkhu has attendants traveling with him, he should say, “I have attendants, you may remain at ease.” If, however, he has no attendants traveling with him, one or two well-behaved bhikkhus in that monastery should say, “We will do what needs to be done for the senior bhikkhu, let the rest remain at ease.” There is no offense for all.

176. “Yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyyā”ti(mahāva. 134) ādivacanato na sāpattikena uposatho kātabbo, tasmā tadahuposathe āpattiṃ sarantena desetabbā. Desentena ca ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evaṃ vattabbo “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti. Sace navakataro hoti, “ahaṃ, bhante”ti vattabbaṃ. “Taṃ paṭidesemī”ti idaṃ pana attano attano anurūpavasena “taṃ tuyhamūle, taṃ tumhamūle paṭidesemī”ti vuttepi suvuttameva hoti. Paṭiggāhakenapi attano attano anurūpavasena “passatha, bhante, taṃ āpattiṃ, passasi, āvuso, taṃ āpatti”nti vā vattabbaṃ, puna desakena “āma, āvuso, passāmi, āma, bhante, passāmī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Puna paṭiggāhakena “āyatiṃ, bhante, saṃvareyyātha, āyatiṃ, āvuso, saṃvareyyāsī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ vutte desakena “sādhu suṭṭhu āvuso saṃvarissāmi, sādhu suṭṭhu, bhante, saṃvarissāmī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Sace āpattiyā vematiko hoti, ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evaṃ vattabbo “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmāya āpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissāmi, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī”ti vatvā uposatho kātabbo, pātimokkhaṃ sotabbaṃ, na tveva tappaccayā uposathassa antarāyo kātabbo. “Na, bhikkhave, sabhāgā āpatti desetabbā, yo deseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Na, bhikkhave, sabhāgā āpatti paṭiggahetabbā, yo paṭiggaṇheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 169) vacanato yaṃ dvepi janā vikālabhojanādinā sabhāgavatthunā āpattiṃ āpajjanti, evarūpā vatthusabhāgā āpatti neva desetabbā, na ca paṭiggahetabbā. Vikālabhojanapaccayā āpannaṃ pana āpattisabhāgaṃ anatirittabhojanapaccayā āpannassa santike desetuṃ vaṭṭati.

176. From the statement, “One with an offense should confess it” (mahāva. 134) and so forth, the uposatha should not be performed by one with an offense; thus, on that uposatha day, one recalling an offense should confess it. When confessing, approaching one monk, arranging the upper robe over one shoulder, sitting in a squatting position, raising hands in añjali, he should say, “Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense; I confess it.” If junior, “Venerable sir” should be said. “I confess it” may be said as suits oneself, “I confess it at your feet,” or “I confess it to you”—this too is well-said. The receiver should say, as suits himself, “Do you see that offense, venerable sir?” or “Do you see that offense, friend?” The confessor should say, “Yes, friend, I see it,” or “Yes, venerable sir, I see it.” The receiver should then say, “In the future, venerable sir, you should restrain yourself,” or “In the future, friend, you should restrain yourself.” When this is said, the confessor should say, “Good, well, friend, I will restrain myself,” or “Good, well, venerable sir, I will restrain myself.” If doubtful about an offense, approaching one monk, arranging the upper robe over one shoulder, sitting in a squatting position, raising hands in añjali, he should say, “Friend, I am doubtful about such-and-such an offense; when I am free of doubt, then I will make amends for that offense,” and perform the uposatha; he should listen to the pātimokkha, but no obstacle to the uposatha should be made on that account. From, “Monks, a common offense should not be confessed; whoever confesses it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, a common offense should not be received; whoever receives it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 169), an offense with a common basis, such as untimely eating by two people, should neither be confessed nor received. But an offense from untimely eating may be confessed in the presence of one with a similar offense from overeating.

176. Because of the statement, “Whoever has an offense should declare it” (Mahāva. 134) and so on, the Uposatha should not be performed by one with an offense. Therefore, one who remembers an offense on the day of the Uposatha should confess it. And when confessing, one should approach a monk, arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, sit down on the heels, raise the joined palms, and say thus: “I, friend, have committed an offense called such-and-such. I confess it.” If he is a junior, one should say, “I, venerable sir.” But this, “I confess it,” is well-said even if one says, according to one’s own situation, “I confess it before you, I confess it before you, venerable sir.” And the one who receives the confession should also say, according to his own situation, “Do you see, venerable sir, that offense? Do you see, friend, that offense?” Then the one who confesses should say, “Yes, friend, I see it. Yes, venerable sir, I see it.” Then the one who receives the confession should say, “In the future, venerable sir, you should restrain yourself. In the future, friend, you should restrain yourself.” Having been told thus, the one who confesses should say, “Good, well, friend, I will restrain myself. Good, well, venerable sir, I will restrain myself.” If one is uncertain about the offense, one should approach a monk, arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, sit down on the heels, raise the joined palms, and say thus: “I, friend, am uncertain about an offense called such-and-such. When I become certain, I will deal with that offense.” Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed, the Pātimokkha should be listened to, but the Uposatha should not be interrupted on that account. Because of the statement, “Monks, a shared offense should not be confessed. Whoever should confess it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Monks, a shared offense should not be received. Whoever should receive it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 169), when two people commit an offense with a shared object, such as eating at the wrong time, such an offense with a shared object should neither be confessed nor received. But it is permissible to confess an offense that is shared in terms of the offense, committed due to eating at the wrong time, in the presence of one who has committed an offense due to eating something that has not been left over.

176. “Whoever has an offense should confess it” (Mahāva. 134). Thus, one who has an offense should not perform the Uposatha. Therefore, on the day of the Uposatha, if one remembers an offense, one should confess it. When confessing, one should approach one bhikkhu, arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, sit in a kneeling position, raise one’s hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense, I confess it.” If the other is a junior bhikkhu, one should say, “Venerable sir.” “I confess it.” This should be said in a manner appropriate to oneself. Even if one says, “I confess it to you,” or “I confess it at your feet,” it is well said. The receiver should also respond in a manner appropriate to himself, saying, “Do you see the offense, venerable sir? Do you see the offense, friend?” The confessor should then say, “Yes, friend, I see it. Yes, venerable sir, I see it.” The receiver should then 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 respond, “Good, friend, I will restrain myself well. Good, venerable sir, I will restrain myself well.” If one is doubtful about an offense, one should approach one bhikkhu, arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, sit in a kneeling position, raise one’s hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, I am doubtful about such-and-such an offense. When I am no longer doubtful, I will make amends for that offense.” Having said this, one should perform the Uposatha and listen to the Pātimokkha. However, one should not cause an obstacle to the Uposatha because of this. “Bhikkhus, a shared offense should not be confessed. Whoever confesses it incurs an offense of wrong conduct. Bhikkhus, a shared offense should not be accepted. Whoever accepts it incurs an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 169). Thus, if two people commit an offense through a shared matter such as eating at the wrong time, such a shared offense should neither be confessed nor accepted. However, an offense related to eating at the wrong time can be confessed to one who has committed a similar offense related to eating what is not left over.

Sace pana sabbo saṅgho vikālabhojanādinā sabhāgavatthunā lahukāpattiṃ āpajjati, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Tehi bhikkhūhi eko bhikkhu sāmantā āvāsā sajjukaṃ pāhetabbo “gacchāvuso, taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikaritvā āgaccha, mayaṃ te santike āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmā”ti. Evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo – “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ sabbo saṅgho sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, yadā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ suddhaṃ anāpattikaṃ passissati, tadā tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatī”ti (mahāva. 171) vatvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace pana vematiko hoti, “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāya āpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissati, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatī”ti (mahāva. 171) vatvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace panettha koci “taṃ sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ desetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti maññamāno ekassa santike deseti, desitā sudesitāva. Aññaṃ pana desanāpaccayā desako paṭiggahaṇapaccayā paṭiggāhako cāti ubhopi dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanti, taṃ nānāvatthukaṃ hoti, tasmā aññamaññaṃ desetabbaṃ. Ettāvatā te nirāpattikā honti, tesaṃ santike sesehi sabhāgāpattiyo desetabbā vā ārocetabbā vā. Sace te evaṃ akatvā uposathaṃ karonti, “pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā”tiādinā nayena sāpattikassa uposathakaraṇe paññattaṃ dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanti.

If the entire Saṅgha commits a minor offense with a common basis like untimely eating, what should be done? Those monks should quickly send one monk to a nearby residence, saying, “Go, friend; make amends for that offense and return; we will make amends for it in your presence.” If he obtains it, that is well. If not, a competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha: “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs; this entire Saṅgha has committed a common offense; when it sees another pure, offense-free monk, it will make amends for that offense in his presence” (mahāva. 171), and perform the uposatha. If doubtful, “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs; this entire Saṅgha is doubtful about a common offense; when it is free of doubt, it will make amends for that offense” (mahāva. 171), and perform the uposatha. If someone there, thinking, “It is allowable to confess that common offense,” confesses in one’s presence, it is well-confessed. But both the confessor, due to confessing, and the receiver, due to receiving, incur a dukkaṭa for another reason; thus, it should be confessed among one another. To this extent, they become free of offense, and the rest should confess or announce their common offenses in their presence. If they perform the uposatha without doing so, saying, “Venerables, announce your purity,” and so forth, they incur a dukkaṭa prescribed for performing the uposatha with an offense.

But if the whole Saṅgha commits a minor offense with a shared object, such as eating at the wrong time, what should be done? Those monks should promptly send one monk to a nearby dwelling, saying, “Go, friend, deal with that offense and come back. We will deal with the offense in your presence.” If this can be obtained, this is good. If it cannot be obtained, a learned and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha: “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha hear me. This whole Saṅgha has committed a shared offense. When it sees another monk who is pure and without offense, it will deal with that offense in his presence” (Mahāva. 171). Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. But if one is uncertain, one should say, “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha hear me. This whole Saṅgha is uncertain about a shared offense. When it becomes certain, it will deal with that offense” (Mahāva. 171). Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. But if someone here, thinking, “It is permissible to confess that shared offense,” confesses it in the presence of one person, it is well-confessed. But both the one who confesses, because of the confession, and the one who receives it, because of the reception, incur an offense of wrong-doing. That becomes a different object. Therefore, it should be confessed to each other. By this much, they become without offense. In their presence, the remaining shared offenses should be confessed or declared. If they perform the Uposatha without doing so, they incur the offense of wrong-doing prescribed for performing the Uposatha with an offense, according to the method beginning with, “Declare your purity, venerable sirs.”

If the entire Saṅgha commits a light offense through a shared matter such as eating at the wrong time, what should be done? Those bhikkhus should quickly send one bhikkhu to a neighboring monastery, saying, “Go, friend, make amends for that offense and return. We will make amends for the offense in your presence.” If this is possible, it is good. If not, a competent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha: “Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The entire Saṅgha has committed a shared offense. When we see another bhikkhu who is pure and free from offenses, we will make amends for that offense in his presence” (Mahāva. 171). Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. If one is doubtful, one should say, “Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The entire Saṅgha is doubtful about a shared offense. When we are no longer doubtful, we will make amends for that offense” (Mahāva. 171). Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. If someone thinks, “It is permissible to confess this shared offense,” and confesses it to one person, it is well confessed. However, if another confesses because of the confession, or if another accepts because of the acceptance, both incur an offense. This is a different matter. Therefore, they should confess to each other. Thus, they become free from offenses, and the remaining shared offenses should be confessed or reported in their presence. If they perform the Uposatha without doing this, they incur the offense of wrong conduct prescribed for performing the Uposatha with an offense, as stated in the rule, “Venerable sirs, declare your purity,” etc.

Sace koci bhikkhu pātimokkhe uddissamāne āpattiṃ sarati, tena bhikkhunā sāmanto bhikkhu evaṃ vattabbo “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, ito vuṭṭhahitvā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī”ti. Sāmanto ca bhikkhu sabhāgoyeva vattabbo. Visabhāgassa hi vuccamāne bhaṇḍanakalahasaṅghabhedādīnipi honti, tasmā tassa avatvā “ito vuṭṭhahitvā paṭikarissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace pana koci pātimokkhe uddissamāne āpattiyā vematiko hoti, tenapi sabhāgoyeva sāmanto bhikkhu evaṃ vattabbo “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmāya āpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissāmi, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī”ti. Evañca vatvā uposatho kātabbo, pātimokkhaṃ sotabbaṃ, na tveva tappaccayā uposathassa antarāyo kātabbo.

If a monk recalls an offense during the pātimokkha recitation, he should say to a nearby monk, “Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense; rising from here, I will make amends for it.” The nearby monk should be one with a common offense. If told to one with a different offense, it may lead to quarrels, disputes, or Saṅgha schism; thus, without telling him, making a resolve, “Rising from here, I will make amends,” he should perform the uposatha. If doubtful about an offense during the pātimokkha recitation, he should say to a nearby monk with a common offense, “Friend, I am doubtful about such-and-such an offense; when I am free of doubt, then I will make amends for it,” and perform the uposatha and listen to the pātimokkha; no obstacle to the uposatha should be made on that account.

If a monk remembers an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, that monk should say thus to the monk next to him: “I, friend, have committed an offense called such-and-such. After rising from here, I will deal with that offense.” And the monk next to him should be one who shares the same fault. For if it is said to one who does not share the same fault, there may be disputes, quarrels, divisions in the Saṅgha, and so on. Therefore, without saying it to him, one should make a mental note, “After rising from here, I will deal with it,” and the Uposatha should be performed. But if someone is uncertain about an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, he also should say thus to the monk next to him who shares the same fault: “I, friend, am uncertain about an offense called such-and-such. When I become certain, I will deal with that offense.” Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed, the Pātimokkha should be listened to, but the Uposatha should not be interrupted on that account.

If a bhikkhu remembers an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, that bhikkhu should say to a neighboring bhikkhu, “Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense. After rising from here, I will make amends for that offense.” The neighboring bhikkhu should also be of the same category. If one speaks to one who is not of the same category, quarrels, disputes, and schisms in the Saṅgha may arise. Therefore, without speaking to him, one should resolve, “After rising from here, I will make amends,” and then perform the Uposatha. If a bhikkhu is doubtful about an offense while the Pātimokkha is being recited, he should also say to a neighboring bhikkhu of the same category, “Friend, I am doubtful about such-and-such an offense. When I am no longer doubtful, I will make amends for that offense.” Having said this, he should perform the Uposatha and listen to the Pātimokkha. However, he should not cause an obstacle to the Uposatha because of this.

177. “Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, uposathāgāraṃ sammajjitu”nti(mahāva. 159) ādivacanato –

177. From the statement, “I allow, monks, the uposatha hall to be swept” (mahāva. 159) and so forth—

177. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, the sweeping of the Uposatha hall” (Mahāva. 159) and so on –

177. “I allow, bhikkhus, the Uposatha hall to be swept” (Mahāva. 159). Thus –

Uposathassa etāni, pubbakaraṇanti vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168) –

These are called the preliminary duties of the uposatha” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168)—

These are called the preliminary duties for the Uposatha.” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168) –

These are called the preliminary duties for the Uposatha” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168).

Evaṃ vuttaṃ catubbidhaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ katvāva uposatho kātabbo. Kena pana taṃ kātabbanti? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, therena bhikkhunā navaṃ bhikkhuṃ āṇāpetuṃ, na, bhikkhave, therena āṇattena agilānena na sammajjitabbaṃ, yo na sammajjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādivacanato yo therena āṇatto, tena kātabbaṃ. Āṇāpentena ca kiñci kammaṃ karonto vā sadākālameva eko vā bhāranittharaṇako vā sarabhāṇakadhammakathikādīsu aññataro vā na uposathāgārasammajjanatthaṃ āṇāpetabbo, avasesā pana vārena āṇāpetabbā. Sace āṇatto sammuñjaniṃ tāvakālikampi na labhati, sākhābhaṅgaṃ kappiyaṃ kāretvā sammajjitabbaṃ, tampi alabhantassa laddhakappiyaṃ hoti.

The uposatha should be performed only after doing these four preliminary duties as stated. By whom should they be done? From, “I allow, monks, an elder monk to order a novice monk; monks, one ordered by an elder, if not sick, should not refuse to sweep; whoever does not sweep, incurs a dukkaṭa offense,” and so forth, it should be done by one ordered by the elder. When ordering, one engaged in some task, or always alone, or a burden-bearer, or a reciter or Dhamma speaker, should not be ordered to sweep the uposatha hall; the rest should be ordered in turn. If the one ordered cannot find even a temporary broom, he should have branches made permissible and sweep; if he cannot find that, it becomes permissible.

Having performed the fourfold preliminary duties thus stated, the Uposatha should be performed. But by whom should they be performed? Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, the elder monk to command a new monk. Monks, one who has been commanded by the elder, and is not ill, should not fail to sweep. Whoever should not sweep, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” and so on, it should be performed by one who has been commanded by the elder. And the one who commands should not command one who is doing some work, or one who is always the sole burden-bearer, or one of those who recite in a melodious tone, speak the Dhamma, and so on, for the purpose of sweeping the Uposatha hall. But the rest should be commanded in turn. If the one who has been commanded does not even obtain a temporary broom, he should make a bundle of branches permissible and sweep. If he does not obtain even that, it becomes permissible after having received.

Thus, having performed these four preliminary duties, the Uposatha should be performed. By whom should this be done? “I allow, bhikkhus, a senior bhikkhu to instruct a junior bhikkhu. Bhikkhus, a senior bhikkhu should not instruct a healthy bhikkhu not to sweep. Whoever does not sweep incurs an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 154). Thus, the one instructed by the senior bhikkhu should do it. When instructing, if one is engaged in some work or is always occupied with carrying burdens, or is one of the reciters, Dhamma speakers, etc., one should not be instructed to sweep the Uposatha hall. The rest, however, should be instructed by turns. If the instructed bhikkhu does not obtain a broom even temporarily, he should have a branch broken and made allowable, and then sweep. If even that is not obtained, it is permissible.

Āsanapaññāpanatthaṃ āṇattena ca sace uposathāgāre āsanāni natthi, saṅghikāvāsato āharitvā paññapetvā puna āharitabbāni, āsanesu asati kaṭasārakepi taṭṭikāyopi paññāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, taṭṭikāsupi asati sākhābhaṅgāni kappiyaṃ kāretvā paññapetabbāni, kappiyakārakaṃ alabhantassa laddhakappiyaṃ hoti.

For one ordered to arrange seats, if there are no seats in the uposatha hall, they should be brought from the Saṅgha residence, arranged, and returned; if there are no seats, mats or screens may be used; if no screens, branches should be made permissible and arranged; if no permissible agent is found, it becomes permissible.

And the one who has been commanded for the purpose of arranging the seats, if there are no seats in the Uposatha hall, should bring them from the Saṅgha’s dwelling, arrange them, and then bring them back. If there are no seats, even mats of reeds or palm leaves should be arranged. If there are no mats, bundles of branches should be made permissible and arranged. If he does not obtain a maker of permissible things, it becomes permissible after having received.

For providing seats, if there are no seats in the Uposatha hall, the instructed bhikkhu should bring them from the Saṅgha’s dwelling, set them up, and then return them. If there are no seats, it is permissible to set up mats or even planks. If there are no mats, branches should be broken and made allowable, and then set up. If even that is not obtained, it is permissible.

Padīpakaraṇatthaṃ āṇāpentena pana “asukasmiṃ nāma okāse telaṃ vā vaṭṭi vā kapallikā vā atthi, taṃ gahetvā karohī”ti vattabbo. Sace telādīni natthi, pariyesitabbāni, pariyesitvā alabhantassa laddhakappiyaṃ hoti. Apica kapāle aggipi jāletabbo.

When ordering to prepare a lamp, it should be said, “At such-and-such a place there is oil, a wick, or a shard; take it and prepare it.” If oil and so forth are not there, they should be sought; if sought and not found, it becomes permissible. Moreover, a fire should be lit in a shard.

But the one who commands for the purpose of preparing the lamp should say, “In such-and-such a place there is oil, or a wick, or a small bowl. Take it and do it.” If there is no oil and so on, they should be sought. If he does not obtain them after seeking, it becomes permissible after having received. And a fire should also be lit in a bowl.

For preparing the lamp, the instructing bhikkhu should say, “In such-and-such a place, there is oil, a wick, or a lamp. Take it and prepare it.” If oil, etc., are not available, they should be sought. If they are not found after searching, it is permissible. Moreover, a fire may be lit in a pot.

“Consent-and-pārisuddhi, announcing the season, counting monks, and instruction;

And exhortation; these are called the preliminary tasks for the Uposatha.” (Mahāva. 168) –

Evaṃ vuttaṃ pana catubbidhampi pubbakiccaṃ pubbakaraṇato pacchā kātabbaṃ. Tampi hi akatvā uposatho na kātabbo.

These four preliminary acts, as stated, should be done after the preliminary duties; without doing them, the uposatha should not be performed.

But even the fourfold preliminary tasks thus stated should be performed after the preliminary duties. For the Uposatha should not be performed without performing them.

Thus, these four preliminary duties should be performed after the preliminary tasks. Without performing them, the Uposatha should not be performed.

178. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyā”ti (mahāva. 143) vacanato yadā saṅghassa uposathakammaṃ pattakallaṃ hoti, tadā taṃ kātabbaṃ, pattakallañca nāmetaṃ catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitaṃ. Tenāhu aṭṭhakathācariyā –

178. From, “If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha perform the uposatha” (mahāva. 143), when the Saṅgha’s uposatha act is suitable, it should be performed; suitability is encompassed by four factors. Thus, the commentary teachers say:

178. Because of the statement, “If it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha” (Mahāva. 143), when the Uposatha ceremony is the proper time for the Saṅgha, then it should be performed. And this proper time is comprised of four factors. Therefore, the commentators said –

178. “If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha perform the Uposatha” (Mahāva. 143). Thus, when the Uposatha ceremony is suitable for the Saṅgha, it should be performed. The suitability is determined by four factors. Therefore, the commentary teachers say –

Tattha uposathoti tīsu uposathadivasesu aññataradivaso. Tasmiñhi sati idaṃ saṅghassa uposathakammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Yathāha “na ca, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo”ti (mahāva. 183).

Here, uposatha means one of the three uposatha days. When it is present, the Saṅgha’s uposatha act is called suitable; when not, it is not. As it is said, “Monks, the uposatha should not be performed on a non-uposatha day” (mahāva. 183).

Here, Uposatha means one of the three Uposatha days. For when that is present, this Uposatha ceremony of the Saṅgha is called the proper time, not when it is absent. As he said, “And, monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day” (Mahāva. 183).

Here, Uposatha refers to any one of the three Uposatha days. When this is present, the Uposatha ceremony is suitable for the Saṅgha. If it is not present, it is not suitable. As it is said, “Bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day” (Mahāva. 183).

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattāti yattakā bhikkhū tassa uposathakammassa pattā yuttā anurūpā sabbantimena paricchedena cattāro pakatattā, te ca kho hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ekasīmāyaṃ ṭhitā. Tesu hi catūsu bhikkhūsu ekasīmāyaṃ hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitesveva taṃ saṅghassa uposathakammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, na itarathā. Yathāha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catunnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu”nti (mahāva. 168).

As many monks as are fit for the act means however many monks are suitable, appropriate, and at least four natural persons for that uposatha act, standing within one sīma without leaving hand’s reach. When these four monks stand within one sīma without leaving hand’s reach, the Saṅgha’s uposatha act is called suitable; otherwise, it is not. As it is said, “I allow, monks, four to recite the pātimokkha” (mahāva. 168).

And as many monks as are competent for the ceremony means as many monks as are competent, suitable, and appropriate for that Uposatha ceremony, at the very least, four fully ordained monks, and they are situated within one boundary without leaving the hand-span. For when those four monks are situated within one boundary without leaving the hand-span, that Uposatha ceremony of the Saṅgha is called the proper time, not otherwise. As he said, “I allow, monks, the recitation of the Pātimokkha for four” (Mahāva. 168).

The number of bhikkhus qualified for the act refers to as many bhikkhus as are qualified, suitable, and appropriate for that Uposatha act, ultimately limited to four resident bhikkhus, who are within the same boundary without leaving the hand-span distance. For when these four bhikkhus are within the same boundary without leaving the hand-span distance, the Uposatha ceremony is suitable for the Saṅgha. Otherwise, it is not. As it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, four to recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 168).

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantīti ettha yaṃ sabbo saṅgho vikālabhojanādinā sabhāgavatthunā lahukāpattiṃ āpajjati, evarūpā vatthusabhāgā sabhāgāti vuccati. Etāsu avijjamānāsupi sabhāgāsu vijjamānāsupi pattakallaṃ hotiyeva.

And no common offenses exist—Here, when the entire Saṅgha commits a minor offense with a common basis like untimely eating, it is called a common offense with a common basis. Even if such common offenses are absent or present, it is still suitable.

And shared offenses are not present – here, when the whole Saṅgha commits a minor offense with a shared object, such as eating at the wrong time, such an offense with a shared object is called shared. Even when these shared offenses are not present, or even when they are present, it is still the proper time.

The absence of shared offenses refers to the situation where the entire Saṅgha commits a light offense through a shared matter such as eating at the wrong time. Such shared matters are called shared offenses. Even if these shared offenses are present or absent, the ceremony is still suitable.

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti “na, bhikkhave, sagahaṭṭhāya parisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”nti (mahāva. 154) vacanato gahaṭṭho ca, “na, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā nisinnaparisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”ntiādinā (mahāva. 183) nayena vuttā bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇero, sāmaṇerī, sikkhāpaccakkhātako, antimavatthuajjhāpannako , āpattiyā adassane ukkhittako, āpattiyā appaṭikamme ukkhittako, pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhittako, paṇḍako, theyyasaṃvāsako, titthiyapakkantako, tiracchānagato, mātughātako , pitughātako, arahantaghātako, bhikkhunīdūsako, saṅghabhedako, lohituppādako, ubhatobyañjanakoti ime vīsati cāti ekavīsati puggalā vajjanīyā nāma. Te hatthapāsato bahikaraṇavasena vajjetabbā. Etesu hi tividhe ukkhittake sati uposathaṃ karonto saṅgho pācittiyaṃ āpajjati, sesesu dukkaṭaṃ, ettha ca tiracchānagatoti yassa upasampadā paṭikkhittā. Titthiyā gahaṭṭheneva saṅgahitā. Etepi hi vajjanīyā. Evaṃ pattakallaṃ imehi catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ. Idañca sabbaṃ pavāraṇākammepi yojetvā dassetabbaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, pātimokkhuddesakena sañcicca na sāvetabbaṃ, yo na sāveyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pātimokkhuddesakena vāyamituṃ ’kathaṃ sāveyya’nti, vāyamantassa anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 154) vacanato pātimokkhuddesakena parisaṃ sāvetuṃ vāyamitabbanti.

And persons to be excluded are not present there—From the statement, “Monks, the pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly with householders” (mahāva. 154), a householder; and from, “Monks, the pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where a bhikkhunī is seated,” and so forth (mahāva. 183), by this method—a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, one who has abandoned training, one who has committed the final act, one suspended for not seeing an offense, one suspended for not making amends for an offense, one suspended for not relinquishing an evil view, a paṇḍaka, a theyyasaṃvāsaka, one gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, an arahant-killer, a bhikkhunī-defiler, a saṅghabhedaka, one who causes blood to flow, and a hermaphrodite—these twenty, thus twenty-one persons, are called vajjanīya. They should be excluded by being kept beyond hand’s reach. For when these three types of suspended persons are present, a Saṅgha performing the uposatha incurs a pācittiya; for the rest, a dukkaṭa. Here, tiracchānagato means one whose ordination is forbidden. Sectarians are included as householders. These too are vajjanīya. Thus, suitability is encompassed by these four factors, and this should be understood. All this should also be applied and shown in the pavāraṇā act. From, “Monks, the pātimokkha reciter should not intentionally fail to announce; whoever does not announce, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. I allow, monks, the pātimokkha reciter to strive, ‘How should I announce?’; there is no offense for one striving” (mahāva. 154), the pātimokkha reciter should strive to announce to the assembly.

Those who should be avoided are not present there: this refers to twenty-one individuals who should be avoided, as stated in the texts: “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in a community that includes a householder” (Mahāva. 154); and, following the guideline, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where a bhikkhunī is seated” (Mahāva. 183), a bhikkhunī, a probationer (sikkhamānā), a novice monk (sāmaṇera), a novice nun (sāmaṇerī), one who has disrobed, one who has committed a grave offense (antimavatthu), one suspended for not acknowledging an offense, one suspended for not making amends for an offense, one suspended for not renouncing a wrong view, a hermaphrodite (paṇḍaka), one who cohabits stealthily (theyyasaṃvāsaka), one who has joined a non-Buddhist sect (titthiyapakkantaka), one reborn in the animal realm (tiracchānagata), a matricide, a patricide, one who has killed an arahant, one who has violated a bhikkhunī, one who has caused a schism in the Saṅgha, one who has drawn the blood of a Buddha, and a person of indeterminate gender (ubhatobyañjanaka). These are to be avoided by keeping them outside the hand-span (hatthapāsa). When any of the three types of suspended monks are present, the Saṅgha performing the uposatha commits a pācittiya offense. With the others, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, one reborn in the animal realm refers to someone whose higher ordination has been rejected. Non-Buddhists (Titthiyā) are included with householders. These, too, are to be avoided. Thus, it should be understood that [the Uposatha] is complete when it is undertaken with these four factors. All of this should also be applied and shown in the Pavāraṇā ceremony. “Monks, a Pātimokkha reciter should not intentionally omit reciting [the Pātimokkha]. Whoever does not recite it commits a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, I allow a Pātimokkha reciter to strive to make the assembly hear. If he strives, there is no offense.” (Mahāva. 154)

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti: “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where laypeople are present” (Mahāvagga 154). Thus, laypeople are included. “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where bhikkhunīs are seated” (Mahāvagga 183), and so on. Therefore, bhikkhunīs, sikkhamānās, sāmaṇeras, sāmaṇerīs, those who have renounced the training, those who have committed the last offense, those suspended for not acknowledging an offense, those suspended for not making amends for an offense, those suspended for not relinquishing a wrong view, paṇḍakas, those who have entered under false pretenses, those who have gone over to another sect, animals, matricides, patricides, murderers of arahants, those who have violated a bhikkhunī, those who have caused a schism in the Sangha, those who have shed a Buddha’s blood, hermaphrodites—these twenty or twenty-one individuals are called “vajjanīyā” (to be avoided). They should be avoided by keeping them outside arm’s reach. If the Sangha performs the Uposatha while any of the three types of suspended individuals are present, the Sangha incurs a pācittiya offense. For the others, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, tiracchānagato refers to one whose higher ordination has been rejected. Followers of other sects are included under laypeople. These too are to be avoided. Thus, it should be understood that these four factors make the assembly suitable. All of this should also be applied to the Pavāraṇā ceremony. “Monks, the reciter of the Pātimokkha should not intentionally fail to announce it. If one does not announce it, there is a dukkaṭa offense. I allow the reciter of the Pātimokkha to make an effort, thinking, ‘How can I announce it?’ There is no offense for one who makes such an effort” (Mahāvagga 154). Thus, the reciter of the Pātimokkha should make an effort to announce it to the assembly.

26. Vassūpanāyikavinicchayakathā

26. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Entering the Rains Retreat

26. The Discussion on the Determination of Entering the Rains Retreat (Vassūpanāyika)

26. The Discussion on Vassūpanāyika

179. Vassūpanāyikāti ettha purimikā pacchimikāti duve vassūpanāyikā. Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 184 ādayo) āsāḷhīpuṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase purimikā upagantabbā, pacchimikā pana āsāḷhīpuṇṇamato aparāya puṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase. Upagacchantena ca vihāraṃ paṭijaggitvā pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā sabbaṃ cetiyavandanādisāmīcikammaṃ niṭṭhāpetvā “imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī”ti sakiṃ vā dvattikkhattuṃ vā vācaṃ nicchāretvā vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ. Sacepi “idha vasissāmī”ti ālayo atthi, asatiyā pana vassaṃ na upeti, gahitasenāsanaṃ suggahitaṃ, chinnavasso na hoti, pavāretuṃ labhatiyeva. Vināpi hi vacībhedaṃ ālayakaraṇamattenapi vassaṃ upagatameva hoti. “Idha vassaṃ vasissāmī”ti cittuppādoyevettha ālayo nāma.

179. Vassūpanāyikā—Here, there are two entries into the rains retreat: purimikā and pacchimikā. Of these (mahāva. aṭṭha. 184 and following), the purimikā should be entered on the first day after the Āsāḷhī full moon; the pacchimikā, on the first day after the full moon following the Āsāḷhī full moon. When entering, having maintained the monastery, prepared drinking water and usable water, and completed all proper acts like venerating the cetiya, one should utter once, twice, or thrice, “I enter the rains retreat in this monastery for these three months,” and enter the rains retreat. Even if there is attachment, “I will dwell here,” but due to unmindfulness he does not enter the rains retreat, the taken lodging is well-taken, he is not one whose rains retreat is broken, and he can indeed perform pavāraṇā. For even without verbal expression, merely making attachment is entering the rains retreat. Here, ālayo is the mental arising, “I will dwell here for the rains retreat.”

179. Entering the rains retreat: Here, there are two entries into the rains retreat: the earlier and the later. Of these (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 184, etc.), the earlier should be entered on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha; the later, on the day after the full moon following the full moon of Āsāḷha. One entering should tidy the monastery, prepare drinking water and requisites, complete all duties of respecting the cetiya, etc., and then declare, once, twice, or thrice, “I enter upon the rains retreat in this monastery for these three months.” Even if there is an attachment, thinking, “I will reside here,” if one does not formally enter the rains retreat, the dwelling is well-taken, the rains are not broken, and one may still participate in the Pavāraṇā. Even without verbal declaration, merely by the act of forming attachment, one has entered the rains retreat. The “attachment” here is simply the arising of the thought, “I will reside here for the rains.”

179. Vassūpanāyikā: Here, there are two types of vassūpanāyikā: the earlier and the later. In this regard (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 184, etc.), the earlier vassūpanāyikā should be entered on the day following the full moon of Āsāḷhī, while the later vassūpanāyikā should be entered on the day following the full moon after the full moon of Āsāḷhī. When entering, one should prepare the monastery, set out drinking water and food, complete all customary duties such as paying homage to the shrine, and then declare once, twice, or thrice, “I will spend the rains residence in this monastery for these three months,” and thus enter the rains. Even if one has an attachment, thinking, “I will stay here,” but due to forgetfulness does not enter the rains, if one has properly secured lodging, one is not considered to have broken the rains and is still eligible to participate in the Pavāraṇā. Even without verbal declaration, merely having the intention to stay is sufficient to enter the rains. Here, the term ālayo refers to the mere arising of the thought, “I will spend the rains here.”

“Na , bhikkhave, tadahuvassūpanāyikāya vassaṃ anupagantukāmena sañcicca āvāso atikkamitabbo, yo atikkameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 186) vacanato vassūpanāyikadivase vassaṃ anupagantukāmo vihārasīmaṃ atikkamati, vihāragaṇanāya dukkaṭaṃ. Sace hi taṃ divasaṃ vihārasatassa upacāraṃ okkamitvā atikkamati, sataṃ āpattiyo. Sace pana vihāraṃ atikkamitvā aññassa vihārassa upacāraṃ anokkamitvāva nivattati, ekāva āpatti. Kenaci antarāyena purimikaṃ anupagatena pacchimikā upagantabbā.

“Monks, one wishing not to enter the rains retreat on that rains-entry day should not intentionally pass beyond a residence; whoever passes beyond, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 186)—thus, if one not wishing to enter the rains retreat on that day passes beyond the vihārasīmā, it is a dukkaṭa by the count of monasteries. If on that day he enters and passes beyond the vicinity of a hundred monasteries, there are a hundred offenses. But if he passes beyond a monastery and returns without entering the vicinity of another, it is only one offense. If unable to enter the purimikā due to some obstacle, the pacchimikā should be entered.

“Monks, one who does not intend to enter the rains on the day of entering the rains should not intentionally pass beyond the boundary of a dwelling. Whoever passes beyond commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 186). Thus, one who does not intend to enter the rains on the day of entering the rains, and passes beyond the boundary of a monastery, commits a dukkaṭa offense for each monastery [passed]. If on that day he steps into the vicinity of a hundred monasteries and passes beyond, there are a hundred offenses. But if he passes beyond one monastery and returns without stepping into the vicinity of another monastery, there is only one offense. One who, due to some obstacle, has not entered the earlier retreat, should enter the later retreat.

“Monks, one who does not wish to enter the rains on the day of vassūpanāyikā should not intentionally pass beyond the dwelling. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 186). Thus, if one does not wish to enter the rains on the day of vassūpanāyikā and crosses the boundary of the monastery, it is a dukkaṭa offense for each monastery counted. If one crosses the boundary of a hundred monasteries on that day, one incurs a hundred offenses. However, if one crosses the boundary of one monastery and returns without entering the vicinity of another monastery, there is only one offense. If one is unable to enter the earlier vassūpanāyikā due to some obstacle, one should enter the later vassūpanāyikā.

“Na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, yo upagaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 204) vacanato yassa pañcannaṃ chadanānaṃ aññatarena channaṃ yojitadvārabandhanaṃ senāsanaṃ natthi, tena na upagantabbaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, chavakuṭikāya vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, yo upagaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti(mahāva. 204) ādivacanato chavakuṭikāyaṃ chatte cāṭiyañca upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tattha chavakuṭikā nāma ṭaṅkitamañcādibhedā kuṭi. Tattheva upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati, susāne pana aññaṃ kuṭikaṃ katvā upagantuṃ vaṭṭati, chattepi catūsu thambhesu chattaṃ ṭhapetvā āvaraṇaṃ katvā dvāraṃ yojetvā upagantuṃ vaṭṭati, chattakuṭi nāmesā hoti. Cāṭiyāpi mahantena kapallena chatte vuttanayena kuṭikaṃ katvā upagantuṃ vaṭṭati.

“Monks, the rains retreat should not be entered without a lodging; whoever enters, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 204)—thus, one without a lodging covered by any of the five roofs and fitted with a door fastening should not enter. “Monks, the rains retreat should not be entered in a corpse hut; whoever enters, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 204) and so forth—thus, it is not allowable to enter in a chavakuṭikā, under a canopy, or in a bowl. Here, chavakuṭikā means a hut with a marked bed or the like. It is not allowable to enter there; but in a cemetery, making another hut is allowable. Under a canopy, placing it on four posts, making an enclosure, and fitting a door is allowable—this is a chattakuṭi. In a bowl too, making a hut with a large shard by the method stated for a canopy is allowable.

“Monks, one without a dwelling should not enter the rains retreat. Whoever enters commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 204). Therefore, one who does not have a dwelling covered by any of the five types of coverings, with a fitted doorframe, should not enter. “Monks, one should not enter the rains retreat in a charnel house hut. Whoever enters commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 204). According to this and other statements, it is not permissible to enter [the rains retreat] in a charnel house hut, in a tent, or in a large bowl. Here, a charnel house hut is a hut used for placing corpses on a bier and other such things. It is not permissible to enter there. However, it is permissible to build another hut in the charnel ground and enter. Even in a tent, it is permissible to set up the tent on four posts, make an enclosure, fit a door, and enter; this is called a tent-hut. Even in a large bowl, it is permissible to make a hut, as described for the tent, with a large lid and enter.

“Monks, one should not enter the rains without a dwelling. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 204). Thus, one who does not have a dwelling covered by one of the five types of roofing, with doors and windows properly fitted, should not enter the rains. “Monks, one should not enter the rains in a thatched hut. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 204). Thus, it is not permissible to enter a thatched hut with a roof or a canopy. Here, chavakuṭikā refers to a hut made of mats, platforms, etc. It is not permissible to enter such a hut. However, one may enter another type of hut built in a cemetery. If a roof is placed on four pillars and an enclosure is made with a door fitted, it is permissible to enter; this is called a chattakuṭi. Similarly, one may enter a hut made under a large canopy in the manner described.

“Na, bhikkhave, rukkhasusire vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, yo upagaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 204) vacanato suddhe rukkhasusire upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati, mahantassa pana rukkhasusirassa anto padaracchadanaṃ kuṭikaṃ katvā pavisanadvāraṃ yojetvā upagantuṃ vaṭṭati, rukkhaṃ chinditvā khāṇukamatthake padaracchadanaṃ kuṭikaṃ katvāpi vaṭṭatiyeva. “Na, bhikkhave, rukkhaviṭabhiyā”ti(mahāva. 204) ādivacanato suddhe viṭabhimatte upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati, mahāviṭape pana aṭṭakaṃ bandhitvā tattha padaracchadanaṃ kuṭikaṃ katvā dvāraṃ yojetvā upagantabbaṃ.

“Monks, the rains retreat should not be entered in a tree hollow; whoever enters, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 204)—thus, it is not allowable to enter a bare tree hollow; but in a large tree hollow, making a hut with a cloth roof inside and fitting an entry door is allowable. Cutting a tree and making a hut with a cloth roof on the stump is also allowable. “Monks, not under a tree branch…” (mahāva. 204) and so forth—thus, it is not allowable to enter a bare branch; but on a large branch, tying a platform, making a hut with a cloth roof, and fitting a door is allowable.

“Monks, one should not enter the rains retreat in a tree hollow. Whoever enters commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 204). Therefore, it is not permissible to enter a bare tree hollow. However, it is permissible to make a hut of planks inside a large tree hollow, fit a door for entry, and enter. It is also permissible to cut down a tree, and make a hut of planks on top of the stump. “Monks, on a tree branch…” (Mahāva. 204) and other statements. According to this, it is not permissible to enter on a bare branch. However, it is permissible to build a platform on a large branch, make a hut of planks there, fit a door, and enter.

“Monks, one should not enter the rains in a tree hollow. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 204). Thus, it is not permissible to enter a clean tree hollow. However, if a hut is made inside a large tree hollow with a roof and a door fitted, it is permissible to enter. Even if a tree is cut down and a hut is made on the stump with a roof, it is permissible. “Monks, one should not enter the rains on a tree branch” (Mahāvagga 204). Thus, it is not permissible to enter a mere branch. However, if a platform is built on a large branch and a hut is made there with a roof and a door fitted, it is permissible to enter.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vaje vassaṃ upagantu”ntiādivacanato vaje satthe nāvāyañca upagantuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha vajoti gopālakānaṃ nivāsaṭṭhānaṃ. Vaje vuṭṭhite vajena saddhiṃ gatassa vassacchede anāpatti “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yena vajo, tena gantu”nti (mahāva. 203) vuttattā. Satthe vassaṃ upagacchantena pana vassūpanāyikadivase upāsakā vattabbā “kuṭikā laddhuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Sace karitvā denti, tattha pavisitvā “idha vassaṃ upemī”ti tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ. No ce denti, sālāsaṅkhepena ṭhitasakaṭassa heṭṭhā upagantabbaṃ. Tampi alabhantena ālayo kātabbo, satthe pana vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Ālayo nāma “idha vassaṃ vasissāmī”ti cittuppādamattaṃ. Sace maggappaṭipanneyeva satthe pavāraṇādivaso hoti, tattheva pavāretabbaṃ. Atha sattho antovasseyeva bhikkhunā patthitaṭṭhānaṃ patvā atikkamati, patthitaṭṭhāne vasitvā tattha bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Athāpi sattho antovasseyeva antarā ekasmiṃ gāme tiṭṭhati vā vippakirati vā, tasmiṃyeva gāme bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasitvā pavāretabbaṃ, appavāretvā tato paraṃ gantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Nāvāya vassaṃ upagacchantenapi kuṭiyaṃyeva upagantabbaṃ, pariyesitvā alabhantena ālayo kātabbo. Sace antotemāsaṃ nāvā samuddeyeva hoti, tattheva pavāretabbaṃ. Atha nāvā kūlaṃ labhati, ayañca parato gantukāmo hoti, gantuṃ na vaṭṭati, nāvāya laddhagāmeyeva vasitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Sacepi nāvā anutīrameva aññattha gacchati, bhikkhu ca paṭhamaṃ laddhagāmeyeva vasitukāmo, nāvā gacchatu, bhikkhunā tattheva vasitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Iti vaje satthe nāvāyanti tīsu ṭhānesu natthi vassacchede āpatti, pavāretuñca labhati.

“I allow, monks, entering the rains retreat in a cattle pen” and so forth—thus, it is allowable to enter in a vaja, a sattha, and a nāvā. Here, vaja means the dwelling place of cowherds. If one dwells in a cattle pen and goes with it, there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat, as it is said, “I allow, monks, going wherever the cattle pen goes” (mahāva. 203). When entering the rains retreat in a caravan, on the rains-entry day, lay followers should be told, “It is allowable to obtain a hut.” If they make one and give it, entering there, one should say three times, “I enter the rains retreat here.” If they do not give it, one should enter under a cart standing briefly in the hall. If that too is not obtained, an ālayo should be made, but it is not allowable to enter the rains retreat in the caravan. Ālayo means the mere mental arising, “I will dwell here for the rains retreat.” If the pavāraṇā day occurs while the caravan is on the road, it should be performed there. If the caravan, within the rains period, reaches and passes the place desired by the monk, he should dwell there and perform pavāraṇā with the monks there. If the caravan, within the rains period, stops or disperses in a village along the way, he should dwell in that village with the monks and perform pavāraṇā; it is not allowable to go further without performing pavāraṇā. When entering the rains retreat in a boat, it should be in a hut; if sought and not obtained, an ālayo should be made. If within the three months the boat remains at sea, pavāraṇā should be performed there. If the boat reaches the shore and he wishes to go further, it is not allowable; he should dwell in the village reached by the boat and perform pavāraṇā with the monks there. Even if the boat goes elsewhere along the shore, and the monk wishes to dwell in the first village reached, let the boat go; he should dwell there and perform pavāraṇā with the monks there. Thus, in a cattle pen, caravan, and boat—these three places—there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat, and he can perform pavāraṇā.

According to the statement, “Monks, I allow entering the rains retreat in a cattle pen” (Mahāva. 203) and other statements, it is permissible to enter in a cattle pen, a caravan, and a boat. Here, cattle pen is the dwelling place of cowherds. When the cattle pen has moved, there is no offense of breaking the rains for one who has gone along with the cattle pen, because it is said, “Monks, I allow going wherever the cattle pen goes” (Mahāva. 203). One entering the rains in a caravan, however, should say to the lay followers on the day of entering the rains, “It would be good to receive a small hut.” If they build and give one, he should enter it and say three times, “I enter upon the rains retreat here.” If they do not give one, he should enter under a cart set up as a shelter. If even that is not available, he should form an attachment. However, it is not permissible to formally enter the rains retreat in the caravan. Attachment here is simply the arising of the thought, “I will reside here for the rains.” If the day of Pavāraṇā arrives while still traveling with the caravan, he should perform the Pavāraṇā right there. If the caravan, while still within the rains, reaches and passes beyond the place the monk intended to reach, he should reside in the intended place and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks there. Even if the caravan stops or disperses at a village along the way within the rains, he should reside in that very village with the monks and perform the Pavāraṇā; he should not go beyond that place without performing the Pavāraṇā. For one entering the rains in a boat, he should enter in a hut [on the boat]. If he searches and does not find one, he should form an attachment. If the boat remains at sea for the entire three months, he should perform the Pavāraṇā right there. If the boat reaches the shore, and he wishes to go further, he should not go; he should reside in the village reached by the boat and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks there. Even if the boat goes elsewhere along the shore, and the monk wishes to remain in the village first reached, the boat may go, but the monk should reside there and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks there. Thus, in these three places – a cattle pen, a caravan, and a boat – there is no offense of breaking the rains, and one may perform the Pavāraṇā.

“I allow, monks, entering the rains in a cattle pen” (Mahāvagga 203). Thus, it is permissible to enter the rains in a cattle pen or on a ship. Here, vajo refers to a dwelling place for cowherds. If one enters the rains in a cattle pen and the cattle pen moves, there is no offense of breaking the rains, as it is said, “I allow, monks, going wherever the cattle pen goes” (Mahāvagga 203). When entering the rains on a ship, one should inform the lay devotees on the day of vassūpanāyikā, “It is permissible to obtain a hut.” If they provide one, one should enter and declare three times, “I will spend the rains here.” If they do not provide one, one should enter under the shelter of a cart. If even that is not available, one should form the intention to stay. However, it is not permissible to enter the rains on a ship. Ālayo refers to the mere arising of the thought, “I will spend the rains here.” If the Pavāraṇā day arrives while one is still on the journey, one should perform the Pavāraṇā there. If the ship reaches the intended destination during the rains, one should stay there and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks. If the ship stops or disperses in a village during the rains, one should stay in that village with the monks and perform the Pavāraṇā. It is not permissible to leave after performing the Pavāraṇā. When entering the rains on a ship, one should enter a hut. If one cannot find one, one should form the intention to stay. If the ship remains at sea for the entire three months, one should perform the Pavāraṇā there. If the ship reaches the shore and one wishes to go elsewhere, it is not permissible to go. One should stay in the village obtained by the ship and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks. If the ship continues to another place while the monk wishes to stay in the first village obtained, the ship may go, but the monk should stay there and perform the Pavāraṇā with the monks. Thus, in a cattle pen, on a ship, or in a hut, there is no offense of breaking the rains, and one is eligible to perform the Pavāraṇā.

“Na, bhikkhave, vassaṃ upagantvā purimaṃ vā temāsaṃ pacchimaṃ vā temāsaṃ avasitvā cārikā pakkamitabbā, yo pakkameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 186) vacanato purimikāya vassaṃ upagatena purimaṃ temāsaṃ, pacchimikāya upagatena pacchimaṃ temāsaṃ avasitvā cārikā na pakkamitabbā, vassaṃ upagantvā pana aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvāpi tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantassapi antosattāhe nivattantassa anāpatti, ko pana vādo dvīhatīhaṃ vasitvā sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantassa antosattāhe nivattantassa.

“Monks, having entered the rains retreat, one should not go on a journey without dwelling the prior three months or the later three months; whoever goes, incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 186)—thus, one who entered the purimikā should not go on a journey without dwelling the prior three months, nor one who entered the pacchimikā without dwelling the later three months. But having entered the rains retreat, even without raising the dawn, if he goes that very day for a seven-day purpose and returns within seven days, there is no offense—what to say of one who dwells two or three days and goes for a seven-day purpose, returning within seven days?

“Monks, having entered the rains, one should not set out on a journey without residing for the full three months of the earlier or the full three months of the later [retreat]. Whoever sets out commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 186). Therefore, one who has entered the earlier rains should not set out on a journey without residing for the full three months of the earlier [retreat]; one who has entered the later rains, without residing for the full three months of the later [retreat]. However, having entered the rains, even if one does not let the dawn break [there] and sets out on that very day on a seven-day errand, there is no offense if one returns within the seven days. What need is there to mention one who resides for two or three days and sets out on a seven-day errand, returning within the seven days?

“Monks, having entered the rains, one should not go on a journey without staying for the first three months or the last three months. If one does so, there is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 186). Thus, one who has entered the earlier vassūpanāyikā should not go on a journey without staying for the first three months, and one who has entered the later vassūpanāyikā should not go on a journey without staying for the last three months. However, if one goes on a journey on the same day for a seven-day purpose without waiting for dawn, there is no offense if one returns within seven days. How much more so if one stays for two or three days and then goes on a journey for a seven-day purpose and returns within seven days.

180. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena pahite gantuṃ, na tveva appahite. Bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā upāsakassa upāsikāyā”ti (mahāva. 187) vacanato pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ aññatarena saṅghagaṇapuggale uddissa attano vā atthāya vihāraṃ aḍḍhayogaṃ pāsādaṃ hammiyaṃ guhaṃ pariveṇaṃ koṭṭhakaṃ upaṭṭhānasālaṃ aggisālaṃ kappiyakuṭiṃ vaccakuṭiṃ caṅkamaṃ caṅkamanasālaṃ udapānaṃ udapānasālaṃ jantāgharaṃ jantāgharasālaṃ pokkharaṇiṃ maṇḍapaṃ ārāmaṃ ārāmavatthuṃ vā kāretvā “āgacchantu bhikkhū, icchāmi dānañca dātuṃ dhammañca sotuṃ bhikkhū ca passitu”nti evaṃ niddisitvā pesite gantabbaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena, na tveva appahite. Upāsako vā upāsikā vā tatheva saṅghagaṇapuggale uddissa vihārādīsu aññataraṃ kāretvā attano vā atthāya nivesanasayanigharādīsu aññataraṃ kārāpetvā aññaṃ vā kiccakaraṇīyaṃ niddisitvā gilāno vā hutvā bhikkhūnaṃ santike dūtaṃ pahiṇeyya “āgacchantu bhadantā, icchāmi dānañca dātuṃ dhammañca sotuṃ bhikkhū ca passitu”nti, gantabbaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena, na tveva appahite.

180. “I allow, monks, seven to go when sent for a seven-day purpose, but not when unsent: a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, an upāsaka, an upāsikā” (mahāva. 187)—thus, when one of these five co-religionists, for the sake of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, or for oneself, has made a monastery, a half-house, a mansion, a peaked building, a cave, a pariveṇa, a storehouse, an attendance hall, a fire hall, a kappiyakuṭi, a vaccakuṭi, a caṅkama, a caṅkamanasālā, a well, a well hall, a bathhouse, a bathhouse hall, a lotus pond, a pavilion, a grove, or grove land, and sends, specifying, “Let the monks come; I wish to give a gift, hear Dhamma, and see the monks,” it should be gone to for a seven-day purpose, but not when unsent. An upāsaka or upāsikā, similarly for the sake of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, having made one of these like a monastery, or for themselves, having made one of these like a house or sleeping place, or specifying another duty, or being sick, sends a messenger to the monks, saying, “Let the venerables come; I wish to give a gift, hear Dhamma, and see the monks,” it should be gone to for a seven-day purpose, but not when unsent.

180. “Monks, I allow going on a seven-day errand for seven [individuals] when sent for, but not when uninvited: for a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a probationer, a novice monk, a novice nun, a male lay follower, and a female lay follower” (Mahāva. 187). If any of the five co-religionists, on behalf of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, having built a monastery, an aḍḍhayoga, a pāsāda, a hammiya, a cave, a cell, a storehouse, an assembly hall, a fire hall, a kitchen, a toilet, a walking path, a hall for walking meditation, a well, a well-house, a bathing house, a bathing-house hall, a pond, a pavilion, a monastery, or a monastery site, and, specifying [the reason], sends a message, “Let the monks come; I wish to give alms, hear the Dhamma, and see the monks,” one may go on a seven-day errand, but not when uninvited. Or, if a male or female lay follower, likewise on behalf of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, having built any of the monastery buildings, etc., or having built any of the dwellings, sleeping places, storehouses, etc., for their own sake, or specifying some other duty or task, or having become ill, sends a messenger to the monks, “Let the venerable ones come; I wish to give alms, hear the Dhamma, and see the monks,” one may go on a seven-day errand, but not when uninvited.

180. “I allow, monks, to go for a seven-day purpose when sent by seven kinds of people, but not when not sent. These seven are: a monk, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, a male lay follower, and a female lay follower” (Mahāvagga 187). Thus, when sent by any of these five righteous individuals or a group of monks for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of the monastery, such as building a dwelling, a hall, a mansion, a cave, a cell, a storeroom, a meeting hall, a fire hall, a storeroom for allowable items, a restroom, a walking path, a walking hall, a well, a well house, a bathhouse, a bathhouse hall, a pond, a pavilion, a park, or a park property, one should go for a seven-day purpose when sent, but not when not sent. A male or female lay follower may also, having built any of these for a group of monks or for their own benefit, such as a residence, a bed, or a house, or having indicated some other task, or being ill, may send a message to the monks, saying, “Venerable ones, please come. I wish to give alms, hear the Dhamma, and see the monks.” One should go for a seven-day purpose when sent, but not when not sent.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena appahitepi gantuṃ, pageva pahite. Bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā mātuyā ca pitussa cā”ti (mahāva. 198) vacanato “gilānānaṃ etesaṃ bhikkhuādīnaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ mātāpitūnañca gilānānaṃyeva gilānabhattaṃ vā gilānupaṭṭhākabhattaṃ vā bhesajjaṃ vā pariyesissāmi, pucchissāmi vā upaṭṭhahissāmi vā”ti iminā kāraṇena appahitepi gantabbaṃ, pageva pahite. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “ye mātāpitūnaṃ upaṭṭhākā ñātakā vā aññātakā vā, tesampi appahite gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ neva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, na pāḷiyaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ.

“I allow, monks, seven to go for a seven-day purpose even when unsent, all the more when sent: a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, a mother, and a father” (mahāva. 198)—thus, for the reason, “For these sick ones—the co-religionists like a bhikkhu, and the sick mother and father—I will seek or ask about or attend to sick food, attendants’ food, or medicine,” it should be gone to even when unsent, all the more when sent. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “It is allowable to go even when unsent to those who attend the mother and father, whether relatives or not,” but this is stated neither in the commentary nor the Pali, so it should not be accepted.

“Monks, I allow going on a seven-day errand for seven [individuals] even when uninvited, let alone when invited: for a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a probationer, a novice monk, a novice nun, one’s mother, and one’s father” (Mahāva. 198). If these co-religionists, a bhikkhu, etc., are ill, or one’s mother and father are ill, one may go even when uninvited with the purpose of “I will seek alms-food for the sick, or food for the attendant of the sick, or medicine; or I will inquire after them; or I will attend to them,” let alone when invited. However, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “It is permissible to go even when uninvited for those who are attendants of one’s parents, whether relatives or non-relatives.” This is not stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, nor in the Pāḷi, therefore it should not be accepted.

“I allow, monks, to go for a seven-day purpose even when not sent by seven kinds of people, how much more so when sent. These seven are: a monk, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, a mother, and a father” (Mahāvagga 198). Thus, even when not sent, one should go for the purpose of seeking medicine, inquiring, or attending to the illness of these righteous individuals or one’s parents, thinking, “I will seek medicine for the sick, inquire about their condition, or attend to them.” How much more so when sent. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Even those who are relatives or non-relatives attending to one’s parents may go when not sent.” However, this is not found in the Aṭṭhakathā or the Pāḷi, and therefore should not be accepted.

Sace pana bhikkhuno bhātā vā añño vā ñātako gilāno hoti, so ce bhikkhussa santike dūtaṃ pahiṇeyya “ahaṃ gilāno, āgacchatu bhadanto, icchāmi bhadantassa āgata”nti, gantabbaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena, na tveva appahite. Sace ekasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasanto bhikkhubhattiko gilāno hoti, so ce bhikkhūnaṃ santike dūtaṃ pahiṇeyya “ahaṃ gilāno, āgacchantu bhikkhū, icchāmi bhikkhūnaṃ āgata”nti, gantabbaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena, na tveva appahite.

If a monk’s brother or another relative is sick and sends a messenger to the monk, saying, “I am sick; let the venerable come; I wish for the venerable’s coming,” it should be gone to for a seven-day purpose, but not when unsent. If a lay supporter dwelling with monks in one monastery is sick and sends a messenger to the monks, saying, “I am sick; let the monks come; I wish for the monks’ coming,” it should be gone to for a seven-day purpose, but not when unsent.

If a monk’s brother or another relative is ill, and if he sends a messenger to the monk, “I am ill; let the venerable one come; I wish for the venerable one’s arrival,” one may go on a seven-day errand, but not when uninvited. If, while residing with monks in a monastery, a monk who receives alms from the monks is ill, and if he sends a messenger to the monks, “I am ill; let the monks come; I wish for the monks’ arrival,” one may go on a seven-day errand, but not when uninvited.

If a monk’s brother or another relative is ill and sends a message to the monk, saying, “I am ill. Please come, Venerable one. I wish for your arrival,” one should go for a seven-day purpose when sent, but not when not sent. If a monk who is living with other monks in a monastery becomes ill and sends a message to the monks, saying, “I am ill. Please come, monks. I wish for your arrival,” one should go for a seven-day purpose when sent, but not when not sent.

Sace bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā anabhirati vā kukkuccaṃ vā diṭṭhigataṃ vā uppannaṃ hoti, gantabbaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena appahitepi “anabhiratiṃ vūpakāsessāmi vā vūpakāsāpessāmi vā kumkuccaṃ vinodessāmi vā vinodāpessāmi vā diṭṭhigataṃ vivecessāmi vā vivecāpessāmi vā dhammakathaṃ vā karissāmī”ti, pageva pahite. Sace koci bhikkhu garudhammaṃ ajjhāpanno hoti parivāsāraho mūlāyapaṭikassanāraho mānattāraho abbhānāraho vā, appahitepi gantabbaṃ “parivāsadānādīsu ussukkaṃ āpajjissāmi, anussāvessāmi, gaṇapūrako vā bhavissāmī”ti, pageva pahite. Bhikkhuniyāpi mānattārahāya mūlāyapaṭikassanārahāya abbhānārahāya vā eseva nayo. Sace sāmaṇero upasampajjitukāmo hoti, vassaṃ vā pucchitukāmo, sikkhamānā vā upasampajjitukāmā hoti, sikkhā vāssā kupitā, sāmaṇerī vā sikkhā samādiyitukāmā hoti, vassaṃ vā pucchitukāmā, appahitepi gantabbaṃ, pageva pahite.

If dissatisfaction, scruple, or a wrong view arises in a bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī, it should be gone to for a seven-day purpose even when unsent, “I will calm or have calmed the dissatisfaction, dispel or have dispelled the scruple, resolve or have resolved the wrong view, or give a Dhamma talk,” all the more when sent. If a monk has committed a garudhamma and is worthy of probation, return to the beginning, mānatta, or reinstatement, it should be gone to even when unsent, “I will exert myself in giving probation and so forth, proclaim, or complete the group,” all the more when sent. For a bhikkhunī worthy of mānatta, return to the beginning, or reinstatement, the same applies. If a sāmaṇera wishes to ordain or ask about the rains retreat, a sikkhamānā wishes to ordain or her training is disrupted, or a sāmaṇerī wishes to undertake training or ask about the rains retreat, it should be gone to even when unsent, all the more when sent.

If a monk, a bhikkhunī, a probationer, a novice monk, or a novice nun experiences discontent, or scruples, or wrong views, one may go on a seven-day errand even when uninvited, with the purpose of “I will dispel the discontent, or have it dispelled; I will dispel the scruples, or have them dispelled; I will dispel the wrong views, or have them dispelled; or I will give a Dhamma talk,” let alone when invited. If a monk has committed a grave offense, is deserving of probation (parivāsa), deserving of returning to the beginning (mūlāyapaṭikassanā), deserving of penance (mānatta), or deserving of rehabilitation (abbhāna), one may go even when uninvited, with the purpose of “I will take part in giving probation, etc.; I will make the announcement; or I will be a quorum-filler,” let alone when invited. For a bhikkhunī deserving of penance, deserving of returning to the beginning, or deserving of rehabilitation, the same principle applies. If a novice monk wishes to receive higher ordination, or wishes to inquire about the rains; or a probationer wishes to receive higher ordination, or her training period is disturbed; or a novice nun wishes to undertake the training, or wishes to inquire about the rains, one may go even when uninvited, let alone when invited.

If a monk, bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī experiences dissatisfaction, remorse, or wrong view, one should go for a seven-day purpose even when not sent, thinking, “I will help them overcome dissatisfaction, dispel remorse, or remove wrong view by giving a Dhamma talk,” how much more so when sent. If any monk has committed a grave offense requiring probation, sending back to the beginning, penance, or rehabilitation, one should go even when not sent, thinking, “I will make an effort in giving probation, etc., I will announce it, or I will complete the group,” how much more so when sent. The same applies to a bhikkhunī who requires penance, sending back to the beginning, or rehabilitation. If a sāmaṇera wishes to receive higher ordination, inquire about the rains, or if a sikkhamānā wishes to receive higher ordination, or if her training is broken, or if a sāmaṇerī wishes to undertake the training or inquire about the rains, one should go even when not sent, how much more so when sent.

Sace bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā vā saṅgho kammaṃ kātukāmo hoti, tajjanīyaṃ vā niyassaṃ vā pabbājanīyaṃ vā paṭisāraṇīyaṃ vā ukkhepanīyaṃ vā, appahitepi gantabbaṃ, pageva pahite “kiṃ nu kho saṅgho kammaṃ na kareyya, lahukāya vā pariṇāmeyyā”ti. Sacepi kataṃyeva hoti kammaṃ, appahitepi gantabbaṃ “kiṃ nu kho sammā vatteyya, lomaṃ pāteyya, netthāraṃ vatteyya, saṅgho taṃ kammaṃ paṭippassambheyyā”ti.

If the Saṅgha wishes to perform an act against a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī—tajjanīya, niyassa, pabbājanīya, paṭisāraṇīya, or ukkhepanīya—it should be gone to even when unsent, all the more when sent, “Will the Saṅgha not perform the act, or resolve it lightly?” Even if the act has been performed, it should be gone to even when unsent, “Will he behave properly, make amends, act uprightly, and the Saṅgha rescind that act?”

If the Saṅgha wishes to perform a formal act on a monk or a bhikkhunī, whether a censure (tajjanīya), a nissaya, a banishment (pabbājanīya), a reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīya), or a suspension (ukkhepanīya), one may go even when uninvited, let alone when invited, with the purpose of “Perhaps the Saṅgha will not perform the formal act, or will reduce it to a lighter one.” Even if the formal act has already been performed, one may go even when uninvited, with the purpose of “Perhaps he will behave properly, he will ‘lower his hair,’ he will follow the netthāra, the Saṅgha will rescind the formal act.”

If the Sangha wishes to perform a legal procedure against a monk or bhikkhunī, such as an act of censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or suspension, one should go even when not sent, thinking, “Why should the Sangha not perform the act? Or perhaps it should be lightened,” how much more so when sent. Even if the act has already been performed, one should go even when not sent, thinking, “Why should they not behave properly? Or perhaps the Sangha should revoke the act.”

181. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghakaraṇīyena gantu”nti (mahāva. 199) vacanato senāsanapaṭibaddhasaṅghakaraṇīyenapi gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 199) hi yaṃ kiñci uposathāgārādīsu senāsanesu cetiyachattavedikādīsu vā kattabbaṃ, antamaso bhikkhuno puggalikasenāsanampi sabbaṃ saṅghakaraṇīyamevāti adhippetaṃ, tasmā tassa nipphādanatthaṃ dabbasambhārādīni vā āharituṃ vaḍḍhakīpabhutīnaṃ bhattavetanādīni vā dātuṃ gantabbaṃ. Apicettha ayampi pāḷimuttakanayo veditabbo – dhammassavanatthāya animantitena gantuṃ na vaṭṭati, sace ekasmiṃ mahāvāse paṭhamaṃyeva katikā katā hoti “asukadivasaṃ nāma sannipatitabba”nti, nimantitoyeva nāma hoti, gantuṃ vaṭṭati. “Bhaṇḍakaṃ dhovissāmī”ti gantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana ācariyupajjhāyā pahiṇanti, vaṭṭati. Nātidūre vihāro hoti, “tattha gantvā ajjeva āgamissāmī”ti sampāpuṇituṃ na sakkoti, vaṭṭati. Uddesaparipucchādīnaṃ atthāyapi gantuṃ na labhati, “ācariyaṃ pana passissāmī”ti gantuṃ labhati. Sace naṃ ācariyo “ajja mā gacchā”ti vadati, vaṭṭati, upaṭṭhākakulaṃ vā ñātikulaṃ vā dassanāya gantuṃ na labhati.

181. “I allow, monks, going for a Saṅgha purpose” (mahāva. 199)—thus, it is allowable to go for a Saṅgha purpose tied to lodgings. Here (mahāva. aṭṭha. 199), whatever is to be done in lodgings like the uposathāgāra or in cetiya canopies, railings, and so forth, even a monk’s personal lodging, is all intended as a Saṅgha purpose; thus, to accomplish it, one should go to fetch materials or give food, wages, and so forth to carpenters and the like. Moreover, this method free of Pali should be understood: It is not allowable to go uninvited for hearing Dhamma; if in a large residence a pact is made beforehand, “We should gather on such-and-such a day,” it is as if invited, and it is allowable to go. It is not allowable to go saying, “I will wash dishes.” If sent by a teacher or preceptor, it is allowable. If a monastery is not far and one thinks, “Going there, I will return today,” but cannot reach it, it is allowable. One cannot go for recitation or questioning, but can go saying, “I will see the teacher.” If the teacher says, “Do not go today,” it is allowable. One cannot go to see a supporter’s family or relatives.

181. “Monks, I allow going on a Saṅgha errand” (Mahāva. 199). Because of this, it is also permissible to go on a Saṅgha errand related to dwellings. Here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 199), whatever needs to be done in dwellings such as uposatha halls, etc., or on cetiya umbrellas, platforms, etc., even a monk’s personal dwelling, all of it is considered a Saṅgha errand. Therefore, it is permissible to go to bring materials, etc., for its completion, or to give wages, food, etc., to carpenters and others. Moreover, this principle from the Pāḷimuttaka should also be understood here – it is not permissible to go uninvited for the purpose of listening to the Dhamma. If, in a large dwelling, a prior agreement has been made, “On such-and-such a day, we should assemble,” then one is considered invited, and it is permissible to go. It is not permissible to go with the purpose of “I will wash a small item.” But if the teachers and preceptors send one, it is permissible. If the monastery is not too far, and one thinks, “I will go there and return today,” but is unable to accomplish it, it is permissible. It is not permissible to go for the purpose of recitation, questioning, etc. But it is permissible to go with the purpose of “I will see the teacher.” If the teacher tells him, “Do not go today,” it is permissible. It is not permissible to go to see a supporting family or a relative’s family.

181. “I allow, monks, to go for a Sangha matter” (Mahāvagga 199). Thus, it is permissible to go even for a Sangha matter related to lodging. Here (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 199), anything that needs to be done in the Uposatha hall, lodgings, shrine canopies, platforms, etc., even a monk’s personal lodging, is considered a Sangha matter. Therefore, one may go to fetch materials such as grass or to pay wages to carpenters, etc., for its completion. Here, this principle should also be understood: it is not permissible to go uninvited for the purpose of hearing the Dhamma. However, if a meeting is scheduled in a large monastery, one is considered invited and may go. It is not permissible to go with the intention, “I will wash the bowls.” However, if one’s teacher or preceptor sends one, it is permissible. If the monastery is not too far and one thinks, “I will go there and return today,” but is unable to reach it, it is permissible. It is not permissible to go for the purpose of recitation or questioning, but it is permissible to go with the intention, “I will see my teacher.” If the teacher says, “Do not go today,” it is permissible. It is not permissible to go to visit a lay supporter’s family or relatives.

Sace bhikkhūsu vassūpagatesu gāmo corehi vuṭṭhāti, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Yena gāmo, tena gantabbaṃ. Sace gāmo dvidhā bhijjati, yattha bahutarā manussā, tattha gantabbaṃ. Sace bahutarā assaddhā honti appasannā, yattha saddhā pasannā, tattha gantabbaṃ. Ettha ca sace gāmo avidūragato hoti, tattha piṇḍāya caritvā vihārameva āgantvā vasitabbaṃ. Sace dūraṃ gato, sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo, na sakkā ce hoti, tattheva sabhāgaṭṭhāne vasitabbaṃ. Sace manussā yathāpavattāni salākabhattādīni denti, “na mayaṃ tasmiṃ vihāre vasimhā”ti vattabbā. “Mayaṃ vihārassa vā pāsādassa vā na dema, tumhākaṃ dema, yattha katthaci vasitvā bhuñjathā”ti vutte pana yathāsukhaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ, tesaṃyeva taṃ pāpuṇāti. “Tumhākaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne pāpuṇāpetvā bhuñjathā”ti vutte pana yattha vasanti, tattha netvā vassaggena pāpuṇāpetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace pavāritakāle vassāvāsikaṃ denti, yadi sattāhavārena aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpayiṃsu, gahetabbaṃ. Chinnavassehi pana “na mayaṃ tattha vasimha, chinnavassā maya”nti vattabbaṃ. Yadi “yesaṃ amhākaṃ senāsanaṃ pāpitaṃ, te gaṇhantū”ti vadanti, gahetabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana “vihāre upanikkhittakaṃ mā vinassī”ti idha āhaṭaṃ cīvarādivebhaṅgiyabhaṇḍaṃ, taṃ tattheva gantvā apaloketvā bhājetabbaṃ. “Ito ayyānaṃ cattāro paccaye dethā”ti kappiyakārakānaṃ dinne khettavatthuādike tatruppādepi eseva nayo. Saṅghikañhi vebhaṅgiyabhaṇḍaṃ antovihāre vā bahisīmāya vā hotu, bahisīmāya ṭhitānaṃ apaloketvā bhājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Ubhayattha ṭhitampi pana antosīmāya ṭhitānaṃ apaloketvā bhājetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

If, while monks have entered the rains retreat, a village is attacked by thieves, what should be done? One should go where the village goes. If the village splits in two, go where most people are. If most are faithless and unconfident, go where there are faithful and confident ones. Here, if the village has gone not far, one should go for alms there and return to the monastery to dwell. If it has gone far, the dawn should be raised every seven days; if that is not possible, one should dwell in a suitable place there. If people give customary offerings like ticket-food, it should be said, “We did not dwell in that monastery.” If they say, “We do not give to the monastery or mansion, but to you; dwell anywhere and eat,” it should be eaten freely—it reaches them. If they say, “Eat after having it delivered to your dwelling place,” it should be taken to where one dwells, delivered by the rains retreat method, and eaten. If they give vassāvāsika at pavāraṇā time, if the dawn was raised every seven days, it may be taken. But those whose rains retreat is broken should say, “We did not dwell there; our rains retreat is broken.” If they say, “Let those to whom we delivered our lodging take it,” it may be taken. Items like robes and divisible goods brought here, saying, “Let what was deposited in the monastery not be lost,” should be divided there after formal consent. For fields, land, and produce given to permissible agents, saying, “Give the four requisites to the venerables from here,” the same applies. For Saṅgha divisible goods, whether inside the monastery or outside the sīma, those outside the sīma cannot divide it without formal consent. But goods in both places can indeed be divided by those within the sīma with formal consent.

If, after the monks have entered the rains, a village is attacked by robbers, what should be done? One should go in the direction of the village. If the village is divided into two, one should go to where the majority of people are. If the majority are faithless and unconvinced, one should go to where there are faithful and convinced people. And here, if the village is not far away, one should go for alms there and return to the monastery to reside. If it is far away, one should let the dawn break with a seven-day limit. If that is not possible, one should reside in a suitable place there. If people offer the usual ticket-meals, etc., one should say, “We did not reside in that monastery.” If they say, “We are not giving to the monastery or the pāsāda, we are giving to you; reside wherever you like and eat,” then one should eat as one pleases; it belongs to them. If they say, “Take it to the place where you are residing and eat,” then one should take it to where they are residing and make it allowable by the rains-count and eat. If, at the time of Pavāraṇā, they give the rains-residence offering, if they let the dawn break with a seven-day limit, it should be accepted. But those who have broken the rains should say, “We did not reside there; we are those who have broken the rains.” If they say, “Let those to whom our dwelling was given take it,” it should be accepted. As for the divisible goods, such as robes, etc., brought here with the thought, “Let what is deposited in the monastery not be lost,” one should go there, make an announcement, and divide it. The same principle applies to fields, plots, etc., given to the robe-making lay followers with the instruction, “Give four requisites to the venerable ones from this.” Whether divisible Saṅgha property is within the monastery or outside the boundary, it is not permissible for those standing outside the boundary to divide it without making an announcement. However, it is permissible for those standing inside the boundary to divide even property standing in both places without making an announcement.

If, after the monks have entered the rains, a village is attacked by thieves, what should be done? One should go to the village. If the village is divided into two, one should go where the majority of people are. If the majority are faithless and lacking confidence, one should go where the faithful and confident are. Here, if the village is not far, one should go for alms and return to the monastery to stay. If it is far, one should rise at dawn within seven days. If that is not possible, one should stay in a suitable place. If the people continue to offer the usual alms such as Salākabhatta, one should say, “We did not stay in that monastery.” If they say, “We do not give to the monastery or the hall, but to you. Eat wherever you stay,” one may eat as one pleases, and it belongs to them. If they say, “We will send it to your dwelling place,” one should take it to where one is staying and eat it at the end of the rains. If they offer the vassāvāsika at the time of Pavāraṇā, and one has risen at dawn within seven days, one may accept it. Those who have broken the rains should say, “We did not stay there. We have broken the rains.” If they say, “Those who prepared our lodging may take it,” one may accept it. However, if robes or other allowable items left in the monastery are brought here with the intention, “Do not let them go to waste,” one should go there, inform the Sangha, and distribute them. If the stewards give fields, land, etc., saying, “Give the four requisites to the venerable ones from here,” the same applies. Sangha property, whether inside the monastery or outside the boundary, should not be distributed without informing those outside the boundary. However, if it is in both places, it may be distributed after informing those within the boundary.

Sace pana vassūpagatā bhikkhū vāḷehi ubbāḷhā honti, gaṇhantipi paripātentipi, sarīsapehi vā ubbāḷhā honti, ḍaṃsantipi paripātentipi, corehi vā ubbāḷhā honti, vilumpantipi ākoṭentipi, pisācehi vā ubbāḷhā honti, āvisantipi hanantipi, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ, natthi vassacchede āpatti. Sace gāmo agginā vā daḍḍho hoti, udakena vā vuḷho. Bhikkhū piṇḍakena kilamanti, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ, vassacchede anāpatti. Senāsanaṃ agginā vā daḍḍhaṃ hoti, udakena vā vuḷhaṃ, bhikkhū senāsanena kilamanti, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ, vassacchede anāpatti. Sace vassūpagatā bhikkhū na labhanti lūkhassa vā paṇītassa vā bhojanassa yāvadatthaṃ pāripūriṃ, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ. Sace labhanti lūkhassa vā paṇītassa vā bhojanassa yāvadatthaṃ pāripūriṃ, na labhanti sappāyāni bhojanāni, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ. Sacepi labhanti lūkhassa vā paṇītassa vā bhojanassa yāvadatthaṃ pāripūriṃ, labhanti sappāyāni bhojanāni, na labhanti sappāyāni bhesajjāni, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ. Sace labhanti lūkhassa vā paṇītassa vā bhojanassa yāvadatthaṃ pāripūriṃ, labhanti sappāyāni bhojanāni, labhanti sappāyāni bhesajjāni, na labhanti patirūpaṃ upaṭṭhākaṃ, “eseva antarāyo”ti pakkamitabbaṃ, sabbattha vassacchede anāpatti.

If monks who have entered the rains retreat are harassed by wild animals that seize and injure, or by creeping creatures that bite and injure, or by thieves who plunder and strike, or by demons who possess and harm, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart—there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat. If the village is burned by fire or flooded by water, and monks suffer for alms, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart—there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat. If a lodging is burned by fire or flooded by water, and monks suffer for lodging, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart—there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat. If monks who have entered the rains retreat do not obtain coarse or fine food to satisfaction, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart. If they obtain coarse or fine food to satisfaction but not suitable food, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart. Even if they obtain coarse or fine food to satisfaction and suitable food, but not suitable medicine, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart. If they obtain coarse or fine food to satisfaction, suitable food, and suitable medicine, but not a suitable attendant, saying, “This is indeed an obstacle,” they should depart—in all cases, there is no offense for breaking the rains retreat.

If the monks who have entered the rains are troubled by wild animals – they seize and kill; or are troubled by snakes – they bite and kill; or are troubled by robbers – they plunder and beat; or are troubled by spirits – they possess and kill, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle;” there is no offense of breaking the rains. If the village is burned by fire, or flooded by water, and the monks are struggling for alms, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle;” there is no offense of breaking the rains. If the dwelling is burned by fire, or flooded by water, and the monks are struggling for a dwelling, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle;” there is no offense of breaking the rains. If the monks who have entered the rains do not receive a sufficient amount of coarse or fine food to satisfy them, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle.” If they receive a sufficient amount of coarse or fine food to satisfy them, but do not receive suitable food, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle.” Even if they receive a sufficient amount of coarse or fine food to satisfy them, and receive suitable food, but do not receive suitable medicine, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle.” If they receive a sufficient amount of coarse or fine food to satisfy them, receive suitable food, and receive suitable medicine, but do not receive suitable attendance, one should depart, thinking, “This is an obstacle;” in all cases, there is no offense of breaking the rains.

If monks who have entered the rains are harassed by wild animals, which capture and kill them, or by insects, which bite and kill them, or by thieves, who rob and beat them, or by demons, who possess and kill them, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” There is no offense of breaking the rains. If a village is burned by fire or flooded by water, and the monks are exhausted from alms gathering, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” There is no offense of breaking the rains. If the lodging is burned by fire or flooded by water, and the monks are exhausted from lack of lodging, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” There is no offense of breaking the rains. If monks who have entered the rains do not obtain sufficient coarse or fine food, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” If they obtain sufficient coarse or fine food but not suitable food, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” If they obtain sufficient coarse or fine food and suitable food but not suitable medicine, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” If they obtain sufficient coarse or fine food, suitable food, and suitable medicine but not a suitable attendant, one should leave, thinking, “This is a danger.” In all these cases, there is no offense of breaking the rains.

Sace pana vassūpagataṃ bhikkhuṃ itthī nimanteti “ehi, bhante, hiraññaṃ vā te demi, suvaṇṇaṃ vā khettaṃ vā vatthuṃ vā gāvuṃ vā gāviṃ vā dāsaṃ vā dāsiṃ vā te demi, dhītaraṃ vā te demi bhariyatthāya, ahaṃ vā te bhariyā homi, aññaṃ vā te bhariyaṃ ānemī”ti, tatra ce bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti “lahuparivattaṃ kho cittaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā, siyāpime brahmacariyassa antarāyo”ti, pakkamitabbaṃ, natthi vassacchede āpatti. Vuttanayeneva vesī vā nimanteti, thullakumārī vā nimanteti, paṇḍako vā nimanteti, ñātakā vā nimantenti, rājāno vā nimantenti, corā vā nimantenti, dhuttā vā nimantenti, eseva nayo. Sace vassūpagato bhikkhu passati asāmikaṃ nidhiṃ, tatra ce bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti “lahuparivattaṃ kho cittaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā, siyāpi me brahmacariyassa antarāyo”ti, pakkamitabbaṃ, anāpatti vassacchede.

If a woman invites a bhikkhu who has entered the rains retreat, saying, “Come, venerable, I will give you silver, or gold, or a field, or a plot of land, or a cow, or a buffalo, or a male slave, or a female slave, or I will give you my daughter as a wife, or I myself will be your wife, or I will bring you another wife,” and if that bhikkhu thinks, “The mind is fickle, as the Blessed One has said; this could be an obstacle to my holy life (brahmacariya),” he should depart; there is no offense in breaking the rains retreat. In the same way as stated, if a prostitute invites him, or a mature maiden, or a paṇḍaka (eunuch), or relatives, or kings, or thieves, or rogues invite him, the same applies. If a bhikkhu who has entered the rains retreat sees an ownerless treasure and thinks, “The mind is fickle, as the Blessed One has said; this could be an obstacle to my holy life,” he should depart; there is no offense in breaking the rains retreat.

If, while a bhikkhu is in residence for the rains, a woman invites him, saying, “Come, venerable sir, I will give you money, gold, a field, a plot of land, a cow, a heifer, a male slave, a female slave, or I will give you my daughter as a wife, or I myself will become your wife, or I will bring you another wife,” and if the bhikkhu thinks, “The mind is said by the Blessed One to be easily changed; this might be an obstacle to my brahmacariya (holy life),” he should leave; there is no offense in breaking the rains residence. In the same way, if a prostitute invites him, or a young maiden invites him, or a eunuch invites him, or relatives invite him, or kings invite him, or thieves invite him, or rogues invite him, the same principle applies. If a bhikkhu in residence for the rains sees an ownerless treasure, and if the bhikkhu thinks, “The mind is said by the Blessed One to be easily changed; this might be an obstacle to my brahmacariya,” he should leave; there is no offense in breaking the rains residence.

If, however, a woman invites a monk who has entered the rains residence, saying, “Come, venerable sir, I will give you money, gold, a field, a piece of land, a cow, a calf, a male slave, a female slave, or I will give you my daughter in marriage, or I myself will become your wife, or I will bring another wife for you,” and if the monk thinks, “The mind is easily swayed, as the Blessed One has said; this might be an obstacle to my holy life,” he should depart. There is no offense of breaking the rains residence. The same applies if a courtesan invites him, or a young girl, or a eunuch, or relatives, or kings, or thieves, or rogues invite him. If a monk who has entered the rains residence sees ownerless treasure, and if he thinks, “The mind is easily swayed, as the Blessed One has said; this might be an obstacle to my holy life,” he should depart. There is no offense of breaking the rains residence.

Sace vassūpagato bhikkhu passati sambahule bhikkhū saṅghabhedāya parakkamante, suṇāti vā “sambahulā bhikkhū saṅghabhedāya parakkamantī”ti, tatra ce bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti “garuko kho saṅghabhedo vutto bhagavatā, mā mayi sammukhībhūte saṅgho bhijjī”ti, pakkamitabbaṃ, anāpatti vassacchede. Sace vassūpagato bhikkhu suṇāti “asukasmiṃ kira āvāse sambahulā bhikkhū saṅghabhedāya parakkamantī”ti, tatra ce bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti “te ca kho me bhikkhū mittā, tyāhaṃ vakkhāmi ’garuko kho, āvuso, saṅghabhedo vutto bhagavatā, mā āyasmantānaṃ saṅghabhedo ruccitthā’ti, karissanti me vacanaṃ sussūsissanti, sotaṃ odahissantī”ti, pakkamitabbaṃ, anāpatti vassacchede, bhinne pana saṅghe gantvā karaṇīyaṃ natthi.

If a bhikkhu who has entered the rains retreat sees many bhikkhus striving to cause a schism in the Sangha, or hears, “Many bhikkhus are striving to cause a schism in the Sangha,” and if that bhikkhu thinks, “A schism in the Sangha is grave, as the Blessed One has said; may the Sangha not split in my presence,” he should depart; there is no offense in breaking the rains retreat. If a bhikkhu who has entered the rains retreat hears, “In such-and-such a residence, it seems, many bhikkhus are striving to cause a schism in the Sangha,” and if that bhikkhu thinks, “Those bhikkhus are my friends; I will say to them, ‘Friends, a schism in the Sangha is grave, as the Blessed One has said; may the venerables not delight in a schism,’ and they will heed my words, listen, and lend an ear,” he should depart; there is no offense in breaking the rains retreat. However, once the Sangha has split, there is nothing to be done by going there.

If a bhikkhu in residence for the rains sees many bhikkhus striving to create a schism in the Sangha, or hears, “Many bhikkhus are striving to create a schism in the Sangha,” and if the bhikkhu thinks, “A schism in the Sangha is said by the Blessed One to be a serious matter; let not the Sangha be split while I am present,” he should leave; there is no offense in breaking the rains residence. If a bhikkhu in residence for the rains hears, “In such-and-such a dwelling, many bhikkhus are striving to create a schism in the Sangha,” and if the bhikkhu thinks, “Those bhikkhus are my friends, and I will say to them, ‘Friends, a schism in the Sangha is said by the Blessed One to be a serious matter; do not let a schism in the Sangha be pleasing to you,’ and they will heed my words, they will listen attentively, they will pay attention,” he should leave; there is no offense in breaking the rains residence. But if the Sangha has already split, there is nothing to be done by going there.

If a monk who has entered the rains residence sees several monks striving to cause a schism in the Sangha, or hears, “Several monks are striving to cause a schism in the Sangha,” and if he thinks, “A schism in the Sangha is a grave matter, as the Blessed One has said; let not the Sangha split in my presence,” he should depart. There is no offense of breaking the rains residence. If a monk who has entered the rains residence hears, “In such and such residence, several monks are striving to cause a schism in the Sangha,” and if he thinks, “Those monks are my friends; I will say to them, ‘Friends, a schism in the Sangha is a grave matter, as the Blessed One has said; do not let a schism in the Sangha be agreeable to you,’ and they will heed my words, listen attentively,” he should depart. There is no offense of breaking the rains residence. However, if the Sangha has already split, there is no need to go.

Sace pana koci bhikkhu “imaṃ temāsaṃ idha vassaṃ vasathā”ti vutte paṭissuṇitvā visaṃvādeti, dukkaṭaṃ. Na kevalaṃ tasseva paṭissavassa visaṃvāde dukkaṭaṃ, “imaṃ temāsaṃ bhikkhaṃ gaṇhatha, ubhopi mayaṃ idha vassaṃ vasissāma, ekato uddisāpessāmā”ti evamādināpi tassa tassa paṭissavassa visaṃvāde dukkaṭaṃ. Tañca kho paṭhamaṃ suddhacittassa pacchā visaṃvādanapaccayā, paṭhamampi asuddhacittassa pana paṭissave pācittiyaṃ. Visaṃvāde dukkaṭanti pācittiyena saddhiṃ dukkaṭaṃ yujjati.

If someone says to a bhikkhu, “Dwell here for these three months during the rains,” and he agrees but later reneges, it is a dukkata offense. Not only for that specific agreement, but also for reneging on agreements like, “Take almsfood for these three months; both of us will dwell here for the rains and recite together,” or similar statements, it is a dukkata offense. This applies when the initial intent was pure but later reneged upon; however, if the initial agreement was made with an impure intent, it is a pācittiya offense. Reneging as a dukkata combined with a pācittiya is consistent.

If, however, a bhikkhu, having promised when asked, “Will you spend these three months residing here for the rains?” breaks that promise, there is a dukkhaṭa offense. Not only is there a dukkhaṭa for breaking that very promise, but also for breaking any promise of this nature, such as, “Take almsfood for these three months, we will both reside here for the rains, we will recite together,” and so on, there is a dukkhaṭa. And that is if initially there was a pure intention, with the breaking of the promise coming later. But if even initially the intention was impure, there is a pācittiya offense in the promise. With the breaking of the promise, a dukkhaṭa is incurred along with the pācittiya.

If any monk, having agreed to spend the rains residence in a certain place for three months, breaks his promise, it is a wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). Not only is it a wrong-doing for breaking that promise, but also for breaking any similar promise, such as saying, “Take alms here for three months, and we will both spend the rains residence here together, and we will recite together,” and so on. However, if the promise was made with a pure mind initially but later broken, it is a wrong-doing. But if the promise was made with an impure mind from the beginning, it is an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). The term “wrong-doing” here applies along with the offense requiring confession.

182. Vassūpagatehi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) antovasse nibaddhavattaṃ ṭhapetvā vassūpagatā bhikkhū “sammuñjaniyo bandhathā”ti vattabbā. Sulabhā ce daṇḍakā ceva salākāyo ca honti, ekakena cha pañca muṭṭhisammuñjaniyo dve tisso yaṭṭhisammuñjaniyo vā bandhitabbā. Dullabhā honti, dve tisso muṭṭhisammuñjaniyo ekā yaṭṭhisammuñjanī bandhitabbā. Sāmaṇerehi pañca pañca ukkā vā koṭṭetabbā, vasanaṭṭhānesu kasāvaparibhaṇḍaṃ kātabbaṃ. Vattaṃ karontehi ca na uddisitabbaṃ na uddisāpetabbaṃ, na sajjhāyo kātabbo, na pabbājetabbaṃ na upasampādetabbaṃ, na nissayo dātabbo, na dhammassavanaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sabbeva hi ete papañcā, nippapañcā hutvā samaṇadhammameva karissāmāti vā sabbe terasa dhutaṅgāni samādiyantu, seyyaṃ akappetvā ṭhānacaṅkamehi vītināmentu, mūgabbataṃ gaṇhantu, sattāhakaraṇīyena gatāpi bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ labhantūti vā evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Evaṃ pana kātabbaṃ – pariyattidhammo nāma tividhampi saddhammaṃ patiṭṭhāpeti, tasmā sakkaccaṃ uddisatha uddisāpetha, sajjhāyaṃ karotha, padhānaghare vasantānaṃ saṅghaṭṭanaṃ akatvā antovihāre nisīditvā uddisatha uddisāpetha, sajjhāyaṃ karotha, dhammassavanaṃ samiddhaṃ karotha, pabbājentā sodhetvā pabbājetha, sodhetvā upasampādetha, sodhetvā nissayaṃ detha. Ekopi hi kulaputto pabbajjañca upasampadañca labhitvā sakalaṃ sāsanaṃ patiṭṭhāpeti, attano thāmena yattakāni sakkotha, tattakāni dhutaṅgāni samādiyatha, antovassaṃ nāmetaṃ sakaladivasaṃ rattiyā ca paṭhamayāmapacchimayāmesu appamattehi bhavitabbaṃ, vīriyaṃ ārabhitabbaṃ. Porāṇakamahātherāpi sabbapalibodhe chinditvā antovasse ekacāriyavattaṃ pūrayiṃsu, bhasse mattaṃ jānitvā dasavatthukathaṃ dasaasubhadasānussatiaṭṭhatiṃsārammaṇakathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, āgantukānaṃ vattaṃ kātuṃ, sattāhakaraṇīyena gatānaṃ apaloketvā dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti evarūpaṃ vattaṃ kātabbaṃ.

182. For those who have entered the rains retreat (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), apart from regular duties during the rains, bhikkhus who have entered the rains retreat should be told, “Tie brooms (sammuñjaniyo).” If sticks (daṇḍakā) and twigs (salākāyo) are easily available, one person should tie six or five handful-sized brooms (muṭṭhisammuñjaniyo) or two or three stick brooms (yaṭṭhisammuñjaniyo). If they are scarce, two or three handful-sized brooms and one stick broom should be tied. Novices should pound five measures of dye each, and a dye enclosure (kasāvaparibhaṇḍa) should be made in the dwelling places. While performing duties, one should not recite, have others recite, study, ordain others, confer higher ordination (upasampāda), give dependence (nissaya), or hold Dhamma listening sessions. Indeed, all these are hindrances (papañcā). To say, “Being free from hindrances (nippapañcā), we will practice the ascetic’s duty,” or that all should undertake the thirteen austerities (dhutaṅgā), or not arrange beds and spend time standing or pacing, or take a vow of silence (mūgabbata), or that those gone for seven-day tasks should receive vessels (bhājanīyabhaṇḍa)—such unrighteous duties should not be done. Instead, it should be done thus: The teachings to be learned (pariyattidhammo) establish all three aspects of the true Dhamma (saddhamma), so recite and have others recite with care, study, and, without disturbing those dwelling in meditation halls (padhānaghara), sit within the monastery to recite, have others recite, study, and successfully conduct Dhamma listening sessions. Ordain and confer higher ordination after investigation, and give dependence after investigation. Even one son of a good family, receiving novice ordination (pabbajja) and higher ordination (upasampāda), establishes the entire dispensation (sāsana). According to your strength, undertake as many austerities (dhutaṅgā) as you can. During the rains retreat, throughout the day and in the first and last watches of the night, one should be heedful and arouse energy (vīriya). Even the ancient great elders, cutting off all encumbrances, fulfilled the solitary duty (ekacāriyavatta) during the rains retreat. Knowing the measure of speech, it is permissible to discuss the ten topics (dasavatthukatha), the ten impurities (dasaasubha), the ten recollections (dasānussati), and the thirty-eight meditation objects (aṭṭhatiṃsārammaṇakatha), perform duties for visitors, and give to those gone for seven-day tasks without formal permission. Such duties should be done.

182. Concerning those who have entered the rains residence (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), apart from the fixed duties during the rains, the bhikkhus who have entered the rains residence should be told, “Tie the brooms.” If sticks and stalks are readily available, each person should tie six or five small, handful-sized brooms, and two or three large, pole-sized brooms. If they are scarce, two or three small, handful-sized brooms and one large, pole-sized broom should be tied. Novices should chop five pieces of firewood each, and the area where they reside should be prepared with ochre-colored cloth. While performing duties, one should not recite, nor cause others to recite, nor engage in study, nor ordain, nor give full ordination, nor give dependence, nor conduct a Dhamma discourse. All these are indeed hindrances; thinking, “Having become free from hindrances, we will perform only the duties of a recluse,” or let all take up the thirteen dhutaṅgas, let them pass the time standing and walking without preparing a bed, let them take a vow of silence, or even if they have gone for a seven-day matter, let them receive the allotted portion—such un-Dhamma-like conduct should not be done. But this is what should be done: The Dhamma of learning establishes the threefold true Dhamma, therefore, respectfully recite, cause others to recite, engage in study; for those dwelling in the main hall, without causing disturbance, sitting inside the dwelling, recite, cause others to recite, engage in study; make the Dhamma discourse fruitful; when ordaining, ordain after careful examination; give full ordination after careful examination; give dependence after careful examination. For even one clansman, having received the going forth and full ordination, establishes the entire sāsana; take up as many dhutaṅgas as you are able to with your own strength; during the rains residence, one should be heedful throughout the entire day, and in the first and last watches of the night, one should arouse energy. Even the ancient elders, having cut off all attachments, fulfilled the duty of solitary dwelling during the rains residence; knowing moderation in speech, it is proper to speak on the ten subjects of discussion, the ten foulnesses, the ten recollections, and the thirty-eight objects of meditation; it is proper to perform the duties for newcomers; it is proper to give to those who have gone for a seven-day matter without overlooking them—such conduct should be done.

182. Monks who have entered the rains residence, except for those bound by duties within the residence, should be told, “Prepare your bedding.” If sticks and splinters are easily available, one should prepare five or six handfuls of bedding or two or three staff-lengths of bedding. If they are hard to find, two or three handfuls of bedding or one staff-length of bedding should be prepared. Novices should prepare five or five firebrands, and the robe material should be prepared in the living quarters. While performing duties, one should not recite, have others recite, or study. One should not ordain, give full ordination, give dependence, or teach the Dhamma. All these are distractions. Free from distractions, one should practice the ascetic practices. All thirteen ascetic practices should be undertaken. One should spend the time without preparing a bed, walking back and forth, observing the practice of silence, and obtaining necessary utensils even if one has gone on a seven-day duty. Such improper practices should not be done. Instead, one should diligently recite, have others recite, study, and listen to the Dhamma. One should ordain after purifying, give full ordination after purifying, and give dependence after purifying. Even one clansman who has gone forth and received full ordination can establish the entire Dispensation. According to one’s strength, one should undertake as many ascetic practices as possible. Within the rains residence, one should be diligent day and night, especially during the first and last watches of the night, and one should arouse energy. The ancient elders, cutting off all obstacles, fulfilled the duties of a single teacher within the rains residence. Knowing the measure of speech, they gave talks on the ten subjects, the ten foulness meditations, and the thirty-two parts of the body. They performed duties for incoming monks and gave permission to those who had gone on a seven-day duty. Such duties should be done.

Apica bhikkhū ovaditabbā “viggāhikapisuṇapharusavacanāni mā vadatha, divase divase sīlāni āvajjentā caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentā manasikārabahulā viharathā”ti. Dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā vandantena gandhamālaṃ vā pūjentena pattaṃ vā thavikāya pakkhipantena na kathetabbaṃ, bhikkhācāravattaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, antogāme manussehi saddhiṃ paccayasaññuttakathā vā visabhāgakathā vā na kathetabbā, rakkhitindriyehi bhavitabbaṃ, khandhakavattañca sekhiyavattañca pūretabbanti evarūpā bahukāpi niyyānikakathā ācikkhitabbāti.

Moreover, bhikkhus should be advised, “Do not speak contentious, slanderous, or harsh words; reflect on your virtues daily, develop the four protections (caturārakkha), and dwell with much attention (manasikāra).” The duty of chewing tooth-wood (dantakaṭṭhakhādanavatta) should be explained. When venerating a shrine (cetiya) or Bodhi tree with scents or garlands, or placing the bowl in a bag (thavikā), one should not converse. The duty of almsround (bhikkhācāravatta) should be explained. Within the village, one should not converse with people about requisites or dissimilar topics, should guard the senses (rakkhitindriya), and fulfill the duties of the Khandhaka and Sekhiya rules. Many such discourses leading to liberation (niyyānikakathā) should be explained.

Moreover, bhikkhus should be exhorted: “Do not speak divisive, slanderous, or harsh words; reflecting daily on the precepts, not neglecting the four protections, dwell with mindfulness.” The duty of using a tooth-cleaning stick should be explained; when venerating a cetiya or a Bodhi tree, or offering flowers and garlands, or putting the bowl in the bowl-bag, one should not converse; the duty of alms-round conduct should be explained; within the village, one should not engage in conversation with people connected with requisites or in unbeneficial conversation; one should be restrained in the senses; and one should fulfill the duties of the Khandhakas and the Sekhiya duties—many such instructive talks should be explained.

Furthermore, monks should be advised, “Do not speak divisive, slanderous, or harsh words. Reflect on your virtues daily, observe the fourfold restraint, and be mindful.” The practice of using toothwood should be taught. When paying homage to a shrine or a Bodhi tree, or offering incense or flowers, or placing a bowl in a bag, one should not speak. The practice of alms-going should be taught. One should not engage in worldly talk or inappropriate conversation with people in the village. One should guard the senses and fulfill the duties of the Khandhaka and Sekhiya rules. Many such beneficial teachings should be given.

27. Upajjhāyādivattavinicchayakathā

27. Discussion on the Judgment of Duties Toward Preceptors and Others

27. Discussion on the Duties of the Preceptor and Others

27. The section on the determination of the duties of preceptors and others.

183. Vattanti ettha pana vattaṃ nāmetaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ ācariyavattaṃ āgantukavattaṃ āvāsikavattaṃ gamikavattaṃ bhattaggavattaṃ piṇḍacārikavattaṃ āraññikavattaṃ senāsanavattaṃ jantāgharavattaṃ vaccakuṭivattanti bahuvidhaṃ. Tattha upajjhāyavattaṃ tāva evaṃ veditabbaṃ – saddhivihārikena kālasseva uṭṭhāya upāhanā omuñcitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā upajjhāyassa dantakaṭṭhaṃ dātabbaṃ, mukhodakaṃ dātabbaṃ. Tattha dantakaṭṭhaṃ dentena mahantaṃ majjhimaṃ khuddakanti tīṇi dantakaṭṭhāni upanetvā ito yaṃ tīṇi divasāni gaṇhāti, catutthadivasato paṭṭhāya tādisameva dātabbaṃ. Sace aniyamaṃ katvā yaṃ vā taṃ vā gaṇhāti, atha yādisaṃ labhati, tādisaṃ dātabbaṃ. Mukhodakaṃ dentenapi sītañca uṇhañca udakaṃ upanetvā tato yaṃ tīṇi divasāni vaḷañjeti. Catutthadivasato paṭṭhāya tādisameva mukhadhovanodakaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sace duvidhampi vaḷañjeti, duvidhampi upanetabbaṃ. Udakaṃ mukhadhovanaṭṭhāne ṭhapetvā vaccakuṭito paṭṭhāya sammajjitabbaṃ. There vaccakuṭigate pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, evaṃ pariveṇaṃ asuññaṃ hoti. There vaccakuṭito anikkhanteyeva āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ. Sarīrakiccaṃ katvā āgantvā tasmiṃ nisinnassa sace yāgu hoti, bhājanaṃ dhovitvā yāgu upanāmetabbā, yāguṃ pivitassa udakaṃ datvā bhājanaṃ paṭiggahetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ appaṭighaṃsantena dhovitvā paṭisāmetabbaṃ. Upajjhāyamhi vuṭṭhite āsanaṃ uddharitabbaṃ. Sace so deso uklāpo hoti kenaci kacavarena saṃkiṇṇo, so deso sammajjitabbo. Sace pana añño kacavaro natthi, udakaphusitāneva honti, hatthena pamajjitabbo.

183. Duty (vatta): Here, duty refers to various kinds, such as the duty toward a preceptor (upajjhāyavatta), the duty toward a teacher (ācariyavatta), the duty toward visitors (āgantukavatta), the duty of residents (āvāsikavatta), the duty of those departing (gamikavatta), the duty in the dining hall (bhattaggavatta), the duty of almsgoers (piṇḍacārikavatta), the duty of forest-dwellers (āraññikavatta), the duty regarding lodgings (senāsanavatta), the duty in the bathhouse (jantāgharavatta), and the duty in the latrine (vaccakuṭivatta). Among these, the duty toward a preceptor (upajjhāyavatta) should be understood thus: A co-resident (saddhivihārika) should rise early, remove his sandals (upāhanā), arrange his upper robe over one shoulder (ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā), and give tooth-wood (dantakaṭṭha) and face-washing water (mukhodaka) to the preceptor. When giving tooth-wood, he should offer three sizes—large, medium, and small—and from the fourth day onward, give the kind the preceptor takes for three days. If the preceptor takes any kind without consistency, then whatever is available should be given. When giving face-washing water, both cold and warm water should be offered, and from the fourth day onward, the kind the preceptor uses for three days should be given. If he uses both, both should be offered. After placing water at the washing spot, he should sweep from the latrine (vaccakuṭi) onward. When the elder is in the latrine, the surrounding area (pariveṇa) should be swept, so the area is not empty. Before the elder leaves the latrine, a seat (āsana) should be prepared. After the elder returns from bodily needs and sits, if there is gruel (yāgu), the vessel should be washed, and the gruel offered. After he drinks, water should be given, the vessel taken back, lowered carefully, washed well without scraping, and stored. When the preceptor rises, the seat should be removed. If that place is dirty (uklāpa) or mixed with any rubbish (kacavara), it should be swept. If there is no other rubbish but only water drops (udakaphusita), it should be wiped by hand.

183. Duties (Vatta): Here, the duties are of many kinds: the duty of the preceptor, the duty of the teacher, the duty of the newcomer, the duty of the resident, the duty of the one departing, the duty at the meal hall, the duty of the alms-gatherer, the duty of the forest-dweller, the duty of the lodging, the duty of the hot-room, and the duty of the toilet. Of these, the duty of the preceptor should be understood as follows: The resident pupil should rise early in the morning, remove his sandals, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, and offer the preceptor his tooth-cleaning stick and water for rinsing his mouth. In offering the tooth-cleaning stick, he should present three tooth-cleaning sticks—a large one, a medium one, and a small one—and whichever one he takes for three days, from the fourth day onwards, he should offer the same kind. If, without making a rule, he takes whichever one he wants, then whatever kind he gets, that kind should be offered. In offering the water for rinsing the mouth, he should present both cold and warm water, and whichever one he uses for three days, from the fourth day onwards, he should offer the same kind of water for rinsing the mouth. If he uses both kinds, both kinds should be presented. Having placed the water at the place for rinsing the mouth, he should sweep, starting from the toilet. When the elder has gone to the toilet, the area around it should be swept; thus, the area around it is not left empty. Before the elder has come out of the toilet, a seat should be prepared. After he has performed his bodily functions and come and sat down on it, if there is gruel, the bowl should be washed and the gruel should be offered; having given water to him after he has drunk the gruel, the bowl should be taken back, held low, washed carefully without scraping, and put away. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be removed. If that place is untidy, strewn with any kind of rubbish, that place should be swept. If, however, there is no other rubbish, only drops of water, it should be wiped with the hand.

183. Duties: Here, the duties are of various kinds: the duties of a preceptor, a teacher, an incoming monk, a resident monk, a traveling monk, a meal-serving monk, an alms-going monk, a forest-dwelling monk, a lodging monk, a sauna monk, and a restroom monk. Among these, the duties of a preceptor should be understood as follows: The student should rise early, remove his sandals, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, and offer toothwood to the preceptor, as well as water for rinsing the mouth. When offering toothwood, one should bring three pieces: large, medium, and small. From the fourth day onward, the same should be offered. If one does not follow this rule and takes whatever is available, one should offer whatever is obtained. When offering water for rinsing the mouth, one should bring both cold and warm water. From the fourth day onward, the same should be offered. If both are used, both should be brought. After placing the water for rinsing the mouth, one should sweep from the restroom onward. When the elder has gone to the restroom, the living quarters should be swept, so that the quarters are not left empty. Before the elder has left the restroom, a seat should be prepared. After attending to bodily needs, one should return and, if there is gruel, wash the vessel and offer the gruel. After the elder has drunk the gruel, water should be given, and the vessel should be received, lowered, and carefully washed without knocking it, then put away. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be removed. If the area is dirty with any rubbish, it should be swept. If there is no other rubbish, only water droplets, they should be wiped with the hand.

Sace upajjhāyo gāmaṃ pavisitukāmo hoti, nivāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, paṭinivāsanaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, kāyabandhanaṃ dātabbaṃ, saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā, dhovitvā patto saudako dātabbo. Sace upajjhāyo pacchāsamaṇaṃ ākaṅkhati, timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo pārupitvā gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā dhovitvā pattaṃ gahetvā upajjhāyassa pacchāsamaṇena hotabbaṃ, nātidūre gantabbaṃ, nāccāsanne gantabbaṃ. Ettha pana sace upajjhāyaṃ nivattitvā olokentaṃ ekena vā dvīhi vā padavītihārehi sampāpuṇāti, ettāvatā nātidūre nāccāsanne gato hotīti veditabbaṃ. Sace upajjhāyena bhikkhācāre yāguyā vā bhatte vā laddhe patto uṇho vā bhāriko vā hoti, attano pattaṃ tassa datvā so patto gahetabbo, na upajjhāyassa bhaṇamānassa antarantarā kathā opātetabbā. Ito paṭṭhāya pana yattha yattha na-kārena paṭisedho karīyati, sabbattha dukkaṭāpatti veditabbā. Upajjhāyo āpattisāmantā bhaṇamāno nivāretabbo. Nivārentena ca “bhante, īdisaṃ nāma vattuṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti na hotī”ti evaṃ pucchantena viya vāretabbo, “vāressāmī”ti pana katvā “mahallaka, mā evaṃ bhaṇā”ti na vattabbo.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the village, the lower robe (nivāsana) should be given, the worn robe (paṭinivāsana) taken back, the waistband (kāyabandhana) given, and the outer robes (saṅghāṭiyo) folded double (saguṇaṃ katvā) and given. The bowl (patta), washed with water (saudako), should be given. If the preceptor desires a companion (pacchāsamaṇa), one should cover the three circles (timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena), wear the robe neatly (parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā), tie the waistband, fold the outer robes double, put them on (pārupitvā), untie the knot (gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā), wash and take the bowl, and follow as the preceptor’s companion, not walking too far or too close. Here, if the preceptor turns back to look and one reaches him in one or two steps, it should be understood as neither too far nor too close. If, during almsround (bhikkhācāra), the preceptor receives gruel, rice, or anything that makes the bowl hot or heavy, one should give his own bowl and take the preceptor’s. One should not interrupt the preceptor’s speech with remarks. From here onward, wherever a prohibition is indicated with “na” (not), a dukkata offense should be understood everywhere. If the preceptor speaks near an offense (āpattisāmantā), he should be restrained. In restraining, one should say as if asking, “Venerable, is it proper to speak of such a thing? There is no offense,” rather than saying, “I will restrain him,” or, “Old man, don’t speak like that.”

If the preceptor wishes to enter the village, his lower robe should be given, his spare lower robe should be taken back, his waist-band should be given, his outer robes should be given folded, and his bowl, washed and with water, should be given. If the preceptor desires an attendant, he should dress properly, covering the three circles, tie his waist-band, arrange his outer robes folded, fasten the knot, take his washed bowl, and become the preceptor’s attendant; he should not go too far, nor should he go too near. Here, if he reaches the preceptor, who has turned around and is looking, within one or two steps, then it should be understood that he has gone neither too far nor too near. If, when the preceptor has received almsfood, gruel, or a meal, the bowl is hot or heavy, he should give his own bowl to him and take that bowl; he should not interrupt the preceptor’s speech with intervening conversation. From here onwards, wherever a prohibition is made with a negative, a dukkhaṭa offense should be understood in all cases. If the preceptor is speaking close to an offense, he should be stopped. And in stopping him, he should stop him as if asking, “Venerable sir, it is proper to speak like this, is it not, so that there is no offense?” But he should not say, “Old man, do not speak like that,” thinking, “I will stop him.”

If the preceptor wishes to enter the village, the lower robe should be given, and the outer robe should be received. The waistband should be given, and the upper robe should be folded in three and given. The bowl should be washed and given with water. If the preceptor desires an attendant, one should cover the three circles, wear the lower robe evenly, fasten the waistband, fold the upper robe in three, put it on, loosen the knot, wash the bowl, take it, and attend the preceptor as an attendant. One should not go too far or too close. Here, if the preceptor turns around and looks back, and one reaches him within one or two steps, it is understood that one has not gone too far or too close. If the preceptor obtains alms or gruel during alms-going, and the bowl is hot or heavy, one should give one’s own bowl and take that bowl. One should not interrupt the preceptor while he is speaking. From this point onward, wherever a prohibition is indicated by “not,” a wrong-doing should be understood. The preceptor should be stopped if he is about to commit an offense. When stopping him, one should ask, “Venerable sir, is it proper to speak thus? Is there no offense?” One should stop him as if asking a question, but one should not say, “I will stop you,” and then say, “Elder, do not speak thus.”

Sace āsanne gāmo hoti, vihāre vā gilāno bhikkhu hoti, gāmato paṭhamataraṃ āgantabbaṃ. Sace dūre gāmo hoti, upajjhāyena saddhiṃ āgacchantopi natthi, teneva saddhiṃ gāmato nikkhamitvā cīvarena pattaṃ veṭhetvā antarāmaggato paṭhamataraṃ āgantabbaṃ. Evaṃ paṭhamataraṃ āgatena āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ upanikkhipitabbaṃ, paccuggantvā pattacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, paṭinivāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, nivāsanaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Sace cīvaraṃ sedaggahitaṃ hoti, muhuttaṃ uṇhe otāpetabbaṃ, na ca uṇhe cīvaraṃ nidahitabbaṃ, cīvaraṃ saṅgharitabbaṃ. Cīvaraṃ saṅgharantena ca caturaṅgulaṃ kaṇṇaṃ ussāretvā cīvaraṃ saṅgharitabbaṃ. Kiṃkāraṇā? Mā majjhe bhaṅgo ahosīti. Samaṃ katvā saṅgharitassa hi majjhe bhaṅgo hoti, tato niccaṃ bhijjamānaṃ dubbalaṃ hoti, taṃ nivāraṇatthametaṃ vuttaṃ. Tasmā yathā ajja bhaṅgaṭṭhāneyeva sve na bhijjissati, tathā divase divase caturaṅgulaṃ ussāretvā saṅgharitabbaṃ, obhoge kāyabandhanaṃ kātabbaṃ.

If the village is near or there is a sick bhikkhu in the monastery, one should return before the preceptor. If the village is far and no one comes with the preceptor, one should leave the village with him, wrap the bowl in the robe (cīvarena pattaṃ veṭhetvā), and return earlier from the way (antarāmaggato). Having returned earlier, a seat should be prepared, water for washing feet (pādodaka), a footrest (pādapīṭha), and a foot mat (pādakathalika) set out, and the preceptor’s bowl and robe (pattacīvara) taken upon meeting him. The worn robe should be given, and the lower robe taken back. If the robe is damp with sweat (sedaggahita), it should be dried in the heat for a moment, but not stored in the heat. The robe should be folded (saṅgharitabba). When folding, a four-finger-width hem (caturaṅgulaṃ kaṇṇaṃ) should be left out to avoid a crease in the middle (majjhe bhaṅgo). If folded evenly, a crease forms in the middle, weakening it over time as it continually tears; this is said to prevent that. Thus, it should be folded daily with a four-finger-width hem so that tomorrow it does not tear at today’s crease spot, and the waistband should be adjusted at the fold (obhoge kāyabandhanaṃ kātabbaṃ).

If the village is nearby, or if there is a sick bhikkhu in the dwelling, he should return from the village before him. If the village is far away, and there is no one to come with the preceptor, he should leave the village with him, wrap the bowl with his robe, and return from the intervening path before him. Having returned before him in this way, a seat should be prepared, water for the feet, a footstool, and a foot-wiping cloth should be set out; he should go to meet him and take his bowl and robes, his spare lower robe should be given, and his lower robe should be taken back. If the robe is damp with sweat, it should be dried in the sun for a moment, but the robe should not be left in the sun; the robe should be folded. And in folding the robe, the corner should be raised four fingerbreadths and the robe should be folded. Why? So that there will be no crease in the middle. For when it is folded evenly, there is a crease in the middle, and from being constantly folded there, it becomes weak; this is said to prevent that. Therefore, just as today it will not be folded at the place of the crease, so every day it should be folded, raising it four fingerbreadths, and the waist-band should be placed in the fold.

If the village is nearby, or if there is a sick monk in the monastery, one should return from the village first. If the village is far, and one is not returning with the preceptor, one should leave the village with him, wrap the bowl in the robe, and return first along the way. Upon returning first, a seat should be prepared, foot-water, a footstool, and a foot-wiper should be set out. One should go to meet him and receive the bowl and robe. The outer robe should be given, and the lower robe should be received. If the robe is sweaty, it should be aired in the heat for a moment, but not left in the heat. The robe should be folded. When folding the robe, one should lift the edge four finger-widths and fold it. Why? So that it does not break in the middle. If folded evenly, it breaks in the middle, and thus becomes weak and constantly torn. This is said to prevent that. Therefore, each day, one should lift the edge four finger-widths and fold it, and make a loop in the waistband.

Sace piṇḍapāto hoti, upajjhāyo ca bhuñjitukāmo hoti, udakaṃ datvā piṇḍapāto upanāmetabbo, upajjhāyo pānīyena pucchitabbo. Pucchantena ca tikkhattuṃ “pānīyaṃ, bhante, āharīyatū”ti pānīyena pucchitabbo. Sace kālo atthi, upajjhāye bhutte sayaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace upakaṭṭho kālo, pānīyaṃ upajjhāyassa santike ṭhapetvā sayampi bhuñjitabbaṃ. Bhuttāvissa udakaṃ datvā pattaṃ paṭiggahetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ appaṭighaṃsantena dhovitvā vodakaṃ katvā muhuttaṃ uṇhe otāpetabbo, na ca uṇhe patto nidahitabbo, pattacīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Pattaṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena pattaṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena heṭṭhāmañcaṃ vā heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvā patto nikkhipitabbo, na ca taṭṭikacammakhaṇḍādīhi anantarahitāya bhūmiyā patto nikkhipitabbo. Sace pana kāḷavaṇṇakatā vā sudhābaddhā vā bhūmi hoti nirajamattikā, tathārūpāya bhūmiyā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, dhotavālikāyapi ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, paṃsurajasakkharādīsu na vaṭṭati. Tatra pana paṇṇaṃ vā ādhārakaṃ vā ṭhapetvā tatra nikkhipitabbo. Cīvaraṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena cīvaraṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena cīvaravaṃsaṃ vā cīvararajjuṃ vā pamajjitvā pārato antaṃ orato bhogaṃ katvā cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Idañca cīvaravaṃsādīnaṃ heṭṭhā hatthaṃ pavesetvā abhimukhena hatthena saṇikaṃ nikkhipanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Ante pana gahetvā bhogena cīvaravaṃsādīnaṃ upari khipantassa bhittiyaṃ bhogo paṭihaññati, tasmā tathā na kātabbaṃ. Upajjhāyamhi vuṭṭhite āsanaṃ uddharitabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ paṭisāmetabbaṃ. Sace so deso uklāpo hoti, so deso sammajjitabbo.

If there is almsfood (piṇḍapāta) and the preceptor wishes to eat, water should be given, and the almsfood offered. The preceptor should be asked about drinking water (pānīya). He should be asked three times, “Venerable, should drinking water be brought?” If there is time, after the preceptor eats, one should eat. If the time is near, drinking water should be placed near the preceptor, and one should eat too. After he finishes, water should be given, the bowl taken back, lowered carefully, washed well without scraping, dried briefly in the heat (vodakaṃ katvā), but not stored in the heat, and the bowl and robe stored. When storing the bowl, it should be held with one hand while feeling under the bed or seat with the other, and placed down; it should not be placed on bare ground (anantarahitāya bhūmiyā). If the ground is blackened (kāḷavaṇṇakatā) or plastered (sudhābaddhā) and free of dust (nirajamattikā), it may be placed there, or on washed sand (dhotavālikā), but not on dust, dirt, or gravel (paṃsurajasakkharādīsu). A leaf or stand (paṇṇaṃ vā ādhārakaṃ) should be placed there first. When storing the robe, it should be held with one hand while wiping the robe pole (cīvaravaṃsa) or rope (cīvararajju) with the other, folded from the edge to the end (pārato antaṃ), with a fold inside (orato bhogaṃ katvā), and placed. This is said to allow slow placement face-to-face with the hand under the robe pole, etc. If held at the end and thrown over with a fold, it strikes the wall, so it should not be done that way. When the preceptor rises, the seat should be removed, and the water for washing feet, footrest, and foot mat stored. If that place is dirty, it should be swept.

If there is almsfood, and the preceptor wishes to eat, water should be given and the almsfood should be offered; the preceptor should be asked about drinking water. And in asking, he should ask three times about drinking water, saying, “Venerable sir, should drinking water be brought?” If there is time, after the preceptor has eaten, he himself should eat. If the time is close, drinking water should be placed near the preceptor, and he himself should also eat. Having given water to him after he has eaten, the bowl should be taken back, held low, washed carefully without scraping, made free of water, and dried in the sun for a moment, but the bowl should not be left in the sun; the bowl and robes should be put away. In putting away the bowl, the bowl should be taken with one hand, and the lower bench or lower stool should be touched with the other hand, and the bowl should be put away; and the bowl should not be put away on ground that is not covered with a mat, a piece of leather, or the like. If, however, the ground is made of black clay or plastered with lime, and is free of dust, it is proper to place it on such ground; it is also proper to place it on washed sand; but it is not proper on dust, dirt, gravel, and the like. In that case, a leaf or a stand should be placed, and it should be put away on that. In putting away the robe, the robe should be taken with one hand, and the robe-rack or robe-string should be wiped with the other hand, and the robe should be put away, making the fold from the far end to the near end. And this is said for the purpose of inserting the hand below the robe-rack and the like, and gently putting it away with the hand facing forward. But if one takes it by the end and throws it with the fold onto the robe-rack and the like, the fold will be struck against the wall, therefore, it should not be done that way. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be removed, the water for the feet, the footstool, and the foot-wiping cloth should be put away. If that place is untidy, that place should be swept.

If there is alms food, and the preceptor wishes to eat, water should be given, and the alms food should be offered. The preceptor should be asked if he needs drinking water. When asking, one should ask three times, “Venerable sir, shall I bring drinking water?” If there is time, one should eat after the preceptor has eaten. If time is short, one should place the drinking water near the preceptor and eat oneself. After eating, water should be given, and the bowl should be received, lowered, and carefully washed without knocking it, then dried and aired in the heat for a moment, but not left in the heat. The bowl and robe should be put away. When putting away the bowl, one should take it with one hand and feel the lower bed or stool with the other hand, then place the bowl. The bowl should not be placed directly on the ground without a mat, hide, or other covering. If the ground is blackened, plastered, or free from dust, it is permissible to place the bowl there. It is also permissible to place it on washed sand, but not on dust, gravel, or pebbles. There, one should place a leaf or a support and put the bowl on it. When putting away the robe, one should take the robe with one hand and feel the robe rack or robe cord with the other hand, then fold the robe from the far end to the near end and place it. This is said to place it slowly with the hand facing forward. If one takes the end and throws it over the robe rack or cord, the fold will hit the wall, so one should not do that. When the preceptor has risen, the seat should be removed, and the foot-water, footstool, and foot-wiper should be put away. If the area is dirty, it should be swept.

Sace upajjhāyo nahāyitukāmo hoti, nahānaṃ paṭiyādetabbaṃ. Sace sītena attho hoti, sītaṃ paṭiyādetabbaṃ. Sace uṇhena attho hoti, uṇhaṃ paṭiyādetabbaṃ.

If the preceptor wishes to bathe (nahāyitukāmo), a bath should be prepared (paṭiyādetabba). If he needs cold water, cold should be prepared; if hot, hot should be prepared.

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

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

Sace upajjhāyo jantāgharaṃ pavisitukāmo hoti, cuṇṇaṃ sannetabbaṃ, mattikā temetabbā. Jantāgharapīṭhaṃ ādāya upajjhāyassa piṭṭhito piṭṭhito gantvā jantāgharapīṭhaṃ datvā cīvaraṃ paṭiggahetvā ekamante niddhūmaṭṭhāne ṭhapetabbaṃ, cuṇṇaṃ dātabbaṃ, mattikā dātabbā. Sace ussahati, jantāgharaṃ pavisitabbaṃ, pavisantena mattikāya mukhaṃ makkhetvā purato ca pacchato ca paṭicchādetvā jantāgharaṃ pavisitabbaṃ. Na there bhikkhū anupakhajja nisīditabbaṃ, na navā bhikkhū āsanena paṭibāhitabbā, jantāghare upajjhāyassa parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Jantāghare parikammaṃ nāma aṅgāramattikāuṇhodakadānādikaṃ sabbakiccaṃ. Jantāgharā nikkhamantena jantāgharapīṭhaṃ ādāya purato ca pacchato ca paṭicchādetvā jantāgharā nikkhamitabbaṃ.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the bathhouse (jantāghara), powder (cuṇṇa) should be kneaded (sannetabba), and clay (mattikā) moistened (temetabbā). Taking a bathhouse seat (jantāgharapīṭha), one should follow behind the preceptor, give the seat, take his robe (cīvara), and place it aside in a smokeless spot (niddhūmaṭṭhāne). Powder and clay should be given. If able, one should enter the bathhouse; entering, one should smear the face with clay (mattikāya mukhaṃ makkhetvā), cover front and back (purato ca pacchato ca paṭicchādetvā), and enter. One should not sit encroaching on elder bhikkhus (there bhikkhū anupakhajja), nor displace new bhikkhus (navā bhikkhū) from seats. In the bathhouse, service (parikamma) should be done for the preceptor—service meaning all tasks like giving embers (aṅgāra), clay, and hot water (uṇhodaka). When leaving the bathhouse, one should take the bathhouse seat, cover front and back, and exit.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the hot-room, bath powder should be kneaded, clay should be moistened. Taking the hot-room stool, he should go behind the preceptor, give the hot-room stool, take the robe, and place it in a smokeless place to one side; bath powder should be given, clay should be given. If he is able, he should enter the hot-room; in entering, he should smear his face with clay, cover himself in front and behind, and enter the hot-room. He should not sit pressing against the elder bhikkhus, nor should he obstruct the new bhikkhus with the seat; in the hot-room, he should attend to the preceptor. Attending in the hot-room means all duties such as giving embers, clay, warm water, and so on. In coming out of the hot-room, he should take the hot-room stool, cover himself in front and behind, and come out of the hot-room.

If the preceptor wishes to enter the sauna, powder should be prepared, and clay should be moistened. Taking the sauna stool, one should follow behind the preceptor, give him the sauna stool, receive his robe, and place it in a smoke-free area. Powder should be given, and clay should be given. If one is able, one should enter the sauna. When entering, one should smear clay on the face, cover the front and back, and enter the sauna. One should not sit encroaching on the elder monks, nor should one block the seats of the new monks. In the sauna, one should attend to the preceptor. Attending in the sauna means performing all tasks, such as giving hot water, clay, and so on. When leaving the sauna, one should take the sauna stool, cover the front and back, and leave the sauna.

Udakepi upajjhāyassa aṅgapaccaṅgaghaṃsanādikaṃ parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ, nahātena paṭhamataraṃ uttaritvā attano gattaṃ vodakaṃ katvā nivāsetvā upajjhāyassa gattato udakaṃ pamajjitabbaṃ, nivāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, saṅghāṭi dātabbā , jantāgharapīṭhaṃ ādāya paṭhamataraṃ āgantvā āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ upanikkhipitabbaṃ, upajjhāyo pānīyena pucchitabbo. Jantāghare hi uṇhasantāpena pipāsā hoti. Sace uddisāpetukāmo hoti, uddisitabbo. Sace paripucchitukāmo hoti, paripucchitabbo.

In water too (udakepi), service like rubbing limbs (aṅgapaccaṅgaghaṃsana) should be done for the preceptor. After bathing, one should emerge first, dry oneself (vodakaṃ katvā), dress (nivāsetvā), and wipe water from the preceptor’s body (gattato udakaṃ pamajjitabba). The lower robe and outer robe should be given, the bathhouse seat taken, and one should return first to prepare a seat, set out water for washing feet, a footrest, and a foot mat, and ask the preceptor about drinking water. In the bathhouse, thirst arises from heat (uṇhasantāpena pipāsā). If he wishes recitation (uddisāpetukāmo), it should be recited (uddisitabbo). If he wishes questioning (paripucchitukāmo), he should be questioned (paripucchitabbo).

In the water also, he should attend to the preceptor, rubbing his limbs and so on; having bathed, he should come out before him, make his own body free of water, put on his lower robe, wipe the water from the preceptor’s body, give him his lower robe, give him his outer robe, take the hot-room stool, come before him, prepare a seat, set out water for the feet, a footstool, and a foot-wiping cloth; the preceptor should be asked about drinking water. For in the hot-room, there is thirst due to the heat. If he wishes him to recite, he should recite. If he wishes him to question, he should question.

In the water, one should attend to the preceptor by scrubbing his limbs and so on. After bathing, one should rise first, dry oneself, put on the lower robe, and wipe the water from the preceptor’s body. The lower robe should be given, and the upper robe should be given. Taking the sauna stool, one should return first, prepare a seat, set out foot-water, a footstool, and a foot-wiper, and ask the preceptor if he needs drinking water. In the sauna, due to the heat, thirst arises. If he wishes to recite, one should recite. If he wishes to ask questions, one should answer.

Yasmiṃ vihāre upajjhāyo viharati, sace so vihāro uklāpo hoti, sace ussahati, kenaci gelaññena anabhibhūto hoti, sodhetabbo. Agilānena hi saddhivihārikena saṭṭhivassenapi sabbaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ kātabbaṃ, anādarena akarontassa vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ, na-kārapaṭisaṃyuttesu pana padesu gilānassapi paṭikkhittakiriyaṃ karontassa dukkaṭameva. Vihāraṃ sodhentena paṭhamaṃ pattacīvaraṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, nisīdanapaccattharaṇaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, bhisibimbohanaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, mañco nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbo, pīṭhaṃ nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, mañcapaṭipādakā nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbā, kheḷamallako nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbo, apassenaphalakaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Bhūmattharaṇaṃ yathāpaññattaṃ sallakkhetvā nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace vihāre santānakaṃ hoti, ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabbaṃ, ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgā pamajjitabbā. Sace gerukaparikammakatā bhitti kaṇṇakitā hoti, coḷakaṃ temetvā pīḷetvā pamajjitabbā. Sace kāḷavaṇṇakatā bhūmi kaṇṇakitā hoti, coḷakaṃ temetvā pīḷetvā pamajjitabbā. Sace akatā hoti bhūmi, udakena paripphositvā paripphositvā sammajjitabbā “mā vihāro rajena uhaññī”ti, saṅkāraṃ vicinitvā ekamantaṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ.

In the monastery where the preceptor resides, if it is dirty (uklāpa), and if one is able and not overcome by illness (kenaci gelaññena anabhibhūto), it should be cleaned (sodhetabbo). Even a sixty-year-old healthy co-resident (agilānena saddhivihārikena) must perform all preceptor duties (upajjhāyavatta); neglecting them out of disrespect (anādarena) incurs a dukkata for breaking duty (vattabhede). In places marked with “na” (not), even a sick person (gilānassapi) incurs a dukkata for doing prohibited acts. When cleaning the monastery, first the bowl and robe (pattacīvara) should be taken out and placed aside (ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabba), the sitting cloth and cover (nisīdanapaccattharaṇa) taken out and placed aside, the mat and pillow (bhisibimbohana) taken out and placed aside, the bed (mañca) lowered carefully, cleaned well without scraping (sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena), taken out without hitting the door or seat (asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ), and placed aside, the seat (pīṭha) lowered carefully, cleaned well without scraping, taken out without hitting the door or seat, and placed aside, the bed legs (mañcapaṭipādakā) taken out and placed aside, the spittoon (kheḷamallaka) taken out and placed aside, and the leaning board (apassenaphalaka) taken out and placed aside. The ground cloth (bhūmattharaṇa) should be noted as it was arranged (yathāpaññattaṃ sallakkhetvā), taken out, and placed aside. If there are cobwebs (santānaka) in the monastery, they should be removed from the skylight first (ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabba), and the light openings and corners (ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgā) wiped (pamajjitabbā). If the wall is ochre-finished (gerukaparikammakatā) and stained (kaṇṇakitā), a cloth (coḳaka) should be moistened (temetvā), squeezed (pīḷetvā), and wiped. If the floor is blackened (kāḷavaṇṇakatā) and stained, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and wiped. If the floor is unfinished (akatā), it should be sprinkled with water repeatedly (udakena paripphositvā) and swept (sammajjitabbā) so dust does not spoil the monastery (mā vihāro rajena uhaññī), and rubbish (saṅkāra) should be collected and discarded aside (ekamantaṃ chaḍḍetabba).

If the dwelling where the preceptor resides is untidy, if he is able, if he is not overcome by any illness, it should be cleaned. For the resident pupil, even if he is sixty years old, should perform all the duties of the preceptor; for one who does not do so out of disrespect, there is a dukkhaṭa for the breach of duty; but in the places specified with a negative, even for a sick person who performs the prohibited action, there is only a dukkhaṭa. In cleaning the dwelling, first the bowl and robes should be taken out and put away to one side; the sitting mat should be taken out and put away to one side; the pillow and bolster should be taken out and put away to one side; the bed should be held low, carefully without scraping, without bumping, the door-frame should be taken out and put away to one side; the stool should be held low, carefully without scraping, without bumping, the door-frame should be taken out and put away to one side; the bed-legs should be taken out and put away to one side; the spittoon should be taken out and put away to one side; the leaning board should be taken out and put away to one side. The floor covering should be carefully examined as it was laid, taken out, and put away to one side. If there are cobwebs in the dwelling, the ceiling should be swept first, the areas around the window joints should be wiped. If the wall is plastered with red ochre and is stained, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and used to wipe it. If the ground is made of black clay and is stained, a cloth should be moistened, squeezed, and used to wipe it. If the ground is not treated, it should be sprinkled with water again and again and swept, “so that the dwelling is not covered with dust”; the rubbish should be collected and discarded to one side.

In the monastery where the preceptor resides, if the monastery is dirty, and if one is able and not overcome by illness, it should be cleaned. A student who is not ill should perform all the duties of a preceptor even for sixty years. If one neglects these duties, it is a wrong-doing. In places where prohibitions apply, even if one is ill, refusing to perform the duties is also a wrong-doing. When cleaning the monastery, one should first take out the bowl and robe and set them aside. The sitting mat should be taken out and set aside. The mattress and pillow should be taken out and set aside. The bed should be lowered carefully without knocking it and taken out of the door frame and set aside. The stool should be lowered carefully without knocking it and taken out of the door frame and set aside. The bed legs should be taken out and set aside. The spittoon should be taken out and set aside. The backrest should be taken out and set aside. The floor covering should be examined as prepared and taken out and set aside. If the monastery has a ceiling, the hanging decorations should be removed first, and the corners and edges of the windows should be wiped. If the walls are plastered with red chalk and have corners, a cloth should be moistened and pressed to wipe them. If the floor is blackened and has corners, a cloth should be moistened and pressed to wipe them. If the floor is unfinished, it should be sprinkled with water and swept repeatedly, so that the monastery is not covered with dust. Debris should be searched for and discarded.

Bhūmattharaṇaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā abhiharitvā yathā paṭhamaṃ paññattaṃ ahosi, tatheva paññapetabbaṃ. Etadatthameva hi “yathāpaññattaṃ sallakkhetvā nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Sace pana paṭhamaṃ ajānantena kenaci paññattaṃ ahosi, samantato bhittiṃ dvaṅgulamattena vā tivaṅgulamattena vā mocetvā paññapetabbaṃ. Idañhettha paññāpanavattaṃ – sace kaṭasārako hoti atimahanto ca, chinditvā koṭiṃ nivattetvā bandhitvā paññapetabbo. Sace koṭiṃ nivattetvā bandhituṃ na jānāti, na chinditabbo. Mañcapaṭipādakā otāpetvā pamajjitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbā, mañco otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbo, pīṭhaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, bhisibimbohanaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, nisīdanapaccattharaṇaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, kheḷamallako otāpetvā pamajjitvā atiharitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbo, apassenaphalakaṃ otāpetvā pamajjitvā atiharitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbaṃ. Pattacīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, pattaṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena pattaṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena heṭṭhāmañcaṃ vā heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvā patto nikkhipitabbo, na ca anantarahitāya bhūmiyā patto nikkhipitabbo. Cīvaraṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena cīvaraṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena cīvaravaṃsaṃ vā cīvararajjuṃ vā pamajjitvā pārato antaṃ, orato bhogaṃ katvā cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ.

The ground cloth (bhūmattharaṇa) should be dried (otāpetvā), cleaned (sodhetvā), shaken (papphoṭetvā), brought back (abhiharitvā), and arranged as it was originally (yathā paṭhamaṃ paññattaṃ ahosi, tatheva paññapetabbaṃ). This is why it was said, “Noting how it was arranged, take it out and place it aside.” If it was arranged by someone unaware initially, it should be arranged leaving a two- or three-finger-width space from the wall all around (samantato bhittiṃ dvaṅgulamattena vā tivaṅgulamattena vā mocetvā). Here is the arrangement duty: If it is a mat (kaṭasāraka) and too large, it should be cut, the edge turned back, tied, and arranged. If one does not know how to turn back and tie the edge, it should not be cut. The bed legs (mañcapaṭipādakā) should be dried, wiped (pamajjitvā), and placed in their original spot (yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbā). The bed (mañca) should be dried, cleaned, shaken, lowered carefully, cleaned well without scraping, brought back without hitting the door or seat (asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ), and arranged as originally (yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbo). The seat (pīṭha) should be dried, cleaned, shaken, lowered carefully, cleaned well without scraping, brought back without hitting the door or seat, and arranged as originally. The mat and pillow (bhisibimbohana) should be dried, cleaned, shaken, brought back, and arranged as originally. The sitting cloth and cover (nisīdanapaccattharaṇa) should be dried, cleaned, shaken, brought back, and arranged as originally. The spittoon (kheḷamallaka) should be dried, wiped, brought back, and placed in its original spot. The leaning board (apassenaphalaka) should be dried, wiped, brought back, and placed in its original spot. The bowl and robe (pattacīvara) should be stored (nikkhipitabba). When storing the bowl, it should be held with one hand while feeling under the bed or seat with the other, and placed down; it should not be placed on bare ground (anantarahitāya bhūmiyā). When storing the robe, it should be held with one hand while wiping the robe pole (cīvaravaṃsa) or rope (cīvararajju) with the other, folded from the edge to the end (pārato antaṃ), with a fold inside (orato bhogaṃ katvā), and placed.

The floor covering should be taken out, cleaned, shaken, brought back, and spread out as it was originally arranged. It is for this purpose that it was said, “Having observed how it was originally arranged, it should be taken out, and put aside in a certain place.” If, however, it was initially arranged by someone without knowing, it should be arranged leaving a space of two or three fingerbreadths from the surrounding wall. This is the proper procedure for arranging it here – if it is made of hard material and is very large, it should be cut, the edges folded over, tied, and then arranged. If one does not know how to fold over and tie the edges, it should not be cut. The footrests of the bed should be taken out, wiped, and placed back in their original positions. The bed should be taken out, cleaned, shaken, lowered, and carefully carried past the doorframe without bumping or scraping, and then arranged as it was originally. The seat should be taken out, cleaned, shaken, lowered, and carefully carried past the doorframe without bumping or scraping, and then arranged as it was originally. The mattress and bolster should be taken out, cleaned, shaken, carried back, and arranged as they were originally. The sitting mat and floor covering should be taken out, cleaned, shaken, carried back, and arranged as they were originally. The spitoon should be taken out, wiped, carried back, and placed in its original position. The leaning board should be taken out, wiped, carried back, and placed in its original position. The bowl and robes should be put away. When putting away the bowl, one should hold the bowl with one hand and feel the lower bed or lower seat with the other hand, and then put the bowl down; the bowl should not be placed on the bare ground. When putting away the robes, one should hold the robes with one hand and wipe the robe-rack or robe-string with the other hand, placing the end (of the robe) to the far side and the folded part to the near side, and then put the robes away.

The ground covering should be heated, cleaned, beaten, and brought back, and it should be arranged as it was originally prescribed. This is the meaning of the statement, “Having carefully observed how it was originally arranged, it should be taken out and set aside.” If, however, it was originally arranged by someone who did not know, then the wall should be loosened by two or three finger-widths all around and then arranged. Here is the rule for arranging: if the mat is too large, it should be cut, the edge folded back, tied, and then arranged. If one does not know how to fold and tie the edge, it should not be cut. The bed legs should be heated, wiped, and placed back in their original position. The bed should be heated, cleaned, beaten, lowered carefully without causing damage or friction, and the door panel should be brought over and arranged as originally prescribed. The stool should be heated, cleaned, beaten, lowered carefully without causing damage or friction, and the door panel should be brought over and arranged as originally prescribed. The mattress and pillow should be heated, cleaned, beaten, brought over, and arranged as originally prescribed. The sitting cloth should be heated, cleaned, beaten, brought over, and arranged as originally prescribed. The spittoon should be heated, wiped, brought over, and placed in its proper position. The backrest board should be heated, wiped, brought over, and placed in its proper position. The alms bowl and robe should be put away. When putting away the bowl, one should hold the bowl with one hand and feel the lower bed or stool with the other hand before placing the bowl down. The bowl should not be placed directly on the ground without something underneath. When putting away the robe, one should hold the robe with one hand and wipe the robe rack or robe string with the other hand, then fold the robe with the edge on one side and the fold on the other, and put it away.

Sace puratthimā sarajā vātā vāyanti, puratthimā vātapānā thaketabbā. Sace pacchimā, uttarā, dakkhiṇā sarajā vātā vāyanti, dakkhiṇā vātapānā thaketabbā. Sace sītakālo hoti, divā vātapānā vivaritabbā, rattiṃ thaketabbā. Sace uṇhakālo hoti, divā thaketabbā, rattiṃ vivaritabbā.

If dusty winds blow from the east (puratthimā sarajā vātā), the eastern windows (puratthimā vātapānā) should be closed (thaketabbā). If from the west, north, or south (pacchimā, uttarā, dakkhiṇā), the southern windows should be closed. If it is cold season (sītakālo), windows should be opened during the day (divā vivaritabbā) and closed at night (rattiṃ thaketabbā). If it is hot season (uṇhakālo), they should be closed during the day and opened at night.

If dusty winds blow from the east, the eastern windows should be closed. If dusty winds blow 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 dusty winds blow from the east, the eastern windows should be closed. If they blow 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, the windows should be closed during the day and opened at night.

Sace uklāpaṃ hoti, pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, koṭṭhako sammajjitabbo, upaṭṭhānasālā sammajjitabbā, aggisālā sammajjitabbā, vaccakuṭi sammajjitabbā, pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhapetabbaṃ, ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ.

If it is dirty (uklāpa), the surrounding area (pariveṇa) should be swept (sammajjitabba), the storeroom (koṭṭhaka) swept, the attendance hall (upaṭṭhānasālā) swept, the fire hall (aggisālā) swept, and the latrine (vaccakuṭi) swept. Drinking water (pānīya) and water for use (paribhojanīya) should be set out (upaṭṭhapetabba), and water should be poured into the washing pot (ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabba).

If there is rubbish, the courtyard should be swept, the storeroom should be swept, the attendance hall should be swept, the fire hall should be swept, the toilet should be swept, drinking water and rinsing water should be prepared, and water should be poured into the rinsing water pot.

If there is a mess, the dwelling should be swept, the storeroom should be swept, the meeting hall should be swept, the fire hall should be swept, the restroom should be swept, drinking water and washing water should be prepared, and water should be poured into the rinsing pot.

Sace upajjhāyassa anabhirati uppannā hoti, saddhivihārikena aññattha netabbo, añño vā bhikkhu vattabbo “theraṃ gahetvā aññattha gacchā”ti, dhammakathā vāssa kātabbā. Sace upajjhāyassa kukkuccaṃ uppannaṃ hoti, saddhivihārikena vinodetabbaṃ, aññena vā vinodāpetabbaṃ dhammakathā vāssa kātabbā. Sace upajjhāyassa diṭṭhigataṃ uppannaṃ hoti, saddhivihārikena vissajjetabbaṃ, añño vā vattabbo “theraṃ diṭṭhigataṃ vissajjāpehī”ti, dhammakathā vāssa kātabbā. Sace upajjhāyo garudhammaṃ ajjhāpanno hoti parivāsāraho, saddhivihārikena ussukkaṃ kātabbaṃ, parivāsadānatthaṃ so so bhikkhu upasaṅkamitvā yācitabbo. Sace attanā paṭibalo hoti, attanāva dātabbo. No ce paṭibalo hoti, aññena dāpetabbo. Sace upajjhāyo mūlāyapaṭikassanāraho hoti mānattāraho abbhānāraho vā, vuttanayeneva ussukkaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace saṅgho upajjhāyassa kammaṃ kattukāmo hoti tajjanīyaṃ vā niyassaṃ vā pabbājanīyaṃ vā paṭisāraṇīyaṃ vā ukkhepanīyaṃ vā, saddhivihārikena ussukkaṃ kātabbaṃ “kena nu kho upāyena saṅgho upajjhāyassa kammaṃ na kareyya, lahukāya vā pariṇāmeyyā”ti. Saddhivihārikena hi “upajjhāyassa ukkhepanīyakammaṃ kattukāmo saṅgho”ti ñatvā ekamekaṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā “mā, bhante, amhākaṃ upajjhāyassa kammaṃ karitthā”ti yācitabbā. Sace karontiyeva, “tajjanīyaṃ vā niyassaṃ vā lahukakammaṃ karothā”ti yācitabbā. Sace karontiyeva, atha upajjhāyo “sammā vattatha, bhante”ti yācitabbo. Iti taṃ sammā vattāpetvā “paṭippassambhetha, bhante, kamma”nti bhikkhū yācitabbā.

If the preceptor experiences displeasure (anabhirati), the co-resident (saddhivihārika) should lead him elsewhere (aññattha netabbo), or another bhikkhu should be told, “Take the elder elsewhere.” A Dhamma talk (dhammakathā) should be given to him. If the preceptor has remorse (kukkucca), the co-resident should dispel it (vinodetabba), or have another dispel it, or give him a Dhamma talk. If the preceptor has a wrong view (diṭṭhigata), the co-resident should resolve it (vissajjetabba), or tell another, “Resolve the elder’s wrong view,” or give him a Dhamma talk. If the preceptor has committed a grave offense (garudhamma) warranting probation (parivāsāraha), the co-resident should make an effort (ussukkaṃ kātabba) by approaching each bhikkhu and requesting probation. If capable, he should grant it himself; if not, he should have another grant it. If the preceptor deserves return to the root (mūlāyapaṭikassanāraha), disciplinary action (mānattāraha), or rehabilitation (abbhānāraha), the same effort should be made as stated. If the Sangha intends to impose a formal act (kamma) on the preceptor—reprimand (tajjanīya), demotion (niyassa), banishment (pabbājanīya), reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīya), or suspension (ukkhepanīya)—the co-resident should make an effort, thinking, “By what means might the Sangha not impose this act on the preceptor, or resolve it lightly?” Knowing the Sangha intends to suspend the preceptor (ukkhepanīyakamma), the co-resident should approach each bhikkhu, saying, “Venerables, do not impose an act on our preceptor,” and request them. If they proceed, he should request, “Perform a light act like reprimand or demotion.” If they still proceed, the preceptor should be asked, “Venerable, behave properly,” and, having made him behave properly, the bhikkhus should be requested, “Venerables, revoke the act.”

If the preceptor becomes discontented, the saddhivihārika should take him elsewhere, or another monk should be told, “Take the elder elsewhere,” or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor has scruples, the saddhivihārika should dispel them, or have another dispel them, or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor has developed wrong views, the saddhivihārika should resolve them, or another should be told, “Resolve the elder’s wrong views,” or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor has committed a serious offense (garudhamma) requiring parivāsa, the saddhivihārika should make an effort; he should approach and request the respective monks for the granting of parivāsa. If he is capable himself, he should grant it himself. If he is not capable, he should have another grant it. If the preceptor is liable for a return to the beginning (mūlāyapaṭikassanāraha), liable for mānatta, or liable for rehabilitation (abbhānāraha), an effort should be made in the same manner as described before. If the Sangha intends to perform an act (kamma) against the preceptor, such as a censure (tajjanīya), a formal act of suspension (niyassa), an act of banishment (pabbājanīya), an act of reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīya), or an act of lifting (ukkhepanīya), the saddhivihārika should make an effort, thinking, “By what means can the Sangha not perform the act against the preceptor, or change it to a lighter one?” Indeed, the saddhivihārika, knowing that “the Sangha intends to perform an act of lifting against the preceptor,” should approach each monk individually and request, “Venerable sirs, please do not perform the act against our preceptor.” If they still proceed, he should request, “Perform a censure (tajjanīya) or a formal act of suspension (niyassa) or a lighter act.” If they still proceed, then the preceptor should be requested, “Venerable sir, please behave properly.” Having made him behave properly in this way, the monks should be requested, “Venerable sirs, please rescind the act.”

If the preceptor becomes discontent, the student should take him elsewhere, or another monk should be told, “Take the elder and go elsewhere,” or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor becomes anxious, the student should dispel his anxiety, or another should be asked to dispel it, or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor develops a wrong view, the student should refute it, or another should be told, “Refute the elder’s wrong view,” or a Dhamma talk should be given to him. If the preceptor commits a heavy offense requiring probation, the student should make an effort, approaching various monks to request probation for him. If the student is capable, he should give it himself. If not, he should have another give it. If the preceptor deserves to be sent back to the beginning, deserves penance, or deserves rehabilitation, the same effort should be made as described above. If the Sangha wishes to perform a formal act against the preceptor—whether a censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or suspension—the student should make an effort, thinking, “How can the Sangha not act against the preceptor, or make the act lighter?” For if the student knows that the Sangha wishes to perform a suspension act against the preceptor, he should approach each monk and request, “Venerable, do not act against our preceptor.” If they still proceed, he should request, “Perform a light censure or demotion.” If they still proceed, he should then request the preceptor, “Venerable, act properly.” Having made him act properly, he should request the monks, “Venerable, settle the act.”

Sace upajjhāyassa cīvaraṃ dhovitabbaṃ hoti, saddhivihārikena dhovitabbaṃ, ussukkaṃ vā kātabbaṃ “kinti nu kho upajjhāyassa cīvaraṃ dhoviyethā”ti. Sace upajjhāyassa cīvaraṃ kātabbaṃ hoti, rajanaṃ vā pacitabbaṃ, cīvaraṃ vā rajetabbaṃ hoti, saddhivihārikena sabbaṃ kātabbaṃ, ussakkaṃ vā kātabbaṃ “kinti nu kho upajjhāyassa cīvaraṃ rajiyethā”ti. Cīvaraṃ rajantena sādhukaṃ saṃparivattetvā rajetabbaṃ, na ca acchinne theve pakkamitabbaṃ.

If the preceptor’s robe needs washing (cīvaraṃ dhovitabba), the co-resident should wash it (dhovitabba), or make an effort, thinking, “How might the preceptor’s robe be washed?” If the preceptor’s robe needs making (cīvaraṃ kātabba), dye prepared (rajanaṃ pacitabba), or dyeing done (cīvaraṃ rajetabba), the co-resident should do it all (sabbaṃ kātabba), or make an effort, thinking, “How might the preceptor’s robe be dyed?” When dyeing the robe (cīvaraṃ rajantena), it should be turned carefully and dyed (sādhukaṃ saṃparivattetvā rajetabba), and one should not leave until the dye is fixed (na ca acchinne theve pakkamitabba).

If the preceptor’s robe needs to be washed, the saddhivihārika should wash it, or make an effort, thinking, “How should the preceptor’s robe be washed?” If the preceptor’s robe needs to be made, or dye needs to be boiled, or the robe needs to be dyed, the saddhivihārika should do everything, or make an effort, thinking, “How should the preceptor’s robe be dyed?” When dyeing the robe, it should be thoroughly turned over and dyed, and one should not leave while the dye is still dripping.

If the preceptor’s robe needs washing, the student should wash it or make an effort, thinking, “How can the preceptor’s robe be washed?” If the preceptor’s robe needs dyeing, dye should be prepared, or the robe should be dyed. The student should do all this or make an effort, thinking, “How can the preceptor’s robe be dyed?” When dyeing the robe, it should be turned thoroughly and dyed evenly, and one should not leave before the dye has set.

Na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā ekaccassa patto dātabbo, na ekaccassa patto paṭiggahetabbo, na ekaccassa cīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ, na ekaccassa cīvaraṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, na ekaccassa parikkhāro dātabbo, na ekaccassa parikkhāro paṭiggahetabbo, na ekaccassa kesā chedetabbā, na ekaccena kesā chedāpetabbā , na ekaccassa parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ, na ekaccena parikammaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ, na ekaccassa veyyāvacco kātabbo, na ekaccena veyyāvacco kārāpetabbo, na ekaccassa pacchāsamaṇena hotabbaṃ, na ekacco pacchāsamaṇo ādātabbo, na ekaccassa piṇḍapāto nīharitabbo, na ekaccena piṇḍapāto nīharāpetabbo, na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā gāmo pavisitabbo, piṇḍāya vā aññena vā karaṇīyena pavisitukāmena āpucchitvāva pavisitabbo. Sace upajjhāyo kālasseva vuṭṭhāya dūraṃ bhikkhācāraṃ gantukāmo hoti, “daharā piṇḍāya pavisantū”ti vatvā gantabbaṃ. Avatvā gate pariveṇaṃ gantvā upajjhāyaṃ apassantena gāmaṃ pavisituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace gāmaṃ pavisantopi passati, diṭṭhaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya āpucchituṃyeva vaṭṭati. Na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā vāsatthāya vā asubhadassanatthāya vā susānaṃ gantabbaṃ, na disā pakkamitabbā, pakkamitukāmena pana kammaṃ ācikkhitvā yāvatatiyaṃ yācitabbo. Sace anujānāti, sādhu, no ce anujānāti, taṃ nissāya vasato cassa uddeso vā paripucchā vā kammaṭṭhānaṃ vā na sampajjati, upajjhāyo bālo hoti abyatto, kevalaṃ attano santike vasāpetukāmatāya eva gantuṃ na deti, evarūpe nivārentepi gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace upajjhāyo gilāno hoti, yāvajīvaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbo, vuṭṭhānamassa āgametabbaṃ, na katthaci gantabbaṃ. Sace añño bhikkhu upaṭṭhāko atthi, bhesajjaṃ pariyesitvā tassa hatthe datvā “bhante, ayaṃ upaṭṭhahissatī”ti vatvā gantabbaṃ. Idaṃ tāva upajjhāyavattaṃ.

Without asking the preceptor (upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā), one should not give a bowl to someone (ekaccassa patto na dātabbo), take someone’s bowl (na paṭiggahetabbo), give a robe (na cīvaraṃ dātabba), take someone’s robe (na paṭiggahetabba), give requisites (na parikkhāro dātabbo), take someone’s requisites (na paṭiggahetabbo), cut someone’s hair (na kesā chedetabbā), have hair cut by someone (na ekaccena chedāpetabbā), perform service for someone (na parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ), have service performed by someone (na kārāpetabba), do tasks for someone (na veyyāvacco kātabbo), have tasks done by someone (na kārāpetabbo), be a companion for someone (na pacchāsamaṇena hotabba), take someone as a companion (na ekacco pacchāsamaṇo ādātabbo), bring almsfood for someone (na piṇḍapāto nīharitabbo), or have almsfood brought by someone (na nīharāpetabbo). One should not enter the village without asking the preceptor (na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā gāmo pavisitabbo), whether for alms (piṇḍāya) or another purpose (aññena vā karaṇīyena); it should be entered only after asking (āpucchitvāva pavisitabbo). If the preceptor rises early to go far for almsround (dūraṃ bhikkhācāraṃ gantukāmo), he should say, “Let the juniors enter for alms,” and go. If he goes without saying so, one may go to the surrounding area (pariveṇa), and if not seeing the preceptor, enter the village. If seen while entering, one should ask from the spot where he is seen (diṭṭhaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya). Without asking the preceptor, one should not go to the cemetery for dwelling (vāsatthāya) or to see impurities (asubhadassanatthāya), nor depart to another region (na disā pakkamitabbā). If intending to depart (pakkamitukāmena), one should explain the purpose (kammaṃ ācikkhitvā) and request up to three times (yāvatatiyaṃ yācitabbo). If he permits, good; if not, and living dependent on him (taṃ nissāya vasato), recitation (uddeso), questioning (paripucchā), or meditation (kammaṭṭhāna) does not succeed, and the preceptor, being foolish (bālo) and unskilled (abyatto), prevents departure merely to keep one near (attano santike vasāpetukāmatāya), it is permissible to go despite such restraint (evarūpe nivārentepi). If the preceptor is sick (gilāno), he should be attended to for life (yāvajīvaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbo), his recovery awaited (vuṭṭhānamassa āgametabba), and one should not go anywhere (na katthaci gantabba). If another bhikkhu is an attendant (upaṭṭhāko), medicine (bhesajja) should be sought, given to him (tassa hatthe datvā), and one should say, “Venerable, he will attend,” and then go. This is the duty toward a preceptor (upajjhāyavatta).

Without asking the preceptor, one should not give a bowl to anyone, nor accept a bowl from anyone, nor give a robe to anyone, nor accept a robe from anyone, nor give requisites to anyone, nor accept requisites from anyone, nor cut anyone’s hair, nor have one’s hair cut by anyone, nor perform personal services for anyone, nor have personal services performed by anyone, nor perform duties for anyone, nor have duties performed by anyone, nor be anyone’s junior attendant, nor take anyone as a junior attendant, nor take out almsfood for anyone, nor have almsfood taken out by anyone. Without asking the preceptor, one should not enter a village, whether for alms or for any other reason; if one wishes to enter, one should ask permission before entering. If the preceptor gets up early and wishes to go far for alms, he should say, “Let the young ones go for alms,” and then depart. If he has departed without saying so, one may go to the monastery and, not seeing the preceptor, enter the village. If one sees him even while entering the village, it is proper to ask permission from the place where he is seen. Without asking the preceptor, one should not go to a charnel ground to stay or to see foul things, nor should one depart in any direction. If one wishes to depart, one should explain the reason and ask up to three times. If he permits, it is good. If he does not permit, and if, because of staying with him, one’s study, questioning, or meditation subject (kammaṭṭhāna) is not accomplished, and the preceptor is foolish and incompetent, merely wanting to keep one near him and not allowing one to go, even if he refuses in such a case, it is permissible to go. If the preceptor is ill, he should be attended to for life; one should wait for his recovery and not go anywhere. If there is another monk who is an attendant, one should find medicine, give it into his hand, and say, “Venerable sir, this one will attend,” and then depart. This is the preceptor’s duty (upajjhāyavatta).

Without asking the preceptor, one should not give a bowl to anyone, receive a bowl from anyone, give a robe to anyone, receive a robe from anyone, give requisites to anyone, receive requisites from anyone, cut anyone’s hair, have one’s hair cut by anyone, perform a service for anyone, have a service performed by anyone, do a duty for anyone, have a duty done by anyone, be an attendant to anyone, take an attendant from anyone, take almsfood out for anyone, have almsfood taken out by anyone, enter the village without asking the preceptor. If one wishes to enter the village for alms or other business, one must ask permission first. If the preceptor rises early and wishes to go far for alms, he should say, “Let the juniors go for alms,” and then go. If he leaves without saying this, one may go to the dwelling and, not seeing the preceptor, enter the village. If one sees the preceptor while entering the village, one must ask permission from the point of seeing him. One should not go to the charnel ground without asking the preceptor, whether for lodging or for contemplating the impure. One should not leave for another region without asking. If one wishes to leave, one should inform the preceptor of one’s business and ask up to three times. If he allows it, good. If not, one may still go, as the preceptor is foolish and unskilled, wishing only to keep one near him. Even if he tries to prevent it, one may go. If the preceptor is sick, one should attend to him for life, await his recovery, and not go anywhere. If another monk is attending to him, one should prepare medicine, give it to that monk, and say, “Venerable, this one will attend to him,” and then go. This is the duty toward the preceptor.

184. Idameva ca antevāsikena ācariyassa kattabbattā ācariyavattanti vuccati. Nāmamattameva hettha nānaṃ. Tattha yāva cīvararajanaṃ, tāva vatte akariyamāne upajjhāyassa ācariyassa ca parihāni hoti, tasmā taṃ akarontassa nissayamuttakassapi amuttakassapi āpattiyeva, ekaccassa pattadānato paṭṭhāya amuttanissayasseva āpatti. Upajjhāye ācariye vā vattaṃ sādiyante saddhivihārikā antevāsikā ca bahukāpi hontu, sabbesaṃ āpatti. Sace upajjhāyo ācariyo vā “mayhaṃ upaṭṭhāko atthi, tumhe attano sajjhāyamanasikārādīsu yogaṃ karothā”ti vadati, saddhivihārikādīnaṃ anāpatti. Upajjhāyo vā ācariyo vā sace sādiyanaṃ vā asādiyanaṃ vā na jānāti, bālo hoti, saddhivihārikādayo bahū, tesu eko vattasampanno bhikkhu “upajjhāyassa vā ācariyassa vā kiccaṃ ahaṃ karissāmi, tumhe appossukkā viharathā”ti evañce attano bhāraṃ katvā itare vissajjeti, tassa bhārakaraṇato paṭṭhāya tesaṃ anāpatti. Ettha antevāsikesu pana nissayantevāsikena yāva ācariyaṃ nissāya vasati, tāva sabbaṃ ācariyavattaṃ kātabbaṃ. Pabbajjaupasampadadhammantevāsikehi pana nissayamuttakehipi ādito paṭṭhāya yāva cīvararajanaṃ, tāva vattaṃ kātabbaṃ. Anāpucchitvā pattadānādimhi pana etesaṃ anāpatti.

184. This same duty, to be performed by a pupil (antevāsika) for a teacher (ācariya), is called the duty toward a teacher (ācariyavatta). The difference here is only in name. Up to the dyeing of robes (cīvararajana), if the duty is not performed, it is a loss to both preceptor and teacher; thus, for one not doing it, whether released from dependence (nissayamuttaka) or not (amuttaka), there is an offense. From giving a bowl to someone (ekaccassa pattadāna) onward, only one not released from dependence incurs an offense. If the preceptor or teacher accepts the duty (vattaṃ sādiyante), and there are many co-residents (saddhivihārikā) or pupils (antevāsikā), all incur an offense. If the preceptor or teacher says, “I have an attendant; you focus on your study and attention,” there is no offense for the co-residents or pupils. If the preceptor or teacher, whether accepting or not, is foolish (bālo) and unaware, and there are many co-residents or pupils, and one skilled in duty (vattasampanno bhikkhu) says, “I will perform the preceptor’s or teacher’s tasks; you dwell at ease,” taking the burden himself and releasing the others (itare vissajjeti), there is no offense for them from the moment he takes the burden. Here, among pupils, one under dependence (nissayantevāsika) must perform all teacher duties (ācariyavatta) as long as he lives dependent on the teacher (ācariyaṃ nissāya vasati). However, for those given novice ordination (pabbajja), higher ordination (upasampāda), or Dhamma instruction (dhammantevāsika), even if released from dependence, the duty up to robe dyeing (cīvararajana) must be performed from the start. For giving a bowl (pattadāna) onward without asking (anāpucchitvā), there is no offense for these.

184. And this same, because it should be done by the pupil (antevāsika) for the teacher, is called the teacher’s duty (ācariyavatta). Only the name is different here. In this regard, as long as the robe dyeing, if the duty is not being performed, there is a loss for both the preceptor and the teacher. Therefore, for one who does not perform it, whether he is free from dependence (nissayamuttaka) or not free from dependence, there is indeed an offense. From the giving of the bowl to someone onwards, there is an offense only for one who is not free from dependence. If the preceptor or teacher neglects the duty, even if there are many saddhivihārikas and pupils (antevāsikas), all of them incur an offense. If the preceptor or teacher says, “I have an attendant; you engage in your own study, mindfulness, and so on,” there is no offense for the saddhivihārikas and others. If the preceptor or teacher does not know whether he is neglecting or not neglecting, and is foolish, and there are many saddhivihārikas and others, and among them one monk who is accomplished in the duties says, “I will perform the duties of the preceptor or teacher; you live without concern,” and if he thus takes on the responsibility himself and releases the others, from the time he takes on the responsibility, there is no offense for them. Here, among the pupils, the nissayantevāsika (pupil in dependence), as long as he lives in dependence on the teacher, should perform all the teacher’s duties. The pabbajjantevāsika (pupil for going forth) and upasampadantevāsika (pupil for higher ordination), even those who are free from dependence, should perform the duties from the beginning up to the robe dyeing. However, there is no offense for them in giving the bowl and so on without asking permission.

184. This same duty, when performed by a pupil toward the teacher, is called the duty toward the teacher. Only the name differs here. In this regard, as long as the duty of dyeing the robe is not performed, both the preceptor and the teacher suffer loss. Therefore, for one who does not perform it, whether released from dependence or not, there is an offense. For one not released from dependence, the offense begins from giving a bowl. Even if the preceptor or teacher has many students or pupils, all incur an offense. If the preceptor or teacher says, “I have an attendant; you focus on your study and reflection,” the students and pupils are not at fault. If the preceptor or teacher, whether consenting or not, is ignorant and foolish, and there are many students or pupils, one virtuous monk among them may say, “I will perform the duty for the preceptor or teacher; you remain heedful,” and having taken the burden upon himself, dismiss the others. From the moment he takes the burden, the others are not at fault. Here, for pupils under dependence, all duties toward the teacher must be performed as long as they live in dependence on the teacher. For those under training for ordination or higher ordination, even if released from dependence, the duty must be performed from the beginning up to dyeing the robe. For them, there is no offense in giving a bowl, etc., without asking.

Etesu pabbajjantevāsiko ca upasampadantevāsiko ca ācariyassa yāvajīvaṃ bhārā. Nissayantevāsiko ca dhammantevāsiko ca yāva samīpe vasanti, tāva ācariyupajjhāyehipi antevāsikasaddhivihārikā saṅgahetabbā anuggahetabbā uddesena paripucchāya ovādena anusāsaniyā. Sace antevāsikasaddhivihārikānaṃ patto vā cīvaraṃ vā añño vā koci parikkhāro natthi, attano atirekapattacīvaraṃ atirekaparikkhāro vā atthi, dātabbaṃ. No ce, dhammiyena nayena pariyesanatthāya ussukkaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sace antevāsikasaddhivihārikā gilānā honti, upajjhāyavatte vuttanayena dantakaṭṭhadānaṃ ādiṃ katvā ācamanakumbhiyā udakasiñcanapariyosānaṃ sabbaṃ vattaṃ kātabbameva, akarontānaṃ āpatti. Tasmā ācariyupajjhāyehipi antevāsikasaddhivihārikesu sammā vattitabbaṃ. Ācariyupajjhāyādīsu hi yo yo na sammā vattati, tassa tassa āpatti. Upajjhāyādivattakathā.

Among these, a pupil given novice ordination (pabbajjantevāsika) and one given higher ordination (upasampadantevāsika) are a burden to the teacher for life (yāvajīvaṃ bhārā). A pupil under dependence (nissayantevāsika) and one instructed in Dhamma (dhammantevāsiko) are so as long as they dwell near (yāva samīpe vasanti). Preceptors and teachers (ācariyupajjhāyehi) must support (saṅgahetabbā) and guide (anuggahetabbā) pupils and co-residents with recitation (uddesena), questioning (paripucchāya), advice (ovādena), and instruction (anusāsaniyā). If pupils or co-residents lack a bowl, robe, or other requisites (parikkhāro), and the preceptor or teacher has an extra bowl, robe, or requisites, they should be given (dātabbaṃ). If not, effort should be made lawfully (dhammiyena nayena) to procure them (pariyesanatthāya ussukkaṃ kātabbaṃ). If pupils or co-residents are sick (gilānā), all duties from giving tooth-wood (dantakaṭṭhadāna) to pouring water in the washing pot (ācamanakumbhiyā udakasiñcana) as stated in the preceptor duty (upajjhāyavatta) must be performed; not doing so incurs an offense. Thus, preceptors and teachers must behave properly (sammā vattitabbaṃ) toward pupils and co-residents. Among preceptors and teachers, whoever does not behave properly incurs an offense accordingly (tassa tassa āpatti). This is the discussion on duties toward preceptors and others (upajjhāyādivattakathā).

Of these, the pabbajjantevāsika and the upasampadantevāsika are the responsibility of the teacher for life. The nissayantevāsika and the dhammantevāsika (pupil in the Dhamma), as long as they live nearby, should also be supported and helped by the teachers and preceptors, with instruction, questioning, advice, and guidance. If the pupils and saddhivihārikas do not have a bowl, a robe, or any other requisite, and one has an extra bowl, robe, or other requisite, it should be given. If not, an effort should be made to find them by lawful means. If the pupils and saddhivihārikas are ill, in the same manner as described in the preceptor’s duties, starting with giving a tooth-stick and ending with pouring water into the rinsing water pot, all the duties should indeed be performed; those who do not perform them incur an offense. Therefore, teachers and preceptors should also behave properly towards pupils and saddhivihārikas. Indeed, whoever does not behave properly towards teachers, preceptors, and others, incurs an offense. The discourse on the duties of preceptors and others.

Among these, the pupil under training for ordination and the pupil under training for higher ordination are a lifelong burden to the teacher. The pupil under dependence and the pupil learning the Dhamma, as long as they live nearby, must be supported, guided, instructed, advised, and admonished by the teacher and preceptor through teaching, questioning, advice, and instruction. If the pupils or students lack a bowl, robe, or any other requisite, and the teacher has an extra bowl, robe, or requisite, it should be given. If not, effort should be made to seek it through proper means. If the pupils or students are sick, the duty should be performed as described in the duty toward the preceptor, starting with giving toothwood and ending with pouring water into the rinsing pot. Not doing so incurs an offense. Therefore, teachers and preceptors must act properly toward their pupils and students. For whoever does not act properly toward the preceptor or teacher incurs an offense. This is the discussion on the duty toward the preceptor.

185. Idāni āgantukavattādīni veditabbāni. Āgantukena bhikkhunā upacārasīmāsamīpaṃ gantvā upāhanā omuñcitvā nīcaṃ katvā papphoṭetvā upāhanadaṇḍakena gahetvā chattaṃ upanāmetvā sīsaṃ vivaritvā sīse cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena ārāmo pavisitabbo, ārāmaṃ pavisantena sallakkhetabbaṃ “kattha āvāsikā bhikkhū sannipatantī”ti. Yattha āvāsikā bhikkhū sannipatanti upaṭṭhānasālāya vā maṇḍape vā rukkhamūle vā, tattha gantvā ekamantaṃ patto nikkhipitabbo, ekamantaṃ cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, patirūpaṃ āsanaṃ gahetvā nisīditabbaṃ, pānīyaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, paribhojanīyaṃ pucchitabbaṃ “katamaṃ pānīyaṃ, katamaṃ paribhojanīya”nti. Sace pānīyena attho hoti, pānīyaṃ gahetvā pātabbaṃ. Sace paribhojanīyena attho hoti, paribhojanīyaṃ gahetvā pādā dhovitabbā. Pāde dhovantena ekena hatthena udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ, ekena hatthena pādā dhovitabbā, na teneva hatthena udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ, na teneva hatthena pādā dhovitabbā, upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ puñchitvā upāhanā puñchitabbā, upāhanā puñchantena paṭhamaṃ sukkhena coḷakena puñchitabbā, pacchā allena, upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ dhovitvā ekamantaṃ pattharitabbaṃ.

185. Now, duties toward visitors and others (āgantukavattādīni) should be understood. A visiting bhikkhu (āgantukena bhikkhunā), upon nearing the monastery boundary (upacārasīma), should remove his sandals (upāhanā omuñcitvā), lower them carefully (nīcaṃ katvā), shake them (papphoṭetvā), take them with the sandal stick (upāhanadaṇḍakena gahetvā), bring an umbrella (chattaṃ upanāmetvā), uncover his head (sīsaṃ vivaritvā), place the robe on his shoulder (sīse cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā), and enter the monastery calmly (sādhukaṃ ataramānena ārāmo pavisitabbo). Entering, he should note (sallakkhetabbaṃ), “Where do the resident bhikkhus (āvāsikā bhikkhū) gather?” At the attendance hall (upaṭṭhānasālā), pavilion (maṇḍape), or tree base (rukkhamūle) where they gather, he should go, place his bowl aside (ekamantaṃ patto nikkhipitabbo), place his robe aside (ekamantaṃ cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ), take a suitable seat (patirūpaṃ āsanaṃ gahetvā), sit (nisīditabbaṃ), and ask about drinking water (pānīyaṃ pucchitabbaṃ) and water for use (paribhojanīyaṃ pucchitabbaṃ), “Which is drinking water, which is water for use?” If needing drinking water, he should take and drink it (pātabbaṃ). If needing water for use, he should take it and wash his feet (pādā dhovitabbā). When washing feet, water should be poured with one hand (ekenava hatthena udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ) and the feet washed with the other (ekenava hatthena pādā dhovitabbā), not pouring and washing with the same hand (na teneva hatthena). The sandal-wiping cloth (upāhanapuñchanacoḷaka) should be wiped (puñchitvā), the sandals wiped (upāhanā puñchitabbā), first with a dry cloth (sukkhena coḷakena), then a wet one (allena), and the cloth washed (dhovitvā) and spread aside (ekamantaṃ pattharitabbaṃ).

185. Now, the duties of a visitor (āgantukavatta) and others should be understood. A visiting monk, having gone near the boundary of the dwelling place, should take off his sandals, lower them, shake them, hold them with the sandal stick, fold up his umbrella, uncover his head, place the robe that was on his head onto his shoulder, and carefully enter the monastery without rushing. Entering the monastery, he should observe, “Where do the resident monks gather?” Where the resident monks gather, whether in the attendance hall, in a pavilion, or under a tree, he should go there, put down his bowl in a certain place, put down his robe in a certain place, take a suitable seat, and sit down. He should ask about drinking water, he should ask about rinsing water, “Which is drinking water, which is rinsing water?” If he needs drinking water, he should take the drinking water and drink. If he needs rinsing water, he should take the rinsing water 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 with the same hand with which he washes his feet. Having wiped the foot-cloth, he should wipe his sandals. When wiping his sandals, he should first wipe them with a dry cloth, and then with a wet one. Having washed the foot-cloth, he should spread it out in a certain place.

185. Now, the duties of a visiting monk should be understood. A visiting monk, having approached the vicinity of the monastery boundary, should remove his sandals, lower them, beat them, take them with the sandal stick, hold the umbrella close, uncover his head, place the robe over his shoulder, and enter the monastery carefully without haste. Upon entering the monastery, he should observe, “Where do the resident monks gather?” Wherever the resident monks gather—whether in the meeting hall, under a pavilion, or at the foot of a tree—he should go there, put down his bowl in a suitable place, put down his robe in a suitable place, take a proper seat, and sit down. He should ask for drinking water and washing water, “Which is drinking water, and which is washing water?” If he needs drinking water, he should take it and drink. If he needs washing water, he should take it and wash his feet. While 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. He should wipe the sandal-cleaning cloth, wipe the sandals, and while wiping the sandals, first wipe them with a dry cloth, then with a wet one. The sandal-cleaning cloth should be washed and spread aside.

Sace āvāsiko bhikkhu vuḍḍho hoti, abhivādetabbo. Sace navako hoti, abhivādāpetabbo. Senāsanaṃ pucchitabbaṃ “katamaṃ me senāsanaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti, ajjhāvuṭṭhaṃ vā anajjhāvuṭṭhaṃ vā pucchitabbaṃ, “gocaragāmo āsanne, udāhu dūre, kālasseva piṇḍāya caritabbaṃ, udāhu divā”ti evaṃ bhikkhācāro pucchitabbo, agocaro pucchitabbo, gocaro pucchitabbo. Agocaro nāma micchādiṭṭhikānaṃ gāmo paricchinnabhikkho vā gāmo, yattha ekassa vā dvinnaṃ vā bhikkhā dīyati, sekkhasammahāni kulāni pucchitabbāni, vaccaṭṭhānaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, passāvaṭṭhānaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, “kiṃ imissā pokkharaṇiyā pānīyaṃyeva pivanti, nahānādiparibhogampi karontī”ti evaṃ pānīyañceva paribhojanīyañca pucchitabbaṃ, kattaradaṇḍo pucchitabbo, saṅghassa katikasaṇṭhānaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, kesuci ṭhānesu vāḷamigā vā amanussā vā honti, tasmā “kaṃ kālaṃ pavisitabbaṃ, kaṃ kālaṃ nikkhamitabba”nti pucchitabbaṃ. Sace vihāro anajjhāvuṭṭho hoti, kavāṭaṃ ākoṭetvā muhuttaṃ āgametvā ghaṭikaṃ ugghāṭetvā kavāṭaṃ paṇāmetvā bahi ṭhitena nilloketabbo.

If a resident bhikkhu (āvāsiko bhikkhu) is senior (vuḍḍho), he should be saluted (abhivādetabbo). If junior (navako), he should be made to salute (abhivādāpetabbo). The lodging (senāsana) should be asked about (pucchitabbaṃ), “Which lodging is available to me?” Whether occupied (ajjhāvuṭṭha) or unoccupied (anajjhāvuṭṭha), it should be inquired (pucchitabbaṃ), “Is the alms village (gocaragāmo) near or far? Should alms be sought early or during the day?” Thus, the almsround (bhikkhācāra) should be asked about. Unsuitable areas (agocaro) and suitable areas (gocaro) should be inquired. An unsuitable area is a village of wrong-view holders (micchādiṭṭhikānaṃ gāmo) or a restricted alms village (paricchinnabhikkho vā gāmo), where alms are given to one or two only. Families agreed upon by trainees (sekkhasammahāni kulāni) should be asked about, as well as the latrine spot (vaccaṭṭhāna), urination spot (passāvaṭṭhāna), and, “Do they drink only from this pond (pokkharaṇī), or use it for bathing too?”—thus asking about drinking water and water for use (pānīyañceva paribhojanīyañca). The staff (kattaradaṇḍa) and the Sangha’s agreed practices (katikasaṇṭhāna) should be asked about, as well as, “Are there wild beasts (vāḷamigā) or non-humans (amanussā) in some places?”—thus, “When should one enter, when depart?” If the monastery is unoccupied (anajjhāvuṭṭho), the door (kavāṭa) should be knocked (ākoṭetvā), waited a moment (muhuttaṃ āgametvā), the latch (ghaṭika) lifted (ugghāṭetvā), the door opened (paṇāmetvā), and one should stand outside and look in (bahi ṭhitena nilloketabbo).

If the resident monk is senior, he should be வணங்கப்படுபவர். If he is junior, he should be caused to வணங்கப்படுபவர். He should ask about the lodging, “Which lodging is assigned to me?” He should ask whether it is occupied or unoccupied. He should ask about the alms-round village, “Is the alms-round village near or far? Should one go for alms early or during the day?” Thus, he should ask about the alms-round. He should ask about what is not suitable territory (agocara). He should ask about what is suitable territory (gocara). What is not suitable territory is the village of those with wrong views, or a village with limited alms, where alms are given to only one or two monks. He should ask about families that are designated as trainees (sekkhasammata). He should ask about the place for defecation. He should ask about the place for urination. He should ask about the drinking water and the rinsing water, “Do they only drink the water from this pond, or do they also use it for bathing and other purposes?” He should ask about the staff (kattaradaṇḍa). He should ask about the Sangha’s rules, “At what time should one enter, at what time should one leave?” In some places, there are wild animals or non-human beings, therefore, he should ask. If the monastery is unoccupied, having knocked on the door, he should wait a moment, open the latch, push open the door, and, standing outside, look inside.

If the resident monk is senior, he should be greeted. If he is junior, he should be asked to greet. He should ask for lodging, “Which lodging is available to me?” He should ask whether it has been occupied or not, “Is the alms village near or far? Should alms be sought early or during the day?” He should ask about the out-of-bounds area, the in-bounds area, the families of faith, the restroom, the urinal, “Do they drink only from this pond, or do they also use it for bathing and other purposes?” He should ask about the walking stick, the Sangha’s customs, and if there are dangerous animals or spirits in certain places, he should ask, “At what time should one enter, and at what time should one leave?” If the dwelling is unoccupied, he should knock on the door, wait a moment, open the latch, push the door, and look inside while standing outside.

Sace so vihāro uklāpo hoti, mañce vā mañco āropito hoti, pīṭhe vā pīṭhaṃ āropitaṃ hoti, senāsanaṃ upari puñjīkataṃ hoti, sace sakkoti, sabbo vihāro sodhetabbo, asakkontena attano vasanokāso jaggitabbo. Sabbaṃ sodhetuṃ sakkontena pana upajjhāyavatte vuttanayena bhūmattharaṇamañcapīṭhādīni bahi nīharitvā vihāraṃ sodhetvā puna atiharitvā yathāṭhāne paññapetabbāni.

If that monastery is dirty (uklāpa), with beds piled on beds (mañce vā mañco āropito), seats on seats (pīṭhe vā pīṭhaṃ āropitaṃ), or lodgings heaped up (senāsanaṃ upari puñjīkataṃ), if able, the whole monastery should be cleaned (sodhetabbo); if unable, one’s own dwelling space should be maintained (jaggitabbo). If able to clean everything, as stated in the preceptor duty (upajjhāyavatta), the ground cloth, beds, seats, etc., should be taken outside (bahi nīharitvā), the monastery cleaned (vihāraṃ sodhetvā), brought back (puna atiharitvā), and arranged in their original places (yathāṭhāne paññapetabbāni).

If the monastery is cluttered, or if a bed is piled on top of a bed, or if a seat is piled on top of a seat, or if the lodging is piled up, if he is able, the entire monastery should be cleaned. If he is unable, he should look after his own dwelling place. But if he is able to clean everything, in the same manner as described in the preceptor’s duties, he should take out the floor covering, bed, seat, and so on, clean the monastery, and then bring them back in and arrange them in their original places.

If the dwelling is messy, with beds or stools piled up, or the lodging cluttered, if possible, the entire dwelling should be cleaned. If not, at least his own living space should be tidied. If he can clean the entire dwelling, he should follow the method described in the duty toward the preceptor: take out the ground coverings, beds, and stools, clean the dwelling, and then bring them back and arrange them in their proper places.

Sace uklāpaṃ hoti, pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, koṭṭhako sammajjitabbo, upaṭṭhānasālā sammajjitabbā , aggisālā sammajjitabbā, vaccakuṭi sammajjitabbā, pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ, ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ. Idaṃ āgantukavattaṃ.

If it is dirty (uklāpa), the surrounding area (pariveṇa) should be swept (sammajjitabba), the storeroom (koṭṭhaka) swept, the attendance hall (upaṭṭhānasālā) swept, the fire hall (aggisālā) swept, and the latrine (vaccakuṭi) swept. Drinking water (pānīya) and water for use (paribhojanīya) should be set out (upaṭṭhāpetabba), and water poured into the washing pot (ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabba). This is the visitor’s duty (āgantukavatta).

186. Āvāsikavatte āvāsikena bhikkhunā āgantukaṃ bhikkhuṃ vuḍḍhataraṃ disvā āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ upanikkhipitabbaṃ, paccuggantvā pattacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, pānīyena pucchitabbo, pucchantena pana sakiṃ ānītaṃ pānīyaṃ sabbaṃ pivati, “puna ānemī”ti pucchitabboyeva. Bījanenapi bījitabbo, bījantena sakiṃ pādapiṭṭhiyaṃ bījitvā sakiṃ majjhe, sakiṃ sīse bījitabbo, “alaṃ hotū”ti vuttena mandataraṃ bījitabbaṃ, puna “ala”nti vuttena tato mandataraṃ bījitabbaṃ, tatiyavāraṃ vuttena bījanī ṭhapetabbā, pādāpissa dhovitabbā. Sace attano telaṃ atthi, telena makkhetabbā. No ce atthi, tassa santakena makkhetabbā. Sace ussahati, upāhanā puñchitabbā. Upāhanā puñchantena paṭhamaṃ sukkhena coḷena puñchitabbā, pacchā allena, upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ dhovitvā ekamantaṃ vissajjetabbaṃ.

186. In the resident’s duty (āvāsikavatta), a resident bhikkhu (āvāsikena bhikkhunā), seeing a visitor (āgantuka) who is more senior (vuḍḍhatara), should prepare a seat (āsanaṃ paññapetabba), set out water for washing feet (pādodaka), a footrest (pādapīṭha), and a foot mat (pādakathalika), meet him (paccuggantvā), and take his bowl and robe (pattacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetabba). He should ask about drinking water (pānīyena pucchitabbo); if the visitor drinks all the water brought once (sakiṃ ānītaṃ pānīyaṃ sabbaṃ pivati), he should ask, “Shall I bring more?” (puna ānemī). He should fan him (bījanenapi bījitabbo), fanning once at the feet (pādapiṭṭhiyaṃ), once in the middle (majjhe), and once at the head (sīse); if told, “Enough” (alaṃ hotū), he should fan more gently (mandataraṃ bījitabba); if told again, “Enough,” even more gently; if told a third time, the fan (bījanī) should be set aside (ṭhapetabbā). His feet should be washed (pādāpissa dhovitabbā). If the resident has oil (tela), they should be anointed with it (telena makkhetabbā); if not, with the visitor’s own (tassa santakena). If able, the sandals (upāhanā) should be wiped (puñchitabbā), first with a dry cloth (sukkhena coḷena), then a wet one (allena), and the wiping cloth washed (dhovitvā) and set aside (ekamantaṃ vissajjetabba).

186. In the duty of a resident (āvāsikavatta), a resident monk, seeing a visiting monk who is more senior, should arrange a seat, place foot-water, a footstool, and a foot-wiper, go to meet him, accept his bowl and robe, and ask about drinking water. When asking, however, if he drinks all the water that was brought at once, he should definitely ask, “Shall I bring more?” He should also fan him. When fanning, he should fan once on the back of the feet, once in the middle, and once on the head. When told, “It is enough,” he should fan more gently. When told again, “Enough,” he should fan even more gently. When told a third time, he should put down the fan. He should also wash his feet. If he has oil himself, he should anoint them with oil. If he does not have any, he should anoint them with what the visitor has. If he is able, he should wipe his sandals. When wiping the sandals, he should first wipe them with a dry cloth, and then with a wet one. Having washed the foot-cloth, he should discard it in a certain place.

186. In the duty of a resident monk, a resident monk, upon seeing a visiting monk who is senior, should prepare a seat, provide foot water, a foot stool, and a foot scraper, go out to meet him, receive his bowl and robe, ask about drinking water, and when asking, if drinking water has already been brought, he should drink it all and ask again, “Shall I bring more?” He should sprinkle water with a sprinkler, sprinkling once at the feet, once in the middle, and once at the head. When told, “Enough,” he should sprinkle more lightly. When told again, “Enough,” he should sprinkle even more lightly. When told a third time, he should stop sprinkling. He should wash the visitor’s feet. If he has his own oil, he should massage the feet with it. If not, he should use the visitor’s oil. If possible, he should wipe the sandals. While wiping the sandals, he should first wipe them with a dry cloth, then with a wet one. The sandal-cleaning cloth should be washed and set aside.

Āgantuko bhikkhu abhivādetabbo, senāsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ “etaṃ senāsanaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti. Ajjhāvuṭṭhaṃ vā anajjhāvuṭṭhaṃ vā ācikkhitabbaṃ, gocaro ācikkhitabbo, agocaro ācikkhitabbo, sekkhasammatāni kulāni ācikkhitabbāni, vaccaṭṭhānaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, passāvaṭṭhānaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, pānīyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, paribhojanīyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, kattaradaṇḍo ācikkhitabbo, saṅghassa katikasaṇṭhānaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ “imaṃ kālaṃ pavisitabbaṃ, imaṃ kālaṃ nikkhamitabba”nti.

The visiting bhikkhu should be saluted (abhivādetabbo), and a lodging prepared (senāsanaṃ paññapetabba), saying, “This lodging is available to you.” Whether occupied (ajjhāvuṭṭha) or unoccupied (anajjhāvuṭṭha), it should be explained (ācikkhitabba), suitable areas (gocaro) and unsuitable areas (agocaro) explained, families agreed upon by trainees (sekkhasammahāni kulāni) explained, the latrine spot (vaccaṭṭhāna) explained, the urination spot (passāvaṭṭhāna) explained, drinking water (pānīya) explained, water for use (paribhojanīya) explained, the staff (kattaradaṇḍa) explained, and the Sangha’s agreed practices (katikasaṇṭhāna) explained, “Enter at this time, depart at this time.”

The visiting monk should be வணங்கப்படுபவர். A lodging should be arranged, saying, “This lodging is assigned to you.” He should be told whether it is occupied or unoccupied. He should be told about the suitable territory (gocara). He should be told about what is not suitable territory (agocara). He should be told about families that are designated as trainees (sekkhasammata). He should be told about the place for defecation. He should be told about the place for urination. He should be told about the drinking water. He should be told about the rinsing water. He should be told about the staff (kattaradaṇḍa). He should be told about the Sangha’s rules, “At this time one should enter, at this time one should leave.”

The visiting monk should be greeted, and lodging should be prepared, saying, “This lodging is available to you.” He should inform whether it has been occupied or not, explain the in-bounds area, the out-of-bounds area, the families of faith, the restroom, the urinal, the drinking water, the washing water, the walking stick, the Sangha’s customs, and say, “Enter at this time, and leave at this time.”

Sace āgantuko navako hoti, nisinnakeneva ācikkhitabbaṃ “atra pattaṃ nikkhipāhi, atra cīvaraṃ nikkhipāhi, idaṃ āsanaṃ, nisīdāhī”ti. Pānīyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, paribhojanīyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, āgantuko bhikkhu abhivādāpetabbo, senāsanādīnipi nisinneneva ācikkhitabbāni. Vuḍḍhatare pana āgate āsanaṃ paññapetabbanti evamādi sabbaṃ cīvarakammaṃ vā navakammaṃ vā ṭhapetvāpi kātabbaṃ. Cetiyaṅgaṇaṃ sammajjantena sammuñjaniṃ nikkhipitvā tassa vattaṃ kātuṃ ārabhitabbaṃ. Paṇḍito hi āgantuko “sammajjāhi tāva cetiyaṅgaṇa”nti vakkhati. Gilānassa bhesajjaṃ karontena pana sace nātiāturo gilāno hoti, bhesajjaṃ akatvā vattameva kātabbaṃ, mahāgilānassa pana bhesajjameva kātabbaṃ. Paṇḍito hi āgantuko “karohi tāva bhesajja”nti vakkhati. Idaṃ āvāsikavattaṃ.

If the visitor is junior (navako), seated, he should be told (nisinnakeneva ācikkhitabba), “Place your bowl here (atra pattaṃ nikkhipāhi), place your robe here (atra cīvaraṃ nikkhipāhi), this is your seat (idaṃ āsanaṃ), sit (nisīdāhī).” Drinking water, water for use, and the sandal-wiping cloth should be explained. The visiting bhikkhu should be made to salute (abhivādāpetabbo), and lodgings, etc., explained while seated. For a senior visitor (vuḍḍhatara), preparing a seat and all else should be done, except robe work (cīvarakamma) or novice tasks (navakamma). When sweeping the shrine courtyard (cetiyaṅgaṇa), setting aside the broom (sammuñjani), one should begin the duty. A wise visitor will say, “Sweep the shrine courtyard first.” When preparing medicine (bhesajja) for a sick person, if the illness is not severe (nātiāturo gilāno), the duty should be done without preparing medicine; for a gravely ill person (mahāgilāna), only medicine should be prepared. A wise visitor will say, “Prepare medicine first.” This is the resident’s duty (āvāsikavatta).

If the visitor is junior, he should be told while seated, “Put your bowl here, put your robe here, this is the seat, sit down.” He should be told about the drinking water. He should be told about the rinsing water. He should be told about the foot-cloth. The visiting monk should be caused to வணங்கப்படுபவர். The lodging and other things should also be told while seated. But when a senior one has arrived, arranging a seat and so on, all this, whether it is robe-work or new work, should be set aside and performed. When sweeping the cetiya courtyard, one should put down the broom and begin to perform his duty. Indeed, a wise visitor will say, “Sweep the cetiya courtyard first.” When preparing medicine for a sick person, however, if the sick person is not very ill, the medicine should not be prepared and the duty should be performed. But for a very ill person, the medicine should indeed be prepared. Indeed, a wise visitor will say, “Prepare the medicine first.” This is the duty of a resident (āvāsikavatta).

If the visiting monk is junior, he should be instructed while seated, “Put your bowl here, put your robe here, this is your seat, sit here.” He should be shown the drinking water, the washing water, the sandal-cleaning cloth, and the visiting monk should be asked to greet. The lodging and other things should also be explained while seated. If a senior visitor arrives, a seat should be prepared, and so on, all the duties regarding robes and other things should be performed. When sweeping the courtyard of the shrine, one should put aside the broom and begin performing the duty. A wise visitor will say, “First sweep the shrine courtyard.” When preparing medicine for a sick monk, if the sickness is not severe, the duty should be performed without preparing medicine. For a seriously ill monk, however, medicine should be prepared. A wise visitor will say, “First prepare the medicine.” This is the duty of a resident monk.

187. Gamikavatte gamikena bhikkhunā mañcapīṭhādidārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍampi rajanabhājanādi sabbaṃ aggisālāyaṃ vā aññasmiṃ vā guttaṭṭhāne paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā senāsanaṃ āpucchitvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Sace bhikkhu na hoti, sāmaṇero āpucchitabbo. Sace sāmaṇero na hoti, ārāmiko āpucchitabbo. Sace na hoti bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā ārāmiko vā, catūsu pāsāṇesu mañcaṃ paññapetvā mañce mañcaṃ āropetvā pīṭhe pīṭhaṃ āropetvā senāsanaṃ upari puñjaṃ karitvā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Sace vihāro ovassati, sace ussahati, sabbo chādetabbo, ussukkaṃ vā kātabbaṃ “kinti nu kho vihāro chādiyethā”ti, evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, yo deso anovassako hoti, tattha catūsu pāsāṇesu mañcaṃ paññapetvā mañce mañcaṃ āropetvā pīṭhe pīṭhaṃ āropetvā senāsanaṃ upari puñjaṃ karitvā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Sace vihāro ovassati, sace ussahati, senāsanaṃ gāmaṃ atiharitabbaṃ, ussukkaṃ vā kātabbaṃ “kinti nu kho senāsanaṃ gāmaṃ atihariyethā”ti, evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, ajjhokāse catūsu pāsāṇesu mañcaṃ paññapetvā mañce mañcaṃ āropetvā pīṭhe pīṭhaṃ āropetvā senāsanaṃ upari puñjaṃ karitvā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā pakkamitabbaṃ “appeva nāma aṅgānipi seseyyu”nti. Idaṃ gamikavattaṃ.

187. Gamikavatte A monk who is departing should store wooden items such as beds and stools, as well as clay vessels including dyeing pots and the like, in the fire hall or another secure place, lock the doors and windows, inform someone about the lodging, and then depart. If there is no monk, a novice should be informed. If there is no novice, a monastery attendant should be informed. If there is neither a monk, novice, nor monastery attendant, beds should be placed on four stones, beds stacked upon beds, stools stacked upon stools, the lodging items heaped up above, wooden and clay items stored, doors and windows locked, and then departure should occur. If the monastery leaks, if able, everything should be covered, or effort should be made thinking, “How might the monastery be covered?” If this is achieved, it is skillful. If not achieved, in a place that does not leak, beds should be placed on four stones, beds stacked upon beds, stools stacked upon stools, the lodging items heaped up above, wooden and clay items stored, doors and windows locked, and then departure should occur. If the monastery leaks, if able, the lodging items should be moved to the village, or effort should be made thinking, “How might the lodging items be moved to the village?” If this is achieved, it is skillful. If not achieved, in an open space, beds should be placed on four stones, beds stacked upon beds, stools stacked upon stools, the lodging items heaped up above, wooden and clay items stored, covered with grass or leaves, and departure should occur with the thought, “Perhaps some parts might remain intact.” This is the duty of one departing.

187. In the duties for a departing monk (gamikavatta), a departing monk should store away all the wooden furniture such as beds and chairs, as well as clay items and things like dye pots, in the fire-hall or another secure place. He should close the doors and windows, take leave of the lodging, and depart. If there is no monk [to take leave from], he should take leave of a novice. If there is no novice, he should take leave of the monastery attendant. If there is no monk, novice, or monastery attendant, he should arrange the bed on four stones, place one bed upon another, place one chair upon another, pile up the bedding, store away the wooden and clay items, close the doors and windows, and depart. If the dwelling leaks, if he is able, he should cover it all, or make an effort, [thinking,] “How might the dwelling be covered?” If he obtains this [covering], it is good. If he does not obtain it, in a place that is not rained upon, he should arrange the bed on four stones, place one bed upon another, place one chair upon another, pile up the bedding, store away the wooden and clay items, close the doors and windows, and depart. If the dwelling leaks, if he is able, the bedding should be taken to the village, or an effort should be made, [thinking,] “How might the bedding be taken to the village?” If he obtains this [help], it is good. If he does not obtain it, in an open space, he should arrange the bed on four stones, place one bed upon another, place one chair upon another, pile up the bedding, store away the wooden and clay items, cover it with grass or leaves, and depart, [thinking,] “Perhaps at least the limbs will remain dry.” This is the duty for a departing monk.

187. Regarding the duties of a traveling monk: A monk who is about to travel should first put away all wooden items such as beds and stools, as well as earthenware items like dye pots and other utensils, in a safe place such as the fire hall or another secure location. He should then close the doors and windows, take leave of his lodging, and depart. If there is no other monk present, he should inform a novice. If there is no novice, he should inform a monastery attendant. If there is neither a monk, a novice, nor an attendant, he should place the bed on four stones, stack the beds and stools neatly, pile the bedding on top, arrange the wooden and earthenware items, close the doors and windows, and then depart. If the monastery is likely to be exposed to rain, and if he is able, he should cover the entire monastery or make an effort to ensure it is covered, thinking, “How can the monastery be protected from the rain?” If this is possible, it is good. If not, he should find a spot that is not exposed to rain, place the bed on four stones, stack the beds and stools neatly, pile the bedding on top, arrange the wooden and earthenware items, close the doors and windows, and then depart. If the monastery is likely to be exposed to rain, and if he is able, he should carry the bedding to the village or make an effort to do so, thinking, “How can the bedding be taken to the village?” If this is possible, it is good. If not, he should place the bed on four stones in an open area, stack the beds and stools neatly, pile the bedding on top, arrange the wooden and earthenware items, cover them with grass or leaves, and then depart, thinking, “Perhaps the items will remain intact.” These are the duties of a traveling monk.

188. Bhattaggavatte sace ārāme kālo ārocito hoti, timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo pārupitvā gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā dhovitvā pattaṃ gahetvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena gāmo pavisitabbo.

188. Bhattaggavatte If the time has been announced in the monastery, having covered the three circles and dressed neatly in the lower robe, tying the waistband, folding the robes properly, wearing the upper robes, untying and washing the bowl, taking the bowl, one should enter the village carefully without haste.

188. In the duties at the meal hall (bhattaggavatta), if the time has been announced in the monastery, one should dress covering the three circles, wrapping around evenly, tie the waist-band, making it secure, put on the outer robe, fasten the knot, wash and take the bowl, and enter the village carefully and without hurrying.

188. Regarding the duties during meal times: If the time for the meal has been announced in the monastery, the monk should wear his lower robe evenly covering the three circles, tie his waistband, fold his upper robe three times, put on his outer robe, loosen the knot, wash his hands, take his alms bowl, and enter the village without delay.

Na okkamma therānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ purato gantabbaṃ. Suppaṭicchannena, susaṃvutena, okkhittacakkhunā, appasaddena antaraghare gantabbaṃ, na ukkhittakāya, na ujjagghikāya antaraghare gantabbaṃ, na kāyappacālakaṃ, na bāhuppacālakaṃ, na sīsappacālakaṃ antaraghare gantabbaṃ, na khambhakatena, na oguṇṭhitena, na ukkuṭikāya antaraghare gantabbaṃ.

One should not go ahead of senior monks. One should proceed within the village well-covered, well-restrained, with downcast eyes, and quietly, not with a raised body or laughing loudly within the village, not swaying the body, arms, or head within the village, not with hands on hips, covered up, or squatting within the village.

One should not go in front of the elder monks. One should go into the houses well-covered, well-restrained, with eyes downcast, quietly, not with the robe lifted up, not laughing loudly, not swinging the body, not swinging the arms, not swinging the head, not with hands on hips, not veiled, not squatting.

He should not walk in front of the senior monks. He should walk within the village well-covered, well-restrained, with eyes lowered, and without making noise. He should not walk with his body swaying, his arms swinging, or his head moving. He should not walk with his hands on his hips, with his robe covering his head, or in a crouching position.

Suppaṭicchannena , susaṃvutena, okkhittacakkhunā, appasaddena antaraghare nisīditabbaṃ, na ukkhittakāya, na ujjagghikāya antaraghare nisīditabbaṃ, na kāyappacālakaṃ, na bāhuppacālakaṃ, na sīsappacālakaṃ antaraghare nisīditabbaṃ, na khambhakatena, na oguṇṭhitena, na pallatthikāya antaraghare nisīditabbaṃ, na there bhikkhū anupakhajja nisīditabbaṃ. Sace mahātherassa nisinnāsanena samakaṃ āsanaṃ hoti, bahūsu āsanesu sati ekaṃ dve āsanāni ṭhapetvā nisīditabbaṃ. Bhikkhū gaṇetvā paññattāsanesu anisīditvā mahātherena “nisīdā”ti vuttena nisīditabbaṃ. No ce mahāthero vadati, “idaṃ, bhante, āsanaṃ ucca”nti vattabbaṃ. “Nisīdā”ti vuttena nisīditabbaṃ. Sace pana evaṃ āpucchitepi na vadati, nisīdantassa anāpatti, mahātherasseva āpatti. Navako hi evarūpe āsane anāpucchā nisīdanto āpajjati, thero āpucchite ananujānanto. Na navā bhikkhū āsanena paṭibāhitabbā, na saṅghāṭikaṃ ottharitvā antaraghare nisīditabbaṃ.

One should sit within the village well-covered, well-restrained, with downcast eyes, and quietly, not with a raised body or laughing loudly within the village, not swaying the body, arms, or head within the village, not with hands on hips, covered up, or with legs crossed within the village, nor sitting intrusively close to senior monks. If there is a seat equal to that of a great elder among many seats, one should sit leaving one or two seats aside. Counting the monks and without sitting in the prepared seats, one should sit when told by the great elder, “Sit.” If the great elder does not speak, one should say, “Venerable sir, this seat is high.” When told, “Sit,” one should sit. If, even when asked thus, he does not speak, there is no offense in sitting, but the offense belongs to the great elder. For a junior monk sitting in such a seat without asking commits an offense, while the elder who does not permit when asked also does so. Junior monks should not be obstructed by seats, nor should the upper robe be spread out while sitting within the village.

One should sit in the houses well-covered, well-restrained, with eyes downcast, quietly, not with the robe lifted up, not laughing loudly, not swinging the body, not swinging the arms, not swinging the head, not with hands on hips, not veiled, not cross-legged. One should not sit too close to the elder monks. If the seat is level with the seat of the great elder, if there are many seats, one should leave one or two seats empty and sit down. After counting the monks, without sitting on the assigned seats, one should sit down when told to “Sit” by the great elder. If the great elder does not say [anything], one should say, “Venerable sir, this seat is high.” When told to “Sit,” one should sit down. If, however, even after asking in this way, he does not say [anything], there is no offense for the one who sits, but there is an offense for the great elder. For a junior monk incurs an offense when sitting on such a seat without asking, while the elder [incurs an offense] for not granting permission when asked. Junior monks should not be obstructed by a seat, nor should one sit inside the house spreading out the outer robe.

He should sit within the village well-covered, well-restrained, with eyes lowered, and without making noise. He should not sit with his body swaying, his arms swinging, or his head moving. He should not sit with his hands on his hips, with his robe covering his head, or with his legs stretched out. He should not sit encroaching on the senior monks. If the seat of the senior monk is at the same level, he should leave one or two seats vacant and sit. When the monks are seated in designated seats, he should not sit until the senior monk says, “Sit down.” If the senior monk does not speak, he should say, “Venerable, this seat is high.” When told, “Sit down,” he should sit. If even after such a request the senior monk does not speak, there is no offense for the one who sits, but the senior monk commits an offense. A junior monk who sits in such a seat without permission commits an offense, but the senior monk who does not give permission after being asked also commits an offense. Junior monks should not be obstructed from seats, nor should they sit within the village having spread out their outer robe.

Pattadhovanodake dīyamāne ubhohi hatthehi pattaṃ paṭiggahetvā udakaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, dakkhiṇodakaṃ pana purato ādhārake pattaṃ ṭhapetvā gahetabbaṃ, nīcaṃ katvā udakasaddaṃ akarontena apaṭighaṃsantena patto dhovitabbo. Sace udakapaṭiggāhako hoti, nīcaṃ katvā udakapaṭiggāhake udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ “mā udakapaṭiggāhako udakena osiñci , mā sāmantā bhikkhū udakena osiñciṃsu, mā saṅghāṭi udakena osiñcī”ti. Sace udakapaṭiggāhako na hoti, nīcaṃ katvā chamāya udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ “mā sāmantā bhikkhū udakena osiñciṃsu, mā saṅghāṭi udakena osiñcī”ti.

When water for washing the bowl is offered, the bowl should be received with both hands and the water taken. For preliminary water, the bowl should be placed on a stand in front and taken, lowered, and washed without making water sounds or rubbing it harshly. If there is a water receiver, it should be lowered and poured into the receiver, ensuring, “May the water receiver not be splashed with water, may nearby monks not be splashed with water, may the upper robe not be splashed with water.” If there is no water receiver, it should be lowered and poured onto the ground, ensuring, “May nearby monks not be splashed with water, may the upper robe not be splashed with water.”

When water for washing the bowl is being offered, one should receive the bowl with both hands and receive the water. But for the rinsing water, one should place the bowl in front on a support and receive it. Lowering it, without making a sound of water, without splashing, the bowl should be washed. If there is a water-receiver, lowering it, the water should be poured into the water-receiver, [thinking,] “May the water-receiver 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-receiver, lowering it, the water should be poured on the ground, [thinking,] “May the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water.”

When water for washing the alms bowl is being offered, he should receive the bowl with both hands and then receive the water. The water should be taken from the right side, placing the bowl in front of the water vessel, and the bowl should be washed quietly without splashing. If there is a water receptacle, the water should be poured into it quietly, thinking, “May the water receptacle not be splashed, may the nearby monks not be splashed, may the outer robe not be splashed.” If there is no water receptacle, the water should be poured quietly onto the ground, thinking, “May the nearby monks not be splashed, may the outer robe not be splashed.”

Odane dīyamāne ubhohi hatthehi pattaṃ paṭiggahetvā odano paṭiggahetabbo. Yathā sūpassa okāso hoti, evaṃ mattāya odano gaṇhitabbo. Sace hoti sappi vā telaṃ vā uttaribhaṅgaṃ vā, therena vattabbo “sabbesaṃ samakaṃ sampādehī”ti. Idañca na kevalaṃ sappiādīsu, odanepi vattabbaṃ. Sappiādīsu pana yaṃ appaṃ hoti ekassa vā dvinnaṃ vā anurūpaṃ, taṃ sabbesaṃ samakaṃ sampādehīti vutte manussānaṃ vihesā hoti, tasmā tādisaṃ sakiṃ vā dvikkhattuṃ vā gahetvā sesaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Sakkaccaṃ piṇḍapāto paṭiggahetabbo, pattasaññinā piṇḍapāto paṭiggahetabbo, samasūpako samatitthiko piṇḍapāto paṭiggahetabbo, na tāva therena bhuñjitabbaṃ, yāva na sabbesaṃ odano sampatto hoti. Idañca yaṃ paricchinnabhikkhukaṃ bhattaggaṃ, yattha manussā sabbesaṃ pāpetvā vanditukāmā honti, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ . Yaṃ pana mahābhattaggaṃ hoti, yattha ekasmiṃ padese bhuñjanti, ekasmiṃ padese udakaṃ dīyati, tattha yathāsukhaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ.

When rice is offered, the bowl should be received with both hands and the rice taken. Rice should be taken in moderation, leaving space for curry. If there is ghee, oil, or condiments, the elder should say, “Make it equal for all.” This applies not only to ghee and the like but also to rice. However, when ghee or similar items are scarce and suitable only for one or two, if it is said, “Make it equal for all,” it causes trouble for people, so such items should be taken once or twice and the rest not taken. Alms food should be received respectfully, with awareness of the bowl, and with equal portions of curry, not eaten by the elder until rice has reached everyone. This is said regarding a dining hall with a fixed number of monks, where people wish to serve all and pay homage. But in a large dining hall, where some eat in one area and water is given in another, one may eat as convenient.

When food is being offered, one should receive the bowl with both hands and receive the food. The food should be taken in such an amount that there is space for the curries. If there is ghee, oil, or extra food, the elder should be told, “Distribute it equally to everyone.” And this should be said not only for ghee and so on, but also for the rice. But when something like ghee is small, suitable for only one or two, if one says, “Distribute it equally to everyone,” it causes annoyance to the people. Therefore, such a thing should be taken once or twice, and the remainder should not be taken. Almsfood should be received respectfully. Almsfood should be received with mindfulness of the bowl. Almsfood should be received with equal curry and an even heap. One should not eat until the food has been distributed to everyone. And this refers to a meal hall with a limited number of monks, where people want to pay respects after distributing to everyone. But in a large meal hall, where people eat in one place and water is offered in another place, one should eat as is comfortable.

When rice is being offered, he should receive the bowl with both hands and then receive the rice. The rice should be taken in the same amount as the space in the ladle. If there is ghee, oil, or additional food, the senior monk should say, “Distribute it equally to all.” This applies not only to ghee and the like but also to rice. However, if the amount of ghee or the like is small and suitable for only one or two monks, saying, “Distribute it equally to all,” would cause inconvenience to the people. Therefore, such items should be taken once or twice, and the rest should not be taken. The alms food should be received carefully, with mindfulness of the bowl, and the rice and curry should be received in equal portions. The senior monk should not eat until the rice has been served to all. This applies to a meal where the monks are seated together, and the people wish to offer food to all. However, in a large meal where some are eating in one place and water is being offered in another, one may eat as one pleases.

Sakkaccaṃ piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo, pattasaññinā piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo, sapadāno piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo, samasūpako piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo, na thūpakato omadditvā piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo, na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vā odanena paṭicchādetabbaṃ bhiyyokamyataṃ upādāya, na sūpaṃ vā odanaṃ vā agilānena attano atthāya viññāpetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ, na ujjhānasaññinā paresaṃ patto oloketabbo, nātimahanto kabaḷo kātabbo, parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopo kātabbo, na anāhaṭe kabaḷe mukhadvāraṃ vivaritabbaṃ, na bhuñjamānena sabbo hattho mukhe pakkhipitabbo, na sakabaḷena mukhena byāharitabbaṃ, na piṇḍukkhepakaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ, na kabaḷāvacchekaṃ, na avagaṇḍakārakaṃ, na hatthaniddhunakaṃ, na sitthāvakārakaṃ, na jivhānicchārakaṃ, na capucapukārakaṃ, na surusurukārakaṃ, na hatthanillehakaṃ, na pattanillehakaṃ, na oṭṭhanillehakaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ.

Alms food should be eaten respectfully, with awareness of the bowl, in sequence, with equal curry portions, not mashing it from the top, nor hiding curry or condiments under rice out of greed, nor requesting curry or rice for oneself when not ill, nor looking at others’ bowls with envy, nor making overlarge mouthfuls, but forming round mouthfuls. The mouth should not be opened before the mouthful is brought near, nor the whole hand placed in the mouth while eating, nor speaking with a mouth full of food, nor tossing food, breaking mouthfuls, puffing cheeks, shaking hands, scattering rice, sticking out the tongue, making smacking or slurping sounds, licking hands, bowl, or lips while eating.

Almsfood should be eaten respectfully. Almsfood should be eaten with mindfulness of the bowl. Almsfood should be eaten portion by portion. Almsfood should be eaten with equal curry. One should not eat pressing down from a heap. One should not cover the curry or condiments with rice, hoping for more. One should not, without being ill, ask for curry or rice for oneself and eat it. One should not look at the bowls of others with a fault-finding mind. One should not make too large a mouthful. The mouthful should be made round. One should not open the mouth before the mouthful is brought. While eating, the whole hand should not be put into the mouth. One should not speak with a mouthful of food. One should not eat tossing up the food. One should not eat nibbling at the mouthful. One should not eat stuffing the cheeks. One should not eat shaking the hands. One should not eat scattering rice grains. One should not eat sticking out the tongue. One should not eat making a “capu-capu” sound. One should not eat making a “suru-suru” sound. One should not eat licking the hands. One should not eat licking the bowl. One should not eat licking the lips.

The alms food should be eaten carefully, with mindfulness of the bowl, and eaten in order. The rice and curry should not be mixed together out of greed, nor should one request curry or rice for oneself unless one is ill. One should not look at others’ bowls with envy. The mouthful should not be too large, and the morsel should be round. One should not open the mouth before the morsel is brought to it. While eating, one should not put the entire hand into the mouth. One should not speak with a mouthful of food. One should not eat by lifting the food high, nor should one eat by letting the food fall from the mouth, nor by making noise with the hand, nor by licking the hand, nor by licking the bowl, nor by licking the lips.

Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālako paṭiggahetabbo, na tāva therena hatthadhovanaudakaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, yāva na sabbe bhuttāvino honti. Sace manussā “dhovatha, bhante, pattañca hatthe cā”ti vadanti, bhikkhū vā “tumhe udakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadanti, vaṭṭati. Udake dīyamāne ubhohi hatthehi pattaṃ paṭiggahetvā udakaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, nīcaṃ katvā udakasaddaṃ akarontena apaṭighaṃsantena patto dhovitabbo. Sace udakapaṭiggāhako hoti, nīcaṃ katvā udakapaṭiggāhake udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ “mā udakapaṭiggāhako udakena osiñci, mā sāmantā bhikkhū udakena osiñciṃsu, mā saṅghāṭi udakena osiñcī”ti. Sace udakapaṭiggāhako na hoti, nīcaṃ katvā chamāya udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ “mā sāmantā bhikkhū udakena osiñciṃsu, mā saṅghāṭi udakena osiñcī”ti, na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍetabbaṃ.

The water vessel should not be received with a hand soiled with food, nor should the elder receive hand-washing water until all have finished eating. If people say, “Wash, venerables, your bowls and hands,” or monks say, “Take the water,” it is permissible. When water is offered, the bowl should be received with both hands and the water taken, lowered, and washed without making water sounds or rubbing harshly. If there is a water receiver, it should be lowered and poured into the receiver, ensuring, “May the water receiver not be splashed with water, may nearby monks not be splashed with water, may the upper robe not be splashed with water.” If there is no water receiver, it should be lowered and poured onto the ground, ensuring, “May nearby monks not be splashed with water, may the upper robe not be splashed with water.” Bowl-washing water with scraps should not be discarded within the village.

The water vessel should not be received with a hand that has food on it. The elder should not receive water for washing the hands until everyone has finished eating. If people say, “Venerable sirs, wash your bowls and hands,” or if the monks say, “You take the water,” it is allowable. When water is being offered, one should receive the bowl with both hands and receive the water. Lowering it, without making a sound of water, without splashing, the bowl should be washed. If there is a water-receiver, lowering it, the water should be poured into the water-receiver, [thinking,] “May the water-receiver 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-receiver, lowering it, the water should be poured on the ground, [thinking,] “May the surrounding monks not be splashed with water, may the outer robe not be splashed with water.” Bowl-washing water with rice grains should not be thrown inside the house.

One should not receive the water vessel with a hand that has touched food. The senior monk should not receive the water for washing the hands until all have finished eating. If people say, “Venerable, wash your bowl and hands,” or if the monks say, “You take the water,” it is permissible. When water is being offered, the bowl should be received with both hands, and the water should be received quietly without splashing. If there is a water receptacle, the water should be poured into it quietly, thinking, “May the water receptacle not be splashed, may the nearby monks not be splashed, may the outer robe not be splashed.” If there is no water receptacle, the water should be poured quietly onto the ground, thinking, “May the nearby monks not be splashed, may the outer robe not be splashed.” One should not discard the bowl-washing water with rice remnants within the village.

Bhattaggato uṭṭhāya nivattantesu navakehi bhikkhūhi paṭhamataraṃ nivattitabbaṃ, pacchā therehi. Sambādhesu hi gharesu mahātherānaṃ nikkhamanokāso na hoti, tasmā evaṃ vuttaṃ. Evaṃ nivattantehi pana navakehi gehadvāre ṭhatvā theresu nikkhamantesu paṭipāṭiyā gantabbaṃ. Sace pana mahātherā dhure nisinnā honti, navakā antogehe, therāsanato paṭṭhāya paṭipāṭiyā eva nikkhamitabbaṃ , kāyena kāyaṃ asaṅghaṭṭentena yathā antarena manussā gantuṃ sakkonti, evaṃ viraḷāya pāḷiyā gantabbaṃ.

When leaving the dining hall, junior monks should depart before the seniors. In crowded houses, there is no space for great elders to exit, hence this is stated. However, juniors leaving should stand at the house door and proceed in order as the seniors exit. If the great elders sit near the entrance and juniors inside, they should exit in order from the senior’s seat, without bodies touching, leaving space for people to pass between, walking in a sparse line.

When returning from the meal hall, the junior monks should return first, and the elders afterwards. For in crowded houses, there is no opportunity for the great elders to exit. Therefore, it is said thus. But when returning in this way, the junior monks should wait at the door of the house, and when the elders exit, they should go in order. If, however, the great elders are sitting in the front, and the junior monks are inside the house, they should exit in order starting from the elders’ seats, without bumping into each other, in a sparse line so that people can pass between them.

After the meal, when returning, the junior monks should return first, followed by the seniors. In crowded houses, the senior monks may not have space to exit, hence this rule. When the junior monks return, they should stand at the door and let the seniors exit in order. If the senior monks are seated at the head, the juniors should exit from the inner part of the house, starting from the seniors’ seats, in order, without bumping into each other, leaving enough space for people to pass, and walking in a single file.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, therena bhikkhunā bhattagge anumoditu”nti (cūḷava. 362) vacanato saṅghattherena bhattagge anumoditabbaṃ. Taṃ ekameva ohāya sesehi na gantabbaṃ.

“I allow, monks, the senior monk to give the blessing at the dining hall” (cūḷava. 362), thus the senior of the community should give the blessing at the dining hall. He should not be left alone while the others depart.

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, the elder monk to give the thanksgiving at the meal hall” (Cūḷava. 362), the Sangha elder should give the thanksgiving at the meal hall. Leaving that one alone, the others should not go.

“I allow, monks, for the senior monk to give thanks after the meal” (Cūḷavagga 362). Therefore, the senior monk of the assembly should give thanks after the meal. This should not be omitted.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhattagge catūhi pañcahi therānutherehi bhikkhūhi āgametu”nti (cūḷava. 362) vacanato saṅghattherena anumodanatthāya nisinne heṭṭhā paṭipāṭiyā catūhi nisīditabbaṃ, anuthere nisinne mahātherena ca heṭṭhā ca tīhi nisīditabbaṃ, pañcame nisinne upari catūhi nisīditabbaṃ, saṅghattherena heṭṭhā daharabhikkhusmiṃ ajjhiṭṭhepi saṅghattherato paṭṭhāya catūhi nisīditabbameva. Sace pana anumodako bhikkhu “gacchatha, bhante, āgametabbakiccaṃ natthī”ti vadati, gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Mahātherena “gacchāma, āvuso”ti vutte “gacchathā”ti vadati, evampi vaṭṭati, “bahigāme āgamissāmā”ti ābhogaṃ katvāpi bahigāmaṃ gantvā attano nissitake “tumhe tassa āgamanaṃ āgamethā”ti vatvāpi gantuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace pana manussā attano rucitena ekena anumodanaṃ kārenti, neva tassa anumodato āpatti, na mahātherassa bhāro hoti. Upanisinnakathāyameva hi manussesu kathāpentesu thero āpucchitabbo. Mahātherena ca anumodanāya ajjhiṭṭhova āgametabboti idamettha lakkhaṇaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sati karaṇīye ānantarikaṃ bhikkhuṃ āpucchitvā gantu”nti (cūḷava. 362) vacanato pana vaccādipīḷitena anantaraṃ bhikkhuṃ āpucchitvā gantabbanti. Idaṃ bhattaggavattaṃ.

“I allow, monks, four or five monks, seniors and juniors, to wait at the dining hall” (cūḷava. 362), thus when the senior of the community sits to give the blessing, four should sit below in order; when a junior sits, the great elder and three below should sit; when a fifth sits, four above should sit. Even if the senior of the community requests a junior below, four should sit starting from the senior. If the blessing monk says, “Go, venerables, there is no need to wait,” it is permissible to go. If the great elder says, “We are going, friend,” and he replies, “Go,” it is also permissible. Intending, “We will wait outside the village,” and going outside to tell one’s dependents, “Wait for his arrival,” is also permissible. If people have one monk of their choice give the blessing, there is no offense for that monk, nor burden for the great elder. For when people converse, only then should the elder be asked. The great elder, requested to give the blessing, should wait—this is the characteristic here. “I allow, monks, when there is something to be done, to inform the next monk and go” (cūḷava. 362), thus one afflicted by excretory needs should inform the next monk and go. This is the duty in the dining hall.

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, four or five elder and junior elder monks to wait at the meal hall” (Cūḷava. 362), when the Sangha elder sits down for the thanksgiving, four should sit in order below. When the junior elder sits, three should sit below the great elder. When the fifth sits, four should sit above. Even if a junior monk is appointed below the Sangha elder, four should sit starting from the Sangha elder. If, however, the monk giving the thanksgiving says, “Go, venerable sirs, there is no need to wait,” it is allowable to go. When the great elder says, “Let us go, friends,” if he says, “Go,” it is also allowable. Even after making an intention, [thinking,] “We will wait outside the village,” and going outside the village, and saying to his attendants, “You wait for his arrival,” it is still allowable to go. If, however, people have one [monk] give the thanksgiving according to their liking, there is no offense from that thanksgiving, and there is no burden on the great elder. Indeed, when people are engaged in conversation during a discussion, the elder should be asked. And the one appointed by the great elder for the thanksgiving should wait. This is the guideline here. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, if there is something to be done, to take leave of an adjacent monk and go” (Cūḷava. 362), one who is afflicted by the need to defecate or so on should take leave of an adjacent monk and go. This is the duty at the meal hall.

“I allow, monks, for four or five monks, including the senior and junior monks, to return after the meal” (Cūḷavagga 362). Therefore, when the senior monk of the assembly is seated to give thanks, four monks should sit below in order. When the junior monks are seated, the senior monk and three others should sit below. When the fifth monk is seated, four should sit above. Even if a junior monk is invited, starting from the senior monk of the assembly, four should sit below. If the monk giving thanks says, “Go, Venerable, there is no need to return,” it is permissible to go. If the senior monk says, “We are going, friend,” and the other says, “Go,” it is also permissible. Even if one thinks, “I will return to the outer village,” and goes to the outer village, telling one’s dependents, “You should return for that,” it is permissible. If people arrange for one monk to give thanks according to their preference, there is no offense for the one giving thanks, nor is it a burden for the senior monk. When people are engaged in conversation, the senior monk should be informed. The senior monk should be informed even if he is not present for the giving of thanks. This is the characteristic here. “I allow, monks, when there is an urgent matter, to inform the monk nearby and go” (Cūḷavagga 362). Therefore, if one is pressed by the need to relieve oneself, one should inform the nearby monk and go. These are the duties during meal times.

189. Piṇḍacārikavatte pana piṇḍacārikena bhikkhunā “idāni gāmaṃ pavisissāmī”ti timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo pārupitvā gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā dhovitvā pattaṃ gahetvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena gāmo pavisitabbo. Suppaṭicchannena antaraghare gantabbantiādi sabbaṃ bhattaggavatte vuttanayeneva idhāpi veditabbaṃ.

189. Piṇḍacārikavatte A monk going for alms should, thinking, “Now I will enter the village,” cover the three circles, dress neatly in the lower robe, tie the waistband, fold the robes properly, wear the upper robes, untie and wash the bowl, take the bowl, and enter the village carefully without haste. All procedures like going well-covered within the village should be understood here as stated in the dining hall duty.

189. In the duties of the alms-round (piṇḍacārikavatta), a monk on alms-round, [thinking,] “Now I will enter the village,” should dress covering the three circles, wrapping around evenly, tie the waist-band, making it secure, put on the outer robe, fasten the knot, wash and take the bowl, and enter the village carefully and without hurrying. All that was said in the duties at the meal hall, such as “One should go into the houses well-covered,” should be understood here as well.

189. Regarding the duties of an alms-goer: A monk who is about to go for alms should think, “I will now enter the village,” and wear his lower robe evenly covering the three circles, tie his waistband, fold his upper robe three times, put on his outer robe, loosen the knot, wash his hands, take his alms bowl, and enter the village without delay. He should enter the village well-covered, and all other instructions are the same as those given for meal times.

Nivesanaṃ pavisantena sallakkhetabbaṃ “iminā pavisissāmi, iminā nikkhamissāmī”ti, nātisahasā pavisitabbaṃ, nātidūre nāccāsanne ṭhātabbaṃ, nāticiraṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, nātilahukaṃ nivattitabbaṃ, ṭhitena sallakkhetabbaṃ “bhikkhaṃ dātukāmā vā adātukāmā vā”ti . Sace kammaṃ vā nikkhipati, āsanā vā vuṭṭhāti, kaṭacchuṃ vā parāmasati, bhājanaṃ vā parāmasati, ṭhapeti vā, “dātukāmassā”ti ṭhātabbaṃ. Bhikkhāya dīyamānāya vāmena hatthena saṅghāṭiṃ uccāretvā dakkhiṇena hatthena pattaṃ paṇāmetvā ubhohi hatthehi pattaṃ paṭiggahetvā bhikkhā paṭiggahetabbā, itthī vā hotu puriso vā, bhikkhādānasamaye mukhaṃ na oloketabbaṃ, sallakkhetabbaṃ “sūpaṃ dātukāmā vā adātukāmā vā”ti. Sace kaṭacchuṃ vā parāmasati, bhājanaṃ vā parāmasati, ṭhapeti vā, “dātukāmassā”ti ṭhātabbaṃ. Bhikkhāya dinnāya saṅghāṭiyā pattaṃ paṭicchādetvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena nivattitabbaṃ.

Entering a house, one should observe, “I will enter by this way and exit by this way,” not entering too abruptly, not standing too far or too near, not standing too long, not turning back too quickly, and while standing, observe, “Are they willing or unwilling to give alms?” If they put down work, rise from a seat, reach for a ladle or vessel, or set it down, thinking, “They are willing,” one should stand. When alms are offered, lifting the upper robe with the left hand, extending the bowl with the right, receiving the bowl with both hands, the alms should be taken. Whether it is a woman or man, their face should not be looked at during almsgiving. One should observe, “Are they willing or unwilling to give curry?” If they reach for a ladle or vessel or set it down, thinking, “They are willing,” one should stand. When alms are given, covering the bowl with the upper robe, one should return carefully without haste.

Entering a dwelling, one should observe, “I will enter by this [door], I will exit by this [door].” One should not enter too hastily. One should not stand too far or too near. One should not stand for too long. One should not turn back too quickly. While standing, one should observe, “Are they willing to give alms or not?” If they put down their work, or get up from their seat, or touch a ladle, or touch a vessel, or put it down, [thinking,] “They are willing to give,” one should stand. When alms are being offered, raising the outer robe with the left hand and extending the bowl with the right hand, one should receive the bowl with both hands and receive the alms. Whether it is a woman or a man, one should not look at the face at the time of giving alms. One should observe, “Are they willing to give curry or not?” If they touch a ladle, or touch a vessel, or put it down, [thinking,] “They are willing to give,” one should stand. When alms have been given, covering the bowl with the outer robe, one should turn back carefully and without hurrying.

When entering a house, he should consider, “I will enter by this way and exit by this way.” He should not enter hastily, nor stand too far or too close. He should not stand for too long, nor leave too quickly. While standing, he should observe whether the people wish to give alms or not. If they put down their work, rise from their seat, touch the ladle, or handle a vessel, he should stand, thinking, “They wish to give.” When alms are being offered, he should lift the outer robe with his left hand, extend the bowl with his right hand, receive the bowl with both hands, and accept the alms. Whether it is a woman or a man, he should not look at their face while they are giving alms. He should observe whether they wish to give curry or not. If they touch the ladle, handle a vessel, or put it down, he should stand, thinking, “They wish to give.” After receiving the alms, he should cover the bowl with the outer robe and leave without delay.

Yo paṭhamaṃ gāmato piṇḍāya paṭikkamati, tena āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ upanikkhipitabbaṃ, avakkārapāti dhovitvā upaṭṭhāpetabbā, pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Yo pacchā gāmato piṇḍāya paṭikkamati, sace hoti bhuttāvaseso, sace ākaṅkhati, bhuñjitabbaṃ. No ce ākaṅkhati, appaharite vā chaḍḍetabbaṃ, appāṇake vā udake opilāpetabbaṃ, tena āsanaṃ uddharitabbaṃ, pādodakaṃ pādapīṭhaṃ pādakathalikaṃ paṭisāmetabbaṃ, avakkārapāti dhovitvā paṭisāmetabbā, pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ paṭisāmetabbaṃ, bhattaggaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ. Yo passati pānīyaghaṭaṃ vā paribhojanīyaghaṭaṃ vā vaccaghaṭaṃ vā rittaṃ tucchaṃ, tena upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sacassa hoti avisayhaṃ, hatthavikārena dutiyaṃ āmantetvā hatthavilaṅghakena upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ, na ca tappaccayā vācā bhinditabbāti. Idaṃ piṇḍacārikavattaṃ.

The first monk returning from the village on almsround should prepare a seat, set out foot-washing water, a footstool, and a foot-wiping cloth, wash and set out a refuse bowl, and set out drinking and utility water. The last monk returning from the village on almsround, if there are leftovers and he wishes, may eat them. If he does not wish, they should be discarded in a place with little greenery or immersed in water with few creatures. He should remove the seat, store the foot-washing water, footstool, and foot-wiping cloth, wash and store the refuse bowl, store the drinking and utility water, and sweep the dining hall. Whoever sees an empty drinking water jar, utility water jar, or latrine jar should refill it. If it is beyond his capacity, he should signal a second monk with a hand gesture and refill it together without speaking.

He who returns first from the village on alms-round should arrange the seats, place the water for the feet, the footstool, and the foot-wiper, wash and set up the waste-bowl, and set out the drinking water and the rinsing water. He who returns last from the village on alms-round, if there is leftover food, if he desires, he should eat it. If he does not desire it, he should throw it away in a place without greenery, or immerse it in water without living beings. He should remove the seats, store away the water for the feet, the footstool, and the foot-wiper, wash and store away the waste-bowl, store away the drinking water and the rinsing water, and sweep the meal hall. Whoever sees the drinking water pot, the rinsing water pot, or the toilet pot empty and devoid, he should set it up. If it is impossible for him, he should beckon a second person with a hand gesture and have it set up by hand-signal. But one should not break speech on that account. This is the duty of the alms-round.

The first monk to return from the village with alms should prepare a seat, set out foot-washing water, a footstool, and a foot-scraper, wash the spittoon, and set out drinking water and washing water. The last monk to return from the village with alms, if there are leftovers and if he wishes, may eat. If he does not wish to eat, he should discard it in a place without living beings or pour it into water without living beings. He should then put away the seat, foot-washing water, footstool, foot-scraper, wash the spittoon, and put away the drinking water and washing water. He should sweep the meal hall. If he sees an empty drinking water pot, washing water pot, or toilet pot, he should fill it. If it is too heavy for him, he should call a second person and fill it by lifting it together, but he should not break his silence because of this. These are the duties of an alms-goer.

190. Āraññikavatte āraññikena bhikkhunā kālasseva uṭṭhāya pattaṃ thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā upāhanā ārohitvā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā vasanaṭṭhānato nikkhamitabbaṃ. “Idāni gāmaṃ pavisissāmā”ti upāhanā omuñcitvā nīcaṃ katvā papphoṭetvā thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo pārupitvā gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā dhovitvā pattaṃ gahetvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena gāmo pavisitabbo. Suppaṭicchannena antaraghare gantabbantiādi sabbaṃ gamanavidhānaṃ idhāpi bhattaggavatte vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

190. Āraññikavatte A forest-dwelling monk should rise early, place the bowl in its bag, hang it over the shoulder, place the robe over the shoulder, wear sandals, store wooden and clay items, lock doors and windows, and leave the dwelling place. Thinking, “Now I will enter the village,” he should remove the sandals, lower and shake them, place them in the bag, hang it over the shoulder, cover the three circles, dress neatly in the lower robe, tie the waistband, fold the robes properly, wear the upper robes, untie and wash the bowl, take the bowl, and enter the village carefully without haste. All procedures like going well-covered within the village should be understood here as stated in the dining hall duty.

190. In the duties of the forest-dweller (āraññikavatta), a forest-dwelling monk should get up early in the morning, put the bowl in its bag and hang it on his shoulder, place the robe on his shoulder, put on his sandals, store away the wooden and clay items, close the doors and windows, and exit the dwelling place. [Thinking,] “Now we will enter the village,” he should take off his sandals, lower them, shake them out, put them in the bag and hang it on his shoulder, dress covering the three circles, wrapping around evenly, tie the waist-band, making it secure, put on the outer robe, fasten the knot, wash and take the bowl, and enter the village carefully and without hurrying. All the procedures for going, such as “One should go into the houses well-covered,” should be understood here as in the duties at the meal hall.

190. Regarding the duties of a forest-dwelling monk: A forest-dwelling monk should rise early, place his bowl in a bag, hang it on his shoulder, put his robe on his shoulder, wear his sandals, arrange the wooden and earthenware items, close the doors and windows, and leave his dwelling. Thinking, “I will now enter the village,” he should remove his sandals, lower them, place them in the bag, hang it on his shoulder, wear his lower robe evenly covering the three circles, tie his waistband, fold his upper robe three times, put on his outer robe, loosen the knot, wash his hands, take his alms bowl, and enter the village without delay. He should enter the village well-covered, and all other instructions are the same as those given for meal times.

Nivesanaṃ pavisantena sallakkhetabbaṃ “iminā pavisissāmi, iminā nikkhamissāmī”tiādi sabbaṃ bhikkhācāravidhānaṃ piṇḍacārikavatte vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Āraññikena bhikkhunā pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace bhājanāni nappahonti, pānīyameva paribhojanīyampi katvā upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Bhājanaṃ alabhantena veḷunāḷikāyapi upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Tampi alabhantassa yathā samīpe udakaāvāṭo hoti, evaṃ kātabbaṃ. Aggi upaṭṭhāpetabbo, araṇisahitaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ, araṇisahite sati aggiṃ akātumpi vaṭṭati. Yathā ca āraññikassa, evaṃ kantārappaṭipannassapi araṇisahitaṃ icchitabbaṃ. Gaṇavāsino pana tena vināpi vaṭṭati. Kattaradaṇḍo upaṭṭhāpetabbo, nakkhattapadāni uggahetabbāni sakalāni vā ekadesāni vā, disākusalena bhavitabbaṃ. Idaṃ āraññikavattaṃ.

Entering a house, one should observe, “I will enter by this way and exit by this way,” and all procedures for collecting alms should be understood as stated in the almsround duty. A forest-dwelling monk should set out drinking and utility water. If vessels are insufficient, drinking water should also serve as utility water and be set out. If no vessel is available, it may be set out in a bamboo tube. If even that is unavailable, it should be arranged so a water pit is nearby. A fire should be set out, prepared with fire-sticks; if fire-sticks are available, it is permissible not to make a fire. As with a forest-dweller, one traveling through a wilderness should also desire fire-sticks. For those living in a group, it is permissible without them. A staff should be set out, constellations learned fully or partially, and one should be skilled in directions. This is the forest-dweller’s duty.

Entering a dwelling, one should observe, “I will enter by this [door], I will exit by this [door],” and so on. All the procedures for the alms-round should be understood as in the duties of the alms-round. The forest-dwelling monk should set out the drinking water and the rinsing water. If there are not enough vessels, he should make even the drinking water serve as rinsing water and set it out. If he cannot find a vessel, he should even set it out in a bamboo tube. If he cannot find even that, he should make it so that there is a water-hole nearby. Fire should be set up. Fire-making equipment should be set up. If there is fire-making equipment, it is allowable even not to make a fire. And just as for the forest-dweller, so too for one traveling on a wilderness path, fire-making equipment is desirable. But for one dwelling in a community, it is allowable even without it. A walking stick should be set up. The constellations should be learned, either all of them or some of them. One should be skilled in directions. This is the duty of the forest-dweller.

When entering a house, he should consider, “I will enter by this way and exit by this way,” and all other instructions are the same as those given for an alms-goer. A forest-dwelling monk should set out drinking water and washing water. If there are no vessels, he should use the drinking water for both purposes. If he cannot find a vessel, he should use a bamboo tube. If even that is not available, he should dig a water hole nearby. He should set out fire, along with firesticks. If firesticks are available, it is permissible not to light the fire. The same applies to a monk traveling through a wilderness. For those living in a group, however, it is permissible even without firesticks. He should set out a walking stick, learn the constellations, either fully or partially, and be skilled in directions. These are the duties of a forest-dwelling monk.

191. Senāsanavatte yasmiṃ vihāre viharati, sace so vihāro uklāpo hoti, sace ussahati, sodhetabbo. Vihāraṃ sodhentena paṭhamaṃ pattacīvaraṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, nisīdanapaccattharaṇaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, bhisibimbohanaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, mañco nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbo, pīṭhaṃ nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, mañcapaṭipādakā nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbā, kheḷamallako nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbo, apassenaphalakaṃ nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, bhūmattharaṇaṃ yathāpaññattaṃ sallakkhetvā nīharitvā ekamantaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace vihāre santānakaṃ hoti, ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabbaṃ, ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgā pamajjitabbā. Sace gerukaparikammakatā bhitti kaṇṇakitā hoti, coḷakaṃ temetvā pīḷetvā pamajjitabbā. Sace kāḷavaṇṇakatā bhūmi kaṇṇakitā hoti, coḷakaṃ temetvā pīḷetvā pamajjitabbā. Sace akatā hoti bhūmi, udakena paripphositvā paripphositvā sammajjitabbā “mā vihāro rajena uhaññī”ti, saṅkāraṃ vicinitvā ekamantaṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ.

191. Senāsanavatte In whatever monastery one resides, if it is dirty, if able, it should be cleaned. Cleaning the monastery, first the bowl and robe should be taken out and set aside, the sitting cloth and sheet taken out and set aside, the mat and pillow taken out and set aside. The bed should be lowered, carefully taken out without rubbing or knocking against the door frame, and set aside; the stool should be lowered, carefully taken out without rubbing or knocking against the door frame, and set aside; the bed supports taken out and set aside; the spittoon taken out and set aside; the leaning board taken out and set aside; the floor covering, noting its arrangement, taken out and set aside. If there is a canopy in the monastery, it should be removed first from the top; the window frames and corners should be wiped. If the wall, finished with red chalk, is dirty, a cloth should be wetted, wrung, and wiped. If the floor, blackened, is dirty, a cloth should be wetted, wrung, and wiped. If the floor is unfinished, it should be sprinkled with water and swept repeatedly, thinking, “May the monastery not be spoiled by dust,” and the rubbish gathered and discarded aside.

191. In the duties for the lodging (senāsanavatta), in whatever dwelling he lives, if that dwelling is dirty, if he is able, he should clean it. Cleaning the dwelling, first he should take out the bowl and robes and put them aside. He should take out the sitting mat and put it aside. He should take out the pillow and bolster and put them aside. Lowering the bed, carefully, without striking or bumping it against the door frame, he should take it out and put it aside. Lowering the chair, carefully, without striking or bumping it against the door frame, he should take it out and put it 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 ground covering should be taken out, observing how it was arranged, and put aside. If there is cobweb in the dwelling, it should first be removed from the ceiling. The areas around the window openings should be wiped. If the wall has been treated with red clay and is dusty, a cloth should be dampened, wrung out, and used to wipe it. If the ground has been treated with black coloring and is dusty, a cloth should be dampened, wrung out, and used to wipe it. If the ground is untreated, it should be sprinkled with water repeatedly and swept, [thinking,] “May the dwelling not be covered with dust.” The rubbish should be collected and thrown away in one place.

191. Regarding the duties of maintaining the lodging: If the lodging where one is staying is dirty, and if one is able, one should clean it. When cleaning the lodging, one should first take out the bowl and robe and set them aside. One should take out the sitting mat and the sheet and set them aside. One should take out the pillow and the mattress and set them aside. One should lower the bed carefully without damaging it or knocking it against the door frame and set it aside. One should lower the stool carefully without damaging it or knocking it against the door frame and set it aside. One should take out the bed legs and set them aside. One should take out the spittoon and set it aside. One should take out the backrest and set it aside. One should take out the floor covering as arranged and set it aside. If there is a canopy in the lodging, the upper part should be removed first, and the corners and edges should be cleaned. If the walls are painted with red ochre and have mold, a cloth should be soaked and pressed to clean them. If the floor is blackened and has mold, a cloth should be soaked and pressed to clean it. If the floor is unfinished, it should be sprinkled with water and swept carefully, thinking, “May the lodging not be damaged by dust.” The rubbish should be collected and discarded.

Na bhikkhusāmantā senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ, na vihārasāmantā senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ, na pānīyasāmantā senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ, na paribhojanīyasāmantā senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ, na paṭivāte aṅgaṇe senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ, adhovāte senāsanaṃ papphoṭetabbaṃ.

The lodging should not be shaken out near monks, near the monastery, near drinking water, near utility water, or upwind in the courtyard; it should be shaken out downwind.

The bedding should not be shaken out near a monk, near the dwelling, near the drinking water, near the rinsing water, or in the courtyard against the wind. The bedding should be shaken out downwind.

One should not sweep the lodging near another monk’s lodging, nor near the monastery, nor near the drinking water, nor near the washing water, nor in a windy courtyard. One should sweep the lodging in a downwind direction.

Bhūmattharaṇaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, mañcapaṭipādakā ekamantaṃ otāpetvā pamajjitvā abhiharitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbā, mañco ekamantaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbo, pīṭhaṃ ekamantaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā nīcaṃ katvā sādhukaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapīṭhaṃ atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ , bhisibimbohanaṃ ekamantaṃ otāpetvā sodhetvā papphoṭetvā atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, nisīdanapaccattharaṇaṃ otāpetvā papphoṭetvā atiharitvā yathāpaññattaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, kheḷamallako ekamantaṃ otāpetvā pamajjitvā atiharitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbo, apassenaphalakaṃ ekamantaṃ otāpetvā pamajjitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetabbaṃ. Pattacīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ, pattaṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena pattaṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena heṭṭhāmañcaṃ vā heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvā patto nikkhipitabbo, na ca anantarahitāya bhūmiyā patto nikkhipitabbo. Cīvaraṃ nikkhipantena ekena hatthena cīvaraṃ gahetvā ekena hatthena cīvaravaṃsaṃ vā cīvararajjuṃ vā pamajjitvā pārato antaṃ, orato bhogaṃ katvā cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ.

The floor covering should be aired, cleaned, shaken out, brought back, and arranged as before; the bed supports aired aside, wiped, brought back, and placed as before; the bed aired aside, cleaned, shaken out, lowered, carefully brought back without rubbing or knocking against the door frame, and arranged as before; the stool aired aside, cleaned, shaken out, lowered, carefully brought back without rubbing or knocking against the door frame, and arranged as before; the mat and pillow aired aside, cleaned, shaken out, brought back, and arranged as before; the sitting cloth and sheet aired, shaken out, brought back, and arranged as before; the spittoon aired aside, wiped, brought back, and placed as before; the leaning board aired aside, wiped, and placed as before. The bowl and robe should be stored; when storing the bowl, holding it with one hand and feeling under the bed or stool with the other, the bowl should be placed, not on the bare ground next to it. When storing the robe, holding it with one hand and wiping the robe pole or rope with the other, it should be folded from the edge to the center and stored.

The ground-spread should be exposed to the sun, cleaned, shaken out, brought in, and arranged as it was laid out. The legs of the bed should be exposed to the sun on one side, wiped, brought in, and placed in their original position. The bed should be exposed to the sun on one side, cleaned, shaken out, lowered, and carefully, without bumping or scraping against the door frame, brought in and arranged as it was laid out. The seat should be exposed to the sun on one side, cleaned, shaken out, lowered, and carefully, without bumping or scraping against the door frame, brought in and arranged as it was laid out. The bolster and pillow should be exposed to the sun on one side, cleaned, shaken out, brought in, and arranged as they were laid out. The sitting mat should be exposed to the sun, shaken out, brought in, and arranged as it was laid out. The spittoon should be exposed to the sun on one side, wiped, brought in, and placed in its original position. The leaning board should be exposed to the sun on one side, wiped, and placed in its original position. Robes and bowl should be put down. When putting down the bowl, one should hold the bowl with one hand and feel the lower bed or lower seat with the other hand, and then put down the bowl. The bowl should not be placed on the bare ground. When putting down the robe, one should hold the robe with one hand and wipe the robe-rack or robe-string with the other hand, making the end [of the robe] to be on the far side, and fold [of the robe] on the near side, then place the robe.

The ground covering should be heated, cleaned, beaten, and brought in, then arranged as prescribed. The legs of the bed should be heated on one side, wiped, brought in, and placed in their proper position. The bed should be heated on one side, cleaned, beaten, lowered carefully without scraping or knocking, and the bed frame should be brought in and arranged as prescribed. The stool should be heated on one side, cleaned, beaten, lowered carefully without scraping or knocking, and the stool frame should be brought in and arranged as prescribed. The mattress and pillow should be heated on one side, cleaned, beaten, brought in, and arranged as prescribed. The sitting cloth should be heated, beaten, brought in, and arranged as prescribed. The spittoon should be heated on one side, wiped, brought in, and placed in its proper position. The backrest board should be heated on one side, wiped, and placed in its proper position. The alms bowl and robe should be put away. When putting down the bowl, one should hold the bowl with one hand and feel the lower bed or stool with the other hand before placing the bowl down. The bowl should not be placed directly on the ground without something in between. When putting down the robe, one should hold the robe with one hand and wipe the robe rack or robe cord with the other hand, then fold the robe from the far end to the near end and put it away.

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

If dusty winds blow from the east, the eastern windows should be closed. If dusty winds blow 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, the windows should be closed during the day and opened at night.

Sace uklāpaṃ hoti, pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, koṭṭhako sammajjitabbo, upaṭṭhānasālā sammajjitabbā, aggisālā sammajjitabbā, vaccakuṭi sammajjitabbā. Sace pānīyaṃ na hoti, pānīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace paribhojanīyaṃ na hoti, paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ na hoti, ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ.

If it is dirty, the courtyard should be swept, the storeroom swept, the attendance hall swept, the fire hall swept, the latrine swept. If there is no drinking water, drinking water should be set out. If there is no utility water, utility water should be set out. If there is no water in the washing jar, water should be poured into the washing jar.

If there is litter, the surrounding area should be swept, the storeroom should be swept, the attendance hall should be swept, the fire hall should be swept, and the toilet should be swept. If there is no drinking water, drinking water should be provided. If there is no rinsing water, rinsing water should be provided. If there is no water in the rinsing water pot, water should be poured into the rinsing water pot.

If there is dirt, the dwelling should be swept, the threshold should be swept, the assembly hall should be swept, the fire hall should be swept, and the restroom should be swept. If there is no drinking water, drinking water should be provided. If there is no water for washing, water for washing should be provided. If there is no water in the rinsing pot, water should be poured into the rinsing pot.

Sace vuḍḍhena saddhiṃ ekavihāre viharati, na vuḍḍhaṃ anāpucchā uddeso dātabbo, na paripucchā dātabbā, na sajjhāyo kātabbo, na dhammo bhāsitabbo, na padīpo kātabbo, na padīpo vijjhāpetabbo, na vātapānā vivaritabbā, na vātapānā thaketabbā. Dvāraṃ nāma yasmā mahāvaḷañjaṃ, tasmā tattha āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi, sesāni pana uddesadānādīni āpucchitvāva kātabbāni, devasikampi āpucchituṃ vaṭṭati. Athāpi “bhante, āpucchitameva hotū”ti vutte vuḍḍhataro “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchati, sayameva vā “tvaṃ yathāsukhaṃ viharāhī”ti vadati, evampi vaṭṭati. Sabhāgassa vissāsenapi vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace vuḍḍhena saddhiṃ ekacaṅkame caṅkamati, yena vuḍḍho, tena parivattetabbaṃ, na ca vuḍḍho saṅghāṭikaṇṇena ghaṭṭetabbo. Idaṃ senāsanavattaṃ.

If residing in the same monastery with an elder, without asking the elder, a recitation should not be given, a questioning not conducted, a rehearsal not done, the Dhamma not spoken, a lamp not lit, a lamp not extinguished, windows not opened, nor windows closed. As the door is a large mechanism, there is no need to ask about it, but the other tasks like giving recitations should be done only after asking, even daily if permissible. If one says, “Venerable sir, let it be as if I have asked,” and the elder agrees, “Good,” or says, “Live as you please,” it is permissible. It is also permissible with the trust of a companion. If walking on the same path with an elder, one should turn where the elder turns, and the elder’s robe corner should not be struck. This is the lodging duty.

If one is dwelling in the same dwelling with a senior monk, one should not give a recitation, give an examination, recite, teach Dhamma, light a lamp, extinguish a lamp, open windows, or close windows without asking the senior monk. Because the term ‘door’ indicates a large entrance, there is no need to ask permission there. But the other things, such as giving a recitation and so on, should be done only after asking permission. It is appropriate to ask permission even daily. But if, when one says, “Venerable Sir, consider it as asked,” the senior monk accepts it with “Good,” or if he himself says, “You live as you please,” even that is acceptable. It is also acceptable by way of familiarity with a compatible person. If one is walking with a senior monk on the same walking path, one should turn around by the side where the senior monk is, and one should not brush against the senior monk with the corner of one’s outer robe. This is the monastery duty.

If one lives in the same dwelling as an elder, one should not give a recitation without informing the elder, nor ask questions, nor recite together, nor teach the Dhamma, nor light a lamp, nor extinguish a lamp, nor open the windows, nor close the windows. Since the door is large, there is no need to inform the elder about it, but other actions such as giving recitations, etc., should be done only after informing the elder. It is also proper to inform the elder daily. Even if one says, “Venerable sir, I have informed you,” and the elder replies, “Good,” or says, “You may stay as you please,” it is also proper. It is also proper to act with mutual trust among peers. If one walks on the same walking path as an elder, one should turn in the direction of the elder and should not bump the elder with the corner of one’s robe. This is the duty regarding lodgings.

192. Jantāgharavatte yo paṭhamaṃ jantāgharaṃ gacchati, sace chārikā ussannā hoti, chārikā chaḍḍetabbā. Sace uklāpaṃ hoti, jantāgharaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, paribhaṇḍaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, koṭṭhako sammajjitabbo, jantāgharasālā sammajjitabbā, cuṇṇaṃ sannetabbaṃ, mattikā temetabbā, udakadoṇiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ. Jantāgharaṃ pavisantena mattikāya mukhaṃ makkhetvā purato ca pacchato ca paṭicchādetvā jantāgharaṃ pavisitabbaṃ, na there bhikkhū anupakhajja nisīditabbaṃ, na navā bhikkhū āsanena paṭibāhitabbā. Sace ussahati, jantāghare therānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Jantāgharā nikkhamantena jantāgharapīṭhaṃ ādāya purato ca pacchato ca paṭicchādetvā jantāgharā nikkhamitabbaṃ. Sace ussahati, udakepi therānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ, na therānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ purato nahāyitabbaṃ, na uparito nahāyitabbaṃ, nahātena uttarantena otarantānaṃ maggo dātabbo. Yo pacchā jantāgharā nikkhamati, sace jantāgharaṃ cikkhallaṃ hoti, dhovitabbaṃ, mattikādoṇiṃ dhovitvā jantāgharapīṭhaṃ paṭisāmetvā aggiṃ vijjhāpetvā dvāraṃ thaketvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Idaṃ jantāgharavattaṃ.

192. Jantāgharavatte The first to go to the bathhouse, if ashes are piled up, should discard them. If it is dirty, the bathhouse should be swept, the surroundings swept, the courtyard swept, the storeroom swept, the bathhouse hall swept; powder should be prepared, clay moistened, and water poured into the water vat. Entering the bathhouse, smearing the face with clay and covering front and back, one should enter; senior monks should not be intruded upon, nor junior monks obstructed by seats. If able, one should assist senior monks in the bathhouse. Leaving the bathhouse, taking the bathhouse stool and covering front and back, one should exit. If able, one should assist senior monks with water too; one should not bathe in front of or above senior monks. After bathing, while exiting, a path should be given to those entering. The last to leave the bathhouse, if it is muddy, should wash it, wash the clay vat, store the bathhouse stool, extinguish the fire, lock the door, and depart. This is the bathhouse duty.

192. In the hot-room duties, whoever goes first to the hot-room, if the ashes are piled up, the ashes should be removed. If there is litter, the hot-room should be swept, the surrounding area should be swept, the area around should be swept, the storeroom should be swept, and the hot-room hall should be swept. Powder should be kneaded, clay should be moistened, and water should be poured into the water trough. Entering the hot-room, one should smear one’s face with clay, cover oneself in front and behind, and enter the hot-room. One should not sit down encroaching upon the senior monks, nor should one obstruct the new monks with a seat. If one is able, one should perform service for the senior monks in the hot-room. Leaving the hot-room, one should take the hot-room seat, cover oneself in front and behind, and leave the hot-room. If one is able, one should also perform service for the senior monks with water. One should not bathe in front of the senior monks, nor should one bathe above them. Having bathed, one should give way to those descending after ascending. Whoever leaves the hot-room last, if the hot-room is muddy, it should be washed, the clay trough should be washed, the hot-room seat should be put away, the fire should be extinguished, the door should be closed, and then one should depart. This is the hot-room duty.

192. Duties in the Bathhouse: The one who first enters the bathhouse should discard the ashes if they have accumulated. If there is dirt, the bathhouse should be swept, the utensils should be swept, the dwelling should be swept, the threshold should be swept, the bathhouse hall should be swept, the powder should be prepared, the clay should be moistened, and water should be poured into the water tub. When entering the bathhouse, one should smear the face with clay, cover the front and back, and then enter. One should not sit encroaching on the senior monks, nor should one block the seats of the junior monks. If possible, one should attend to the senior monks in the bathhouse. When leaving the bathhouse, one should take the bathhouse stool, cover the front and back, and then leave. If possible, one should also attend to the senior monks with water. One should not bathe in front of the senior monks, nor above them. When getting out of the bath, one should give way to those entering. The one who leaves the bathhouse last should wash it if it is muddy, clean the clay tub, put away the bathhouse stool, extinguish the fire, close the door, and then leave. These are the duties in the bathhouse.

193. Vaccakuṭivatte yo vaccakuṭiṃ gacchati, bahi ṭhitena ukkāsitabbaṃ, anto nisinnenapi ukkāsitabbaṃ, cīvaravaṃse vā cīvararajjuyā vā cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā sādhukaṃ ataramānena vaccakuṭi pavisitabbā, nātisahasā pavisitabbā, na ubbhajitvā pavisitabbā, vaccapādukāya ṭhitena ubbhajitabbaṃ, na nitthunantena vacco kātabbo, na dantakaṭṭhaṃ khādantena vacco kātabbo, na bahiddhā vaccadoṇikāya vacco kātabbo, na bahiddhā passāvadoṇikāya passāvo kātabbo, na passāvadoṇikāya kheḷo kātabbo, phālitena vā kharena vā gaṇṭhikena vā kaṇṭakena vā susirena vā pūtinā vā kaṭṭhena na avalekhitabbaṃ, avalekhanakaṭṭhaṃ pana aggahetvā paviṭṭhassa āpatti natthi, na avalekhanakaṭṭhaṃ vaccakūpamhi pātetabbaṃ, vaccapādukāya ṭhitena paṭicchādetabbaṃ, nātisahasā nikkhamitabbaṃ, na ubbhajitvā nikkhamitabbaṃ, ācamanapādukāya ṭhitena ubbhajitabbaṃ, na capucapukārakaṃ ācametabbaṃ, na ācamanasarāvake udakaṃ sesetabbaṃ. Idañca sabbasādhāraṇaṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tatra hi aññe aññe āgacchanti, tasmā udakaṃ na sesetabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana saṅghikepi vihāre ekadese nibaddhagamanatthāya kataṃ ṭhānaṃ hoti puggalikaṭṭhānaṃ vā, tasmiṃ vaṭṭati. Virecanaṃ pivitvā punappunaṃ pavisantassapi vaṭṭatiyeva. Ācamanapādukāya ṭhitena paṭicchādetabbaṃ.

193. Vaccakuṭivatte One going to the latrine should clear the throat while standing outside, and even when seated inside should clear the throat; placing the robe on the robe pole or rope, one should enter the latrine carefully without haste, not entering too abruptly or crouching; standing on the latrine platform, one should crouch; excrement should not be done while groaning or chewing a tooth-stick, nor outside in the excrement vat, nor urine in the urine vat, nor spittle in the urine vat; one should not wipe with split, rough, knotted, thorny, hollow, or putrid wood; there is no offense for one entering without taking wiping wood, but wiping wood should not be dropped into the latrine pit; it should be covered while standing on the latrine platform; one should not exit too abruptly or crouching; standing on the washing platform, one should crouch; washing should not be done with smacking sounds, nor should water be left in the washing bowl. This is said regarding a common place where various people come, thus water should not be left. But in a monastic or private fixed place, it is permissible. For one drinking a purgative and entering repeatedly, it is also permissible. It should be covered while standing on the washing platform.

193. In the toilet duties, whoever goes to the toilet, standing outside, should cough. Someone sitting inside should also cough. Placing the robe on the robe-rack or robe-string, one should carefully and unhurriedly enter the toilet. One should not enter too hastily, nor should one enter jumping up. Standing on the toilet footrests, one should jump up. One should not defecate while groaning, nor should one defecate while chewing a tooth-stick, nor should one defecate outside the toilet bowl, nor should one urinate outside the urinal bowl, nor should one spit into the urinal bowl. One should not scrape with a split piece, a rough piece, a knotted piece, a thorny piece, a hollow piece, or a rotten piece of wood. There is no offense for one who has entered without taking a scraping stick. One should not drop the scraping stick into the toilet pit. Standing on the toilet footrests, one should cover oneself. One should not exit too hastily, nor should one exit jumping up. Standing on the rinsing footrests, one should jump up. One should not rinse making a ‘capu-capu’ sound, nor should one leave water remaining in the rinsing bowl. And this is said with reference to a common place. For there, different people come, therefore water should not be left remaining. But as for a place made for regular use in a secluded part of a Saṅgha’s monastery, or a private place, it is allowable. It is also allowable for one who has taken a purgative and enters repeatedly. Standing on the rinsing footrests, one should cover oneself.

193. Duties in the Restroom: One who goes to the restroom should clear their throat while standing outside and also while sitting inside. After placing the robe on the robe rack or robe cord, one should enter the restroom carefully without haste, not abruptly, and not by jumping. One should stand on the restroom sandals and not make noise while defecating, nor chew a toothpick while defecating, nor defecate outside the restroom tub, nor urinate outside the urinal tub, nor spit into the urinal tub. One should not scrape with a stick that is split, cracked, knotted, thorny, hollow, or rotten. However, there is no offense for one who has entered without taking a scraping stick. One should not throw the scraping stick into the restroom pit. One should cover oneself while standing on the restroom sandals, leave without haste, and not jump out. One should stand on the rinsing sandals and not rinse noisily, nor leave water in the rinsing bowl. This is stated with reference to a common place. There, others come and go, so water should not be left behind. However, in a place designated for personal use in a communal monastery, it is permissible. It is also permissible for one who has taken a purgative and enters repeatedly. One should cover oneself while standing on the rinsing sandals.

Sace vaccakuṭi uhatā hoti bahi vaccamakkhitā, udakaṃ āharitvā dhovitabbā. Udakaṃ atthi, bhājanaṃ natthi, asantaṃ nāma hoti. Bhājanaṃ atthi, udakaṃ natthi, etampi asantaṃ . Ubhayasmiṃ asati asantameva, kaṭṭhena vā kenaci vā puñchitvā gantabbaṃ. Sace avalekhanapiṭako pūrito hoti, avalekhanakaṭṭhaṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ. Sace kacavaraṃ atthi, vaccakuṭi sammajjitabbā, paribhaṇḍaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, pariveṇaṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, koṭṭhako sammajjitabbo. Sace ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ na hoti, ācamanakumbhiyā udakaṃ āsiñcitabbaṃ.

If the latrine is soiled with excrement outside, water should be brought and it washed. If there is water but no vessel, it is as if absent. If there is a vessel but no water, it is also absent. If both are absent, it is absent; it should be wiped with wood or something and one may go. If the wiping wood basket is full, the wiping wood should be discarded. If there is rubbish, the latrine should be swept, the surroundings swept, the courtyard swept, the storeroom swept. If there is no water in the washing jar, water should be poured into the washing jar.

If the toilet is soiled, with excrement smeared outside, water should be brought and it should be washed. If there is water, but no vessel, it is considered non-existent. If there is a vessel, but no water, this too is non-existent. If both are non-existent, it is truly non-existent. One should wipe with a piece of wood or something else and go. If the scraping-stick container is full, the scraping sticks should be thrown away. If there is rubbish, the toilet should be swept, the surrounding area should be swept, the area around should be swept, and the storeroom should be swept. If there is no water in the rinsing water pot, water should be poured into the rinsing water pot.

If the restroom has been moved and defecated outside, water should be fetched and the area washed. If there is water but no container, it is considered incomplete. If there is a container but no water, this is also incomplete. If both are lacking, it is entirely incomplete, and one should wipe with a stick or something else and leave. If the scraping stick container is full, the scraping stick should be discarded. If there is garbage, the restroom should be swept, the utensils should be swept, the dwelling should be swept, and the threshold should be swept. If there is no water in the rinsing pot, water should be poured into the rinsing pot.

“Na, bhikkhave, vaccaṃ katvā sati udake nācametabbaṃ, yo nācameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 373) vacanato udake sati udakakiccaṃ akarontassa āpatti. Sace udakaṃ atthi, paṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ pana natthi, bhājanena nīharitvā ācamitabbaṃ. Bhājane asati pattena nīharitabbaṃ, pattepi asati asantaṃ nāma hoti. “Idaṃ ativivaṭaṃ, purato aññaṃ udakaṃ bhavissatī”ti gatassa udakaṃ alabhantasseva bhikkhācāravelā hoti, kaṭṭhena vā kenaci vā puñchitvā gantabbaṃ, bhuñjitumpi anumoditumpi vaṭṭati. “Na, bhikkhave, vaccakuṭiyā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vacco kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āgatapaṭipāṭiyā vaccaṃ kātu”nti (cuḷava. 373) vacanato vaccakuṭiṃ pavisantena āgatapaṭipāṭiyā pavisitabbaṃ. Vaccakuṭiyaṃ passāvaṭṭhāne nahānatittheti tīsupi āgatapaṭipāṭiyeva pamāṇaṃ. Idaṃ vaccakuṭivattaṃ.

“Monks, one should not fail to wash after using the latrine when water is available; one who does not wash commits an offense of wrongdoing” (cūḷava. 373), thus there is an offense for not performing the water duty when water is available. If there is water but no private place, it should be taken out in a vessel and washed. If there is no vessel, it should be taken out with the bowl; if there is no bowl, it is as if absent. Thinking, “This is too exposed; there will be water ahead,” and going without finding water until alms time, one should wipe with wood or something and go; it is permissible to eat or give a blessing. “Monks, excrement should not be done in the latrine by seniority; one who does so commits an offense of wrongdoing. I allow, monks, excrement to be done in order of arrival” (cūḷava. 373), thus one should enter the latrine in order of arrival. In the latrine, at the urination spot, bathing spot, and ford, the order of arrival is the measure. This is the latrine duty.

Because of the statement, “Monks, having defecated, one should not fail to rinse when there is water; whoever does not rinse, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷava. 373), there is an offense for one who does not perform the water duty when there is water. If there is water, but no concealed place, one should bring it out in a vessel and rinse. If there is no vessel, one should bring it out with the bowl. If there is no bowl either, it is considered non-existent. If, thinking, “This is too exposed, there will be other water ahead,” one goes and does not find water, and the time for alms-round arrives, one should wipe with a piece of wood or something else and go. It is allowable to eat and to give the blessing. Because of the statement, “Monks, in the toilet, one should not defecate according to seniority; whoever does so, there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, to defecate in the order of arrival” (Cuḷava. 373), one entering the toilet should enter in the order of arrival. In the toilet, at the place for urination, and at the bathing place, in all three, the order of arrival is the standard. This is the toilet duty.

“Monks, one should not rinse without water after defecating. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrong conduct.” (Cūḷavagga 373) Thus, there is an offense for one who does not perform the water duty when water is available. If there is water but no private place, one should take the water in a container and rinse. If there is no container, one should take it in the alms bowl. If there is no bowl, it is considered incomplete. “This is too open; there will be water ahead,” but if one goes and does not find water, it is time for alms gathering. One should wipe with a stick or something else and leave. It is also permissible to eat or express appreciation. “Monks, one should not defecate in the restroom in a way that exceeds one’s seniority. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrong conduct. I allow, monks, defecation according to the order of arrival.” (Cūḷavagga 373) Thus, one should enter the restroom in the order of arrival. In the restroom, the place for urination and the place for bathing are also measured by the order of arrival. These are the duties in the restroom.

the Discourse on the Determination of the Duties of Preceptors and Others is concluded.

28. Catupaccayabhājanīyavinicchayakathā

28. Discourse on the Determination of the Distribution of the Four Requisites

28. Discussion on the Four Requisites and Their Containers

194. Catupaccayabhājananti cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājanaṃ. Tattha cīvarabhājane tāva cīvarapaṭiggāhako veditabbo, cīvaranidahako veditabbo, bhaṇḍāgāriko veditabbo, bhaṇḍāgāraṃ veditabbaṃ, cīvarabhājako veditabbo, cīvarabhājanaṃ veditabbaṃ.

194. Catupaccayabhājana means the distribution of the four requisites, such as robes. Herein, regarding the distribution of robes, the robe receiver should be understood, the robe storer should be understood, the storekeeper should be understood, the storeroom should be understood, the robe distributor should be understood, and the distribution of robes should be understood.

194. The distribution of the four requisites means the distribution of the four requisites, such as robes, etc. Here, in the distribution of robes, the robe-receiver should be known, the robe-depositor should be known, the storekeeper should be known, the storehouse should be known, the robe-distributor should be known, and the robe distribution should be known.

194. Containers for the Four Requisites: These are the containers for the four requisites, such as robes. Herein, regarding the robe container, one should know the robe receiver, the robe storer, the storeroom keeper, the storeroom, the robe distributor, and the robe container.

Tattha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 340-342) “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarapaṭiggāhakaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya, gahitāgahitañca jāneyyā”ti (mahāva. 342) vacanato imehi pañcahaṅgehi samannāgato cīvarapaṭiggāhako sammannitabbo. Tattha pacchā āgatānampi attano ñātakādīnaṃ paṭhamataraṃ paṭiggaṇhanto vā ekaccasmiṃ pemaṃ dassetvā gaṇhanto vā lobhapakatitāya attano pariṇāmento vā chandāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Paṭhamataraṃ āgatassapi kodhavasena pacchā gaṇhanto vā duggatamanussesu avamaññaṃ katvā gaṇhanto vā “kiṃ vo ghare ṭhapanokāso natthi, tumhākaṃ santakaṃ gahetvā gacchathā”ti evaṃ saṅghassa lābhantarāyaṃ karonto vā dosāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Yo pana muṭṭhassati asampajāno, ayaṃ mohāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Pacchā āgatānampi issarānaṃ bhayena paṭhamataraṃ paṭiggaṇhanto vā “cīvarapaṭiggāhakaṭṭhānaṃ nāmetaṃ bhāriya”nti santasanto vā bhayāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. “Mayā idañcidañca gahitaṃ, idañcidañca na gahita”nti evaṃ jānanto gahitāgahitaṃ jānāti nāma. Tasmā yo chandāgatiādivasena na gacchati, ñātakaaññātakaaḍḍhaduggatesu visesaṃ akatvā āgatapaṭipāṭiyā gaṇhāti, sīlācārapaṭipattiyutto hoti satimā medhāvī bahussuto, sakkoti dāyakānaṃ vissaṭṭhāya vācāya parimaṇḍalehi padabyañjanehi anumodanaṃ karonto pasādaṃ janetuṃ, evarūpo sammannitabbo.

Herein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 340-342), “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as a robe receiver: one who does not follow bias due to desire, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been taken and what has not” (mahāva. 342), thus a robe receiver endowed with these five qualities should be appointed. Herein, one who takes first for those arriving later, such as relatives, or shows favoritism to some, or directs it to himself out of greed, is said to follow bias due to desire. One who, out of anger, takes later even for those arriving first, or disdains poor people, or obstructs the community’s gain by saying, “What, is there no space in your homes? Take your own and go,” is said to follow bias due to malice. One who is forgetful and unaware is said to follow bias due to delusion. One who takes first for those arriving later out of fear of the powerful, or fears, “This role of robe receiver is burdensome,” is said to follow bias due to fear. One who knows, “I have taken this and that, and not taken this and that,” is said to know what has been taken and what has not. Therefore, one who does not follow bias due to desire and so forth, takes in order of arrival without distinction between relatives, non-relatives, rich, or poor, is endowed with virtue, conduct, and practice, is mindful, intelligent, and learned, and can inspire confidence in donors with refined speech and blessings, such a one should be appointed.

Here (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 340-342), because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk as robe-receiver who is endowed with five qualities: he should not go by desire, he should not go by aversion, he should not go by delusion, he should not go by fear, and he should know what has been received and what has not been received” (Mahāva. 342), a robe-receiver endowed with these five qualities should be appointed. Here, one who receives first for those who have come later, such as his own relatives, or one who shows affection to a certain person and receives, or one who diverts [the robes] to himself due to a nature of greed, is said to go by desire. One who receives later for one who has come earlier due to anger, or one who receives showing disrespect to poor people, or one who obstructs the Saṅgha’s gain, saying, “Don’t you have a place to keep [them] at home? Take what belongs to you and go,” is said to go by aversion. But one who is forgetful and not fully aware, this one is said to go by delusion. One who receives first for those who have come later due to fear of the powerful, or one who, being afraid, [thinks], “The position of robe-receiver is indeed burdensome,” is said to go by fear. One who knows, “I have received this and this, and I have not received this and this,” is said to know what has been received and what has not been received. Therefore, one who does not go due to desire and so on, who receives in the order of arrival without making distinctions between relatives and non-relatives, rich and poor, who is endowed with virtuous conduct and practice, mindful, wise, learned, and is able to generate confidence in the donors by giving a blessing with a clear voice and well-rounded words and expressions, such a one should be appointed.

There (Mahāvagga Aṭṭha. 340-342), “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as a robe receiver: one who does not act out of favoritism, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been received and what has not.” (Mahāvagga 342) Thus, a monk endowed with these five qualities should be appointed as the robe receiver. Herein, one who, out of affection, receives the robes of his relatives or others who arrive later first, or who shows favoritism to some, or who, due to greed, appropriates for himself, is said to act out of favoritism. One who, out of anger, receives the robes of those who arrive later first, or who despises the poor and takes their robes, or who, by saying, “Is there no place to store in your house? Take your own belongings and go,” causes loss to the Sangha, is said to act out of malice. One who is forgetful and lacks mindfulness is said to act out of delusion. One who, out of fear, receives the robes of those who arrive later first, or who, fearing, thinks, “This position of robe receiver is burdensome,” is said to act out of fear. One who knows, “This and that have been received, this and that have not,” is said to know what has been received and what has not. Therefore, one who does not act out of favoritism, malice, delusion, or fear, who receives robes in the order of arrival without discrimination between relatives, strangers, the rich, or the poor, who is virtuous, mindful, wise, learned, and capable of expressing gratitude to donors with clear and graceful words, should be appointed.

Evañca pana sammannitabbo. Paṭhamaṃ bhikkhu yācitabbo, yācitvā byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –

And he should be appointed thus: First, a monk should be requested; having requested, a competent monk should inform the community:

And he should be appointed in this way. First, the monk should be requested. Having requested, the Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and capable monk –

And he should be appointed as follows. First, a monk should be invited. After inviting, a competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha:

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarapaṭiggāhakaṃ sammanneyya, esā ñatti.

“Listen to me, venerables, if the community is ready, may the community appoint the monk named so-and-so as the robe receiver; this is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as robe-receiver. This is the announcement.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. If it is the right time for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the monk so-and-so as the robe receiver. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarapaṭiggāhakaṃ sammannati, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno cīvarapaṭiggāhakassa sammuti, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Listen to me, venerables, the community appoints the monk named so-and-so as the robe receiver; whoever approves of the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as robe receiver should remain silent; whoever does not approve should speak.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The Saṅgha appoints the monk named so-and-so as robe-receiver. Whichever venerable one approves of the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as robe-receiver, let him be silent. Whichever one does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. The Sangha appoints the monk so-and-so as the robe receiver. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to appoint the monk so-and-so as the robe receiver, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, they should speak.

“Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu cīvarapaṭiggāhako, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 342) –

“The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the community as the robe receiver; it is agreeable to the community, therefore silent; thus I hold it” (mahāva. 342) –

“The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the Saṅgha as robe-receiver. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. I hold it to be so” (Mahāva. 342) –

“The monk so-and-so has been appointed by the Sangha as the robe receiver. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I remember it.” (Mahāvagga 342) –

Iti imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Evaṃ sammatena ca vihārapaccante vā padhānaghare vā na acchitabbaṃ. Yattha pana āgatāgatā manussā sukhaṃ passanti, tādise dhuravihāraṭṭhāne bījaniṃ passe ṭhapetvā sunivatthena supārutena nisīditabbaṃ.

Thus, with this formal act or by informal agreement, it is permissible to appoint him within the monastery amidst the entire community or in a partial boundary. One so appointed should not stay at the monastery’s edge or in the meditation hall. In a central monastery where people come and go and can easily see, he should sit well-dressed and well-covered, placing a fan aside.

Thus, by this formal act of speech or by announcement, it is allowable to appoint even in the middle of the entire Saṅgha within the monastery, or even in a boundary-area. And one thus appointed should not stay in a remote part of the monastery or in the main building. But in a place where people coming and going see easily, in such a prominent monastery location, placing a fan on his side, well-dressed and well-covered, he should sit down.

Thus, by this motion or by informal agreement, it is permissible to appoint even within a divided boundary. Once appointed, one should not stay at the edge of the monastery or in a meditation hut. Wherever people come and go comfortably, one should sit in such a duty-residence, facing the seed, well-covered and well-clothed.

195. Cīvaranidahakopi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvaranidahakaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya, nihitānihitañca jāneyyā”ti vacanato pañcaṅgasamannāgato bhikkhu –

195. The robe storer too, “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as a robe storer: one who does not follow bias due to desire, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been stored and what has not” (mahāva. 342), thus a monk endowed with these five qualities –

195. The robe-depositor also, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk as robe-depositor who is endowed with five qualities: he should not go by desire, he should not go by aversion, he should not go by delusion, he should not go by fear, and he should know what has been deposited and what has not been deposited” (Mahāva. 342), a monk endowed with five qualities –

195. The Robe Storer: “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the robe storer: one who does not act out of favoritism, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been stored and what has not.” Thus, a monk endowed with these five qualities –

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvaranidahakaṃ sammanneyya, esā ñatti.

“Listen to me, venerables, if the community is ready, may the community appoint the monk named so-and-so as the robe storer; this is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as robe-depositor. This is the announcement.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. If it is the right time for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the monk so-and-so as the robe storer. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvaranidahakaṃ sammannati, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno cīvaranidahakassa sammuti, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Listen to me, venerables, the community appoints the monk named so-and-so as the robe storer; whoever approves of the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as robe storer should remain silent; whoever does not approve should speak.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The Saṅgha appoints the monk named so-and-so as robe-depositor. Whichever venerable one approves of the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as robe-depositor, let him be silent. Whichever one does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. The Sangha appoints the monk so-and-so as the robe storer. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to appoint the monk so-and-so as the robe storer, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, they should speak.

“Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu cīvaranidahako, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 342) –

“The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the community as the robe storer; it is agreeable to the community, therefore silent; thus I hold it” (mahāva. 342) –

“The monk named so-and-so has been appointed by the Saṅgha as robe-depositor. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. I hold it to be so” (Mahāva. 342) –

“The monk so-and-so has been appointed by the Sangha as the robe storer. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I remember it.” (Mahāvagga 342) –

Thus, with this formal act or by informal agreement, he should be appointed as stated.

Thus, by this formal act of speech or by announcement, he should be appointed in the manner already stated.

Thus, by this motion or by informal agreement, he should be appointed in the same manner.

196. Bhaṇḍāgārikopi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ bhaṇḍāgārikaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya, guttāguttañca jāneyyā”ti (mahāva. 343) vacanato pañcaṅgasamannāgato bhikkhu “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ bhaṇḍāgārikaṃ sammanneyyā”tiādinā (mahāva. 343) nayena kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā sammannitabbo.

196. The storekeeper too, “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as a storekeeper: one who does not follow bias due to desire, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what is protected and what is not” (mahāva. 343), thus a monk endowed with these five qualities should be appointed with, “Listen to me, venerables, if the community is ready, may the community appoint the monk named so-and-so as the storekeeper” and so forth (mahāva. 343), by formal act or informal agreement.

196. The storekeeper also, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk as storekeeper who is endowed with five qualities: he should not go by desire, he should not go by aversion, he should not go by delusion, he should not go by fear, and he should know what is protected and what is not protected” (Mahāva. 343), a monk endowed with five qualities, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as storekeeper,” etc., (Mahāva. 343) in this manner, by formal act of speech or by announcement, should be appointed.

196. The Storeroom Keeper: “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the storeroom keeper: one who does not act out of favoritism, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what is guarded and what is not.” (Mahāvagga 343) Thus, a monk endowed with these five qualities, “Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. If it is the right time for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the monk so-and-so as the storeroom keeper,” etc., (Mahāvagga 343) should be appointed by motion or by informal agreement.

Ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) ca yattha chadanādīsu koci doso natthi, taṃ guttaṃ. Yattha pana chadanatiṇaṃ vā chadaniṭṭhakā vā yattha katthaci patitā, yena ovassati vā, mūsikādīnaṃ vā paveso hoti, bhittiādīsu vā katthaci chiddaṃ hoti, upacikā vā uṭṭhahanti, taṃ sabbaṃ aguttaṃ nāma. Taṃ sallakkhetvā bhaṇḍāgārikena paṭisaṅkharitabbaṃ. Sītasamaye dvārañca vātapānañca supihitaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sītena hi cīvarāni kaṇṇakitāni honti. Uṇhasamaye antarantarā vātappavesanatthaṃ vivaritabbaṃ. Evaṃ karonto hi guttāguttaṃ jānāti nāma.

Herein (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), where there is no fault in the roof or the like, that is protected. Where the roofing grass or tiles have fallen somewhere, causing leaks, or where mice and the like can enter, or there are holes in the walls or elsewhere, or termites arise, all that is unprotected. Observing this, the storekeeper should repair it. In cold weather, doors and windows should be well-closed, for robes become dirty with cold. In hot weather, they should be opened occasionally for ventilation. Doing so, he is said to know what is protected and what is not.

Here (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), that where there is no fault in the roof and so on, that is protected. But that where the roofing grass or roofing tiles have fallen somewhere, through which it leaks, or where there is an entrance for mice and so on, or where there is a hole somewhere in the walls and so on, or where white ants are rising up, all that is called unprotected. Observing that, the storekeeper should repair it. In the cold season, the door and window should be well closed. For in the cold, robes become infested with insects. In the hot season, they should be opened from time to time for the entrance of air. One doing thus is said to know what is protected and what is not protected.

Herein (Mahāvagga Aṭṭha. 343), where there is no fault in the roofing, etc., it is considered guarded. Where the roofing grass or thatch has fallen somewhere, where water leaks, where rats, etc., enter, where there is a hole in the wall, etc., where termites arise, all this is considered unguarded. The storeroom keeper should repair this after noticing it. During the cold season, the doors and windows should be well-sealed. For the robes become moth-eaten in the cold. During the hot season, they should be opened occasionally to let in air. Thus, one who does so is said to know what is guarded and what is not.

197. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammannituṃ, yaṃ saṅgho ākaṅkhati vihāraṃ vā aḍḍhayogaṃ vā pāsādaṃ vā hammiyaṃ vā guhaṃ vā”ti (mahāva. 343) vacanato bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammannitvā ṭhapetabbaṃ. Ettha ca yo ārāmamajjhe ārāmikasāmaṇerādīhi avivitto sabbesaṃ samosaraṇaṭṭhāne vihāro vā aḍḍhayogo vā hoti, so sammannitabbo. Paccantasenāsanaṃ pana na sammannitabbaṃ. Imaṃ pana bhaṇḍāgāraṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ gantvā khaṇḍasīmāya nisinnehi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati. Vihāramajjheyeva “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammanneyyā”tiādinā (mahāva. 343) nayena kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā sammannitabbaṃ.

197. “I allow, monks, a storeroom to be appointed, whatever the community desires: a monastery, a half-roofed building, a mansion, a chamber, or a cave” (mahāva. 343), thus a storeroom should be appointed and established. Herein, a monastery or half-roofed building in the monastery’s center, accessible to all without separation from attendants or novices, should be appointed. A peripheral lodging should not be appointed. This storeroom should not be appointed by going to a partial boundary and sitting there; it should be appointed in the monastery’s midst with, “Listen to me, venerables, if the community is ready, may the community appoint the monastery named so-and-so as the storeroom” and so forth (mahāva. 343), by formal act or informal agreement.

197. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to appoint a storehouse, whichever the Saṅgha desires, a dwelling, a semi-detached house, a mansion, a multi-storied building, or a cave” (Mahāva. 343), a storehouse should be appointed and established. And here, whichever dwelling or semi-detached house is in the middle of the monastery, not secluded from the monastery workers, novices, and so on, in a place of assembly for all, that should be appointed. But a remote dwelling should not be appointed. But it is not allowable to go to a boundary-area and appoint this storehouse by those sitting in the boundary-area. Right in the middle of the dwelling, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the dwelling named so-and-so as a storehouse,” etc., (Mahāva. 343) in this manner, by formal act of speech or by announcement, it should be appointed.

197. “I allow, monks, to appoint a storeroom, whichever the Sangha wishes: a dwelling, a hall, a mansion, a cave.” (Mahāvagga 343) Thus, a storeroom should be appointed and established. Herein, a dwelling or hall in the middle of the monastery, where the monastery workers and novices gather, should be appointed. A remote lodging, however, should not be appointed. This storeroom should not be appointed by those sitting within a divided boundary after going to the divided boundary. It should be appointed in the middle of the monastery by motion or by informal agreement: “Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. If it is the right time for the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint this dwelling as the storeroom,” etc., (Mahāvagga 343).

Cīvarapaṭiggāhakādīhi pana tīhipi attano vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tattha cīvarapaṭiggāhakena tāva yaṃ yaṃ manussā “kālacīvara”nti vā “akālacīvara”nti vā “accekacīvara”nti vā “vassikasāṭika”nti vā “nisīdana”nti vā “paccattharaṇa”nti vā “mukhapuñchanacoḷa”nti vā denti, taṃ sabbaṃ ekarāsiṃ katvā missetvā na gaṇhitabbaṃ, visuṃ visuṃ katvāva gaṇhitvā cīvaranidahakassa tatheva ācikkhitvā dātabbaṃ. Cīvaranidahakenapi bhaṇḍāgārikassa dadamānena “idaṃ kālacīvaraṃ…pe… idaṃ mukhapuñchanacoḷa”nti ācikkhitvāva dātabbaṃ. Bhaṇḍāgārikenapi tatheva visuṃ visuṃ saññāṇaṃ katvā ṭhapetabbaṃ. Tato saṅghena “kālacīvaraṃ āharā”ti vutte kālacīvarameva dātabbaṃ…pe… “mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ āharā”ti vutte tadeva dātabbaṃ. Iti bhagavatā cīvarapaṭiggāhako anuññāto, cīvaranidahako anuññāto, bhaṇḍāgāriko anuññāto, bhaṇḍāgāraṃ anuññātaṃ, na bāhulikatāya, na asantuṭṭhitāya, apica kho saṅghānuggahāya. Sace hi āhaṭāhaṭaṃ gahetvā bhikkhū bhājeyyuṃ, neva āhaṭaṃ, na anāhaṭaṃ, na dinnaṃ, na adinnaṃ, na laddhaṃ, na aladdhaṃ jāneyyuṃ, āhaṭāhaṭaṃ therāsane vā dadeyyuṃ, khaṇḍākhaṇḍaṃ vā chinditvā gaṇheyyuṃ, evaṃ sati ayuttaparibhogo ca hoti, na ca sabbesaṃ saṅgaho kato hoti. Bhaṇḍāgāre pana cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā ussannakāle ekekassa bhikkhuno ticīvaraṃ vā dve dve vā ekekaṃ vā cīvaraṃ dassanti, laddhāladdhaṃ jānissanti, aladdhabhāvaṃ ñatvā saṅgahaṃ kātuṃ maññissantīti.

The robe receiver, storer, and storekeeper should each know their duties. Herein, the robe receiver should not take everything people give—whether labeled as “timely robes,” “untimely robes,” “urgent robes,” “rainy-season cloth,” “sitting cloth,” “sheet,” or “face-wiping cloth”—mixing them into one pile; he should take them separately, inform the robe storer accordingly, and give them. The robe storer, giving to the storekeeper, should also specify, “This is a timely robe… this is a face-wiping cloth,” and give them accordingly. The storekeeper should store them separately with labels. Then, when the community says, “Bring timely robes,” only timely robes should be given… when “Bring a face-wiping cloth” is said, only that should be given. Thus, the Blessed One allowed the robe receiver, the robe storer, the storekeeper, and the storeroom, not for excess or dissatisfaction, but for the community’s benefit. For if monks took and distributed as they pleased, they would not know what was taken or not, given or not, received or not; they might give to the senior seat indiscriminately or cut and take pieces, leading to improper use and not benefiting all. But storing robes in the storeroom, when abundant, they give each monk three robes, two each, or one each; they will know what is received or not, and, knowing what is not received, will think to benefit all.

But the robe-receiver and the other two should know their own duties. Here, the robe-receiver, whatever people give, saying, “seasonal robe,” or “non-seasonal robe,” or “urgent robe,” or “rains-cloth,” or “sitting cloth,” or “floor covering,” or “face-wiping cloth,” all that should not be collected making it into one heap and mixing it. Having collected it separately, he should inform the robe-depositor accordingly and give it. The robe-depositor also, when giving to the storekeeper, should inform him, saying, “This is a seasonal robe… etc. … this is a face-wiping cloth,” and give it. The storekeeper also should keep it separately, making a mark. Then, when the Saṅgha says, “Bring the seasonal robe,” only the seasonal robe should be given… etc. … 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-depositor was allowed, the storekeeper was allowed, and the storehouse was allowed, not for the sake of abundance, not for the sake of discontent, but for the sake of supporting the Saṅgha. For if the monks were to distribute whatever was brought, they would not know what was brought and what was not brought, what was given and what was not given, what was received and what was not received. They might give what was brought and what was not brought to the elders’ seat, or they might cut it into pieces and take it. When this happens, there is improper use, and the support of all is not accomplished. But keeping the robes in the storehouse, when they are piled up, they will give each monk three robes, or two each, or one robe each. They will know what has been received and what has not been received. Knowing the state of not having received, they will consider making support.

The robe receiver, etc., should know their respective duties. Herein, the robe receiver should not mix all the robes given by people, whether as seasonal robes, out-of-season robes, emergency robes, rain cloaks, sitting cloths, coverings, or face-wiping cloths, but should collect them separately and inform the robe storer accordingly. The robe storer, when giving to the storeroom keeper, should also inform him, “This is a seasonal robe… this is a face-wiping cloth.” The storeroom keeper should also store them separately with labels. 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 Blessed One allowed the robe receiver, the robe storer, the storeroom keeper, and the storeroom, not for indulgence or dissatisfaction, but for the benefit of the Sangha. For if the monks were to distribute robes haphazardly, they would not know what has been brought, what has not, what has been given, what has not, what has been received, what has not. They might give the brought robes to the senior monks’ seats or cut them into pieces and take them. In such a case, there would be improper use, and not all would be satisfied. However, when the robes are stored in the storeroom and distributed at the appropriate time, each monk will receive one set of three robes, or two sets, or one robe, and will know what has been received and what has not. Knowing what has not been received, they will think to make an effort to obtain it.

198. Cīvarabhājakovi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarabhājakaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya, bhājitābhājitañca jāneyyā”ti (mahāva. 343) vacanato pañcahaṅgehi samannāgatoyeva “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarabhājakaṃ sammanneyyā”ti(mahāva. 343) ādinā nayena kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā sammannitvā ṭhapetabbo.

198. Cīvarabhājakovi—From the statement, “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as a robe-distributor: one who does not act out of favoritism, does not act out of aversion, does not act out of delusion, does not act out of fear, and knows what has been distributed and what has not” (mahāva. 343), only one endowed with these five qualities should be appointed by a formal declaration or consultation, saying, “May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. If it seems proper to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint the monk named so-and-so as a robe-distributor” (mahāva. 343), and so forth.

198. As for the distributor of robes: “I allow, monks, the appointment of a monk as a distributor of robes who is endowed with five qualities: one who does not go by desire, does not go by aversion, does not go by delusion, does not go by fear, and knows what has been distributed and what has not” (Mahāvagga 343). Because of this, only one endowed with these five qualities should be appointed, after being formally designated by a formal act of the Sangha, such as announcing, “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint a monk named so-and-so as the distributor of robes” (Mahāvagga 343), or by a simple declaration.

198. Cīvarabhājaka “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as a distributor of robes: one who does not act out of favoritism, who does not act out of ill-will, who does not act out of delusion, who does not act out of fear, and who knows what has been distributed and what has not” (Mahāvagga 343). According to this statement, one endowed with these five qualities should be appointed by means of a formal motion or announcement: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, let the Sangha appoint the monk so-and-so as the distributor of robes” (Mahāvagga 343), and so on.

Ettha sabhāgānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ apāpuṇantampi mahagghacīvaraṃ dento chandāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Aññesaṃ vuḍḍhatarānaṃ pāpuṇantampi mahagghacīvaraṃ adatvā appagghaṃ dento dosāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Mohamūḷho cīvaradānavattaṃ ajānanto mohāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Mukharānaṃ navakānampi bhayena apāpuṇantaṃ eva mahagghaṃ cīvaraṃ dento bhayāgatiṃ gacchati nāma. Yo evaṃ na gacchati, sabbesaṃ tulābhūto pamāṇabhūto majjhatto, so sammannitabbo. Tenapi cīvaraṃ bhājentena paṭhamaṃ “idaṃ thūlaṃ, idaṃ saṇhaṃ, idaṃ ghanaṃ, idaṃ tanukaṃ, idaṃ paribhuttaṃ, idaṃ aparibhuttaṃ, idaṃ dīghato ettakaṃ, puthulato ettaka”nti evaṃ vatthāni vicinitvā “idaṃ ettakaṃ agghati, idaṃ ettaka”nti evaṃ agghaparicchedaṃ katvā sace sabbesaṃ ekekameva dasadasaagghanakaṃ pāpuṇāti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce pāpuṇāti, yaṃ nava vā aṭṭha vā agghati, taṃ aññena ekaagghanakena ca dviagghanakena ca saddhiṃ bandhitvā etena upāyena same paṭivīse ṭhapetvā kuso pātetabbo. Sace ekekassa dīyamāne cīvare divaso nappahoti, dasa dasa bhikkhū gaṇetvā dasa dasa cīvarapaṭivīse ekato bandhitvā bhaṇḍikaṃ katvā eko cīvarapaṭivīso ṭhapetabbo . Evaṃ ṭhapitesu cīvarapaṭivīsesu kuso pātetabbo. Tehipi bhikkhūhi puna kusapātaṃ katvā bhājetabbaṃ.

Here, one who gives an expensive robe to monks of the same faction even when it is not their due is said to act out of favoritism. One who does not give an expensive robe to other more senior monks when it is their due but gives a cheaper one is said to act out of aversion. One ignorant of the duty of robe-giving due to delusion is said to act out of delusion. One who, out of fear of outspoken novices, gives an expensive robe even when it is not their due is said to act out of fear. One who does not act thus, being impartial, a standard, and balanced to all, should be appointed. When distributing robes, he should first examine the cloths, saying, “This is coarse, this is fine, this is thick, this is thin, this is used, this is unused, this is so long, so wide,” and determine their value, saying, “This is worth so much, this so much.” If each can receive one worth ten, that is ideal. If not, a cloth worth nine or eight should be paired with one worth one or two, and in this way, equal shares should be set, and lots drawn. If distributing to each individually takes too long, count ten monks at a time, bundle ten robe-shares together into a package, and set one share aside. Lots should be drawn for these shares. Those monks should then draw lots again and distribute among themselves.

Herein, one who gives even costly robes that are not due to monks of his own group is said to go by desire. One who does not give costly robes that are due to others who are more senior, but gives inexpensive ones, is said to go by aversion. One who is foolishly ignorant of the practice of giving robes is said to go by delusion. One who, out of fear of even outspoken junior monks, gives costly robes that are not due to them, is said to go by fear. One who does not act in this way, who is balanced, a standard, and impartial to all, should be appointed. He, when distributing robes, should first examine the cloths, considering “This is coarse, this is fine, this is thick, this is thin, this has been used, this has not been used, this is so long, this is so wide.” Then, assessing their value by saying, “This is worth so much, this is worth so much,” if each monk is entitled to receive something worth ten, that is good. If not, then something worth nine or eight should be combined with something worth one or two, and in this way, equal shares should be established, and lots should be cast. If a single day is not sufficient for distributing the robes to each individual, then ten monks should be counted, and ten shares of robes should be bundled together, and one share of robes should be set aside. After the shares of robes have been set aside in this way, lots should be cast. The monks should then cast lots again among themselves and distribute them.

Here, giving an expensive robe to monks who are not entitled to it due to favoritism is called acting out of favoritism. Not giving an expensive robe to those who are entitled to it and instead giving a cheap one due to ill-will is called acting out of ill-will. Being deluded and not knowing the proper way to distribute robes is called acting out of delusion. Giving an expensive robe out of fear to those who are not entitled to it, such as talkative novices, is called acting out of fear. One who does not act in these ways, who is impartial, fair, and neutral, should be appointed. When distributing robes, the distributor should first examine the robes: “This is coarse, this is soft, this is thick, this is thin, this is used, this is unused, this is of such length, this is of such width.” Having determined their value, if each robe is worth ten units, that is good. If not, those worth nine or eight units should be combined with others worth one or two units to make them equal. Then, the lots should be drawn. If it is not possible to distribute the robes individually, ten monks should be grouped together, and ten shares of robes should be bundled into one lot. After arranging the lots, the drawing should take place. The monks should then draw lots again and distribute the robes.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 343) vacanato ye sāmaṇerā attissarā bhikkhusaṅghassa kattabbakammaṃ na karonti, uddesaparipucchāsu yuttā ācariyupajjhāyānaṃyeva vattapaṭivattaṃ karonti, aññesaṃ na karonti, etesaṃyeva upaḍḍhabhāgo dātabbo. Ye pana purebhattañca pacchābhattañca bhikkhusaṅghasseva kattabbakiccaṃ karonti, tesaṃ samako dātabbo. Idañca piṭṭhisamaye uppannena bhaṇḍāgāre ṭhapitena akālacīvareneva kathitaṃ, kālacīvaraṃ pana samakaṃyeva dātabbaṃ. Tatruppādavassāvāsikaṃ sammuñjanībandhanādi saṅghassa phātikammaṃ katvā gahetabbaṃ. Etañhettha sabbesaṃ vattaṃ. Bhaṇḍāgāracīvarepi sace sāmaṇerā āgantvā “bhante, mayaṃ yāguṃ pacāma, bhattaṃ pacāma, khajjakaṃ pacāma, appaharitaṃ karoma, dantakaṭṭhaṃ āharāma, raṅgachalliṃ kappiyaṃ katvā dema, kiṃ amhehi na kataṃ nāmā”ti ukkuṭṭhiṃ karonti, samabhāgova dātabbo. Etaṃyeva virajjhitvā karonti, yesañca karaṇabhāvo na paññāyati, te sandhāya vuttaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃ dātu”nti. Kurundiyaṃ pana “sace sāmaṇerā ’kasmā mayaṃ, bhante, saṅghakammaṃ na karoma, karissāmā’ti yācanti, samapaṭivīso dātabbo”ti vuttaṃ.

From the statement, “I allow, monks, half a share to be given to novices” (mahāva. 343), novices who rely on themselves, do not perform tasks for the Saṅgha of monks, are diligent in recitation and questioning only for their teachers and preceptors, and do not serve others, should receive only half a share. Those who perform tasks for the Saṅgha of monks before and after meals should receive an equal share. This applies to untimely robes placed in the storehouse during the back season; timely robes should be given equally. Robes arising from the rainy-season residence, such as brooms or bindings, should be taken after performing beneficial tasks for the Saṅgha—this is the duty of all here. Even with storehouse robes, if novices come and say, “Venerable sirs, we cook gruel, cook rice, cook edibles, clear weeds, bring tooth-wood, prepare dye-mats—what have we not done?” and make a fuss, they should receive an equal share. This was said regarding those who do so reluctantly or whose effort is unclear: “I allow, monks, half a share to be given to novices.” The Kurundiyaṃ says, “If novices request, saying, ‘Venerable sirs, why don’t we do Saṅgha tasks? We will do them,’ an equal share should be given.”

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, giving half a share to novices” (Mahāvagga 343), only to those novices who are independent, who do not perform the duties to be done for the Sangha of monks, who are engaged in study and questioning, and who perform the duties only for their teachers and preceptors, and not for others, should half a share be given. But to those who perform the duties to be done for the Sangha both before and after the meal, an equal share should be given. This has been stated with reference to non-seasonal cloth placed in the storehouse that has arisen at the time of the rains retreat; seasonal cloth, however, should be given equally. The produce of that [place] for residence during the rainy season, cleaning, binding, and other improvements for the Sangha should be done and taken. This is the duty of all here. Even with regard to the storehouse robes, if novices come and complain, “Venerable sirs, we cook the gruel, we cook the rice, we cook the sweetmeats, we prepare the greens, we bring the tooth-sticks, we make the dye-bark suitable, what have we not done?” an equal share should be given. If they fail to do this, and the extent of their actions is not evident, then it is with reference to them that it is said, “I allow, monks, giving half a share to novices.” In the Kurundi, however, it is said, “If the novices plead, ‘Why, venerable sirs, do we not perform the Sangha’s duties? We will do them,’ an equal share should be given.”

“I allow, monks, to give half-shares to novices” (Mahāvagga 343). According to this statement, those novices who are self-willed and do not perform duties for the Sangha, who are diligent in recitation and questioning under their teachers and preceptors but not under others, should be given only half-shares. However, those who perform duties for the Sangha both before and after meals should be given equal shares. This applies to robes stored in the storeroom that have arisen out of season. Seasonal robes, however, should be given equally. For those who have spent the rains residence, the Sangha’s maintenance work, such as repairing and binding, should be done before taking the robes. This is the rule for all. If novices come to the storeroom and say, “Venerable sirs, we prepare gruel, we prepare meals, we prepare snacks, we do light work, we bring toothwood, we prepare dye and give it,” and make a fuss, they should be given equal shares. If they do not do these things, and their role is not evident, it is said, “I allow, monks, to give half-shares to novices.” In Kurundiya, however, it is said, “If novices request, ‘Venerable sirs, why do we not perform Sangha duties? We will perform them,’ they should be given equal shares.”

Sace koci bhikkhu sakaṃ bhāgaṃ gahetvā satthaṃ labhitvā nadiṃ vā kantāraṃ vā uttaritvā disāpakkamitukāmo hoti, tassa “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uttarantassa sakaṃ bhāgaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 343) vacanato cīvaresu bhaṇḍāgārato bahi nīhaṭesu ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā bhikkhusaṅghe sannipatite cīvarabhājakena “imassa bhikkhuno koṭṭhāsena ettakena bhavitabba”nti takketvā nayaggāhena samabhāgena cīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ. Tulāya tulitamiva hi samasamaṃ dātuṃ na sakkā, tasmā ūnaṃ vā hotu adhikaṃ vā, evaṃ takkena nayena dinnaṃ sudinnaṃ. Neva ūnakaṃ puna dātabbaṃ, nātirittaṃ paṭiggaṇhitabbaṃ. Sace dasa bhikkhū honti, sāṭakāpi daseva, tesu eko dvādasa agghati, sesā dasagghanakā. Sabbesu dasagghanakavasena kuse pātite yassa bhikkhuno dvādasagghanako kuso pātito, tena yattakaṃ tasmiṃ paṭivīse adhikaṃ, tattakaṃ agghanakaṃ yaṃ kiñci attano santakaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ datvā so atirekabhāgo gahetabbo. Sace sabbesaṃ pañca pañca vatthāni pattāni, sesānipi atthi, ekekaṃ pana na pāpuṇāti, chinditvā dātabbāni.

If a monk takes his share, gets a caravan, crosses a river or wilderness, and wishes to depart for another region, from the statement, “I allow, monks, his share to be given to one crossing” (mahāva. 343), when robes are taken from the storehouse, the bell is rung, and the Saṅgha of monks gathers, the robe-distributor should estimate, “This monk’s portion should be this much,” and give an equal share by estimation. It cannot be given exactly equal as if weighed on a scale, so whether slightly less or more, what is given by estimation is well-given. Neither should a shortfall be given again nor an excess received. If there are ten monks and ten cloths, one worth twelve and the rest worth ten, and lots are drawn based on ten-worth value, the monk whose lot falls on the twelve-worth cloth should give something of his own allowable goods worth the excess to take that extra portion. If five cloths reach each and some remain but not enough for one each, they should be cut and given.

If a certain monk, having taken his share, and having obtained a knife, wishes to cross a river or a wilderness and go to another region, then because of the statement, “I allow, monks, giving his share to one who is crossing” (Mahāvagga 343), after the robes have been brought out of the storehouse, the bell should be rung, and when the Sangha of monks has assembled, the robe distributor should estimate, “This monk should have so much as his portion,” and give the robe with a fair share according to that calculation. For it is not possible to give exactly equal shares as if weighed on a scale. Therefore, whether it is less or more, when given in this way, according to that estimate and calculation, it is well given. What is less should not be given again, and what is excessive should not be accepted. If there are ten monks and also ten pieces of cloth, and among them one is worth twelve and the rest are worth ten, when the lots are cast on the basis of ten for all, whatever monk has the lot cast for the one worth twelve, he should give whatever suitable item of his own possession is equal to the excess in that share, and take that excess share. If each of them has received five cloths, and there are still others remaining, but not enough for each one, they should be cut and distributed.

If a monk, having taken his share and obtained a knife, crosses a river or a desert and wishes to depart, according to the statement, “I allow, monks, to give his own share to one who is departing” (Mahāvagga 343), when the robes have been brought out from the storeroom, a bell should be struck, and the Sangha should assemble. The robe distributor should calculate, “This monk’s share should be of such value,” and give the robe accordingly. It is not possible to give exactly equal shares as if weighed on a scale, so whether it is slightly less or more, it is well given. Neither should a lesser share be given again, nor should an excessive share be accepted. If there are ten monks, there should be ten robes. If one robe is worth twelve units and the rest are worth ten units, when the lots are drawn, the monk who draws the twelve-unit lot should take the excess value by giving something of his own, such as allowable goods. If each monk receives five robes and there are still some left, but not enough to give one more, they should be cut and distributed.

Chindantena ca aḍḍhamaṇḍalādīnaṃ vā upāhanatthavikādīnaṃ vā pahonakāni khaṇḍāni katvā dātabbāni. Heṭṭhimaparicchedena caturaṅgulavitthārampi anuvātappahonakāyāmaṃ khaṇḍaṃ katvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, aparibhogaṃ pana na kātabbaṃ. Sacepi ekassa bhikkhuno koṭṭhāse ekaṃ vā dve vā vatthāni nappahonti, tattha aññaṃ sāmaṇakaṃ parikkhāraṃ ṭhapetvā yo tena tussati, tassa taṃ bhāgaṃ katvā pacchā kusapāto kātabbo. Sace dasa dasa bhikkhū gaṇetvā vaggaṃ karontānaṃ eko vaggo na pūrati, aṭṭha vā nava vā honti, tesaṃ aṭṭha vā nava vā koṭṭhāsā “tumhe ime gahetvā visuṃ bhājethā”ti dātabbā. Evaṃ datvā pacchā kusapāto kātabbo.

When cutting, pieces suitable for half-moons, sandal bags, or similar should be made and given. Even a piece four fingers wide by the lower measure, sufficient along the warp, may be given, but unused cloth should not be made. If one monk’s portion lacks one or two cloths, place another monastic requisite there; if someone is satisfied with it, make that his share, and draw lots later. If counting ten monks per group and one group is incomplete—eight or nine—they should be given eight or nine portions, saying, “Take these and divide them separately.” After giving thus, lots should be drawn later.

And when cutting, pieces sufficient for half-moons and so forth, or for shoe straps and so forth, should be made and given. Even a piece four fingerbreadths wide in the lower dimension, long enough for an edge lining, is allowable to be made and given, but it should not be made unusable. Even if one or two cloths are not sufficient for a monk’s share, then another personal requisite of a novice should be set aside there, and whoever is satisfied with that, that should be made his share, and then the casting of lots should be done. If, when counting ten monks and making groups, one group is not complete, and there are eight or nine, then eight or nine shares should be given to them, saying, “You take these and distribute them separately.” After giving in this way, then the casting of lots should be done.

When cutting, pieces suitable for making sandals, bags, or other uses should be given. According to the lower limit, even a piece four fingers wide can be cut and given, but it should not be made unusable. If one or two robes are not enough for a monk’s share, another allowable item should be set aside, and the share should be adjusted to satisfy him. Later, the drawing of lots should be done. If, after grouping ten monks together, one group is not complete, having only eight or nine monks, their shares should be given, saying, “You take these and distribute them separately.” After giving, the drawing of lots should be done.

199. Idāni “aṭṭhimā, bhikkhave, mātikā cīvarassa uppādāya, sīmāya deti, katikāya deti, bhikkhāpaññattiyā deti, saṅghassa deti, ubhatosaṅghassa deti, vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa deti, ādissa deti, puggalassa detī”ti (mahāva. 379) cīvarānaṃ paṭilābhakhettadassanatthaṃ yā tā aṭṭha mātikā vuttā, tāsaṃ vasena vinicchayo veditabbo.

199. Now, to show the fields of robe acquisition, the eight bases are stated: “There are, monks, these eight bases for the arising of robes: he gives to the boundary, he gives by agreement, he gives by alms-designation, he gives to the Saṅgha, he gives to both Saṅghas, he gives to the Saṅgha that has completed the rains, he gives by designation, he gives to an individual” (mahāva. 379). The determination should be understood according to these eight bases.

199. Now, as for the statement “There are, monks, eight matrices for the arising of robes: one gives to the boundary, one gives by agreement, one gives by way of personal declaration, one gives to the Sangha, one gives to the Sangha of both (monks and nuns), one gives to the Sangha that has spent the rains, one gives designating, one gives to an individual” (Mahāvagga 379), a determination should be made according to these eight matrices, which were stated to show the fields for obtaining robes.

199. Now, “There are, monks, eight sources for the acquisition of robes: giving within a boundary, giving by agreement, giving by invitation, giving to the Sangha, giving to both Sanghas, giving to the Sangha after the rains, giving by designation, and giving to an individual” (Mahāvagga 379). To explain the fields of robe acquisition, these eight sources are mentioned, and their distinctions should be understood.

Tattha “sīmāya dammī”ti evaṃ sīmaṃ parāmasitvā dento sīmāya deti nāma. Evaṃ sīmāya dinnaṃ yāvatikā bhikkhū antosīmāgatā, tehi bhājetabbaṃ. Sīmā ca nāmesā khaṇḍasīmā upacārasīmā samānasaṃvāsasīmā avippavāsasīmā lābhasīmā gāmasīmā nigamasīmā nagarasīmā abbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmā janapadasīmā raṭṭhasīmā rajjasīmā dīpasīmā cakkavāḷasīmāti pannarasavidhā hoti. Tattha khaṇḍasīmā sīmākathāyaṃ vuttāva. Upacārasīmā nāma parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepena, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinnā hoti. Apica bhikkhūnaṃ dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānato pariyante ṭhitabhojanasālato vā nibaddhavasanaāvāsato vā thāmamajjhimassa purisassa dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ anto upacārasīmāti veditabbā. Sā pana āvāsesu vaḍḍhantesu vaḍḍhati, parihāyantesu parihāyati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “bhikkhūsupi vaḍḍhantesu vaḍḍhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tasmā sace vihāre sannipatitabhikkhūhi saddhiṃ ekābaddhā hutvā yojanasatampi pūretvā nisīdanti, yojanasatampi upacārasīmāva hoti, sabbesaṃ lābho pāpuṇāti. Samānasaṃvāsaavippavāsasīmādvayampi vuttameva. Lābhasīmā nāma neva sammāsambuddhena anuññātā, na dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi ṭhapitā, apica kho rājarājamahāmattā vihāraṃ kāretvā gāvutaṃ vā aḍḍhayojanaṃ vā yojanaṃ vā samantato paricchinditvā “ayaṃ amhākaṃ vihārassa lābhasīmā”ti nāmalikhitake thambhe nikhaṇitvā “yaṃ etthantare uppajjati, sabbaṃ amhākaṃ vihārassa demā”ti sīmā ṭhapenti, ayaṃ lābhasīmā nāma. Gāmanigamanagaraabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmāpi vuttā eva.

Here, one who gives saying, “I give to the sīmā,” specifying the boundary, is said to give to the boundary. What is given to the sīmā should be divided by all monks within that boundary. The sīmā is of fifteen types: sectional boundary, vicinity boundary, common-residence boundary, non-separation boundary, gain boundary, village boundary, town boundary, city boundary, inner boundary, water-toss boundary, region boundary, state boundary, kingdom boundary, island boundary, and world-system boundary. The sectional boundary is as stated in the boundary discussion. The vicinity boundary is defined by the enclosure of a fenced monastery or the space worthy of enclosure for an unfenced one. Moreover, it is understood as within two stone-throws of a strong average man from the regular gathering place of monks, the dining hall at the edge, or the fixed residence. It grows as residences increase and shrinks as they decrease. The Mahāpaccariyaṃ says, “It grows as monks increase too.” Thus, if monks gathered in a monastery sit together filling even a hundred yojanas, that hundred yojanas is the vicinity boundary, and the gain reaches all. The common-residence and non-separation boundaries are as stated. The gain boundary, neither permitted by the Fully Enlightened One nor established by the Dhamma compilers, is set by kings or officials who build a monastery, mark off a quarter yojana, half yojana, or yojana around it, erect inscribed pillars saying, “This is our monastery’s gain boundary,” and declare, “All arising within this we give to our monastery”—this is the gain boundary. The village, town, city, inner, and water-toss boundaries are as stated.

Therein, one who gives, referring to the boundary by saying, “I give to the boundary,” is said to give to the boundary. When given to the boundary in this way, it should be distributed by as many monks as are present within the boundary. And this boundary is of fifteen kinds: a partial boundary, a boundary of access, a boundary of common residence, a boundary of non-absence, a boundary of gain, a boundary of a village, a boundary of a market town, a boundary of a city, an inner boundary, a boundary of water-lifting, a boundary of a province, a boundary of a region, a boundary of a kingdom, an island boundary, and a world-system boundary. Therein, a partial boundary is as stated in the account of boundaries. A boundary of access is defined by the surrounding fence of a circumscribed monastery, or by the area suitable for a surrounding fence of an uncircumscribed one. Moreover, from the place of permanent assembly of the monks, the area within two stone-throws of a man of average strength from the dining hall situated at the edge or from the dwelling place where he resides regularly should be understood as the boundary of access. It increases as the dwellings increase, and decreases as they decrease. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is said, “It also increases as the monks increase.” Therefore, if the monks assembled in the monastery, being joined together, fill up even a hundred yojanas, even a hundred yojanas is the boundary of access; the gain belongs to all. The boundary of common residence and the boundary of non-absence have already been stated. A boundary of gain is not authorized by the Perfectly Enlightened One, nor established by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, but rather, kings or royal ministers, having built a monastery, delineate a surrounding area of a gāvuta, or half a yojana, or a yojana, and having set up pillars inscribed with the name, “This is the boundary of gain of our monastery,” they establish the boundary, saying, “Whatever arises within this area, we give all of it to our monastery.” This is called a boundary of gain. The boundaries of a village, a market town, a city, an inner area, and water-lifting have also been stated.

Here, giving within a boundary means giving after touching the boundary. Robes given in this way should be distributed among all monks within that boundary. Boundaries are of fifteen kinds: a broken boundary, an adjacent boundary, a shared residence boundary, a non-separation boundary, a gain boundary, a village boundary, a town boundary, a city boundary, an inner boundary, a water-boundary, a country boundary, a state boundary, a kingdom boundary, an island boundary, and a world-system boundary. Among these, the broken boundary is as explained in the discussion on boundaries. The adjacent boundary is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the suitable area around an unenclosed monastery. Moreover, the adjacent boundary is understood as the area within two stone-throws from the place where monks regularly gather, the dining hall, or the residence. This boundary expands or contracts as the residence grows or shrinks. The Mahāpaccariya states, “It expands as the monks increase.” Therefore, if monks sit together in a monastery, even filling a hundred leagues, the adjacent boundary extends a hundred leagues, and all gains reach them. The shared residence and non-separation boundaries are as explained. The gain boundary is not authorized by the Fully Enlightened One or established by the compilers of the Dhamma. However, kings or ministers, having built a monastery, demarcate an area of a league, half a league, or a league and a half around it, and set up boundary markers, declaring, “This is the gain boundary of our monastery. Whatever arises within this area belongs to our monastery.” This is called the gain boundary. The village, town, city, inner, and water-boundaries are as explained.

Janapadasīmā nāma kāsikosalaraṭṭhādīnaṃ anto bahū janapadā honti, tattha ekeko janapadaparicchedo janapadasīmā. Raṭṭhasīmā nāma kāsikosalādiraṭṭhaparicchedo. Rajjasīmā nāma “coḷabhogo keraḷabhogo”ti evaṃ ekekassa rañño āṇāpavattiṭṭhānaṃ. Dīpasīmā nāma samuddantena paricchinnamahādīpā ca antaradīpā ca. Cakkavāḷasīmā cakkavāḷapabbateneva paricchinnā. Evametāsu sīmāsu khaṇḍasīmāya kenaci kammena sannipatitaṃ saṅghaṃ disvā “ettheva sīmāya saṅghassa demī”ti vutte yāvatikā bhikkhū antokhaṇḍasīmāgatā, tehi bhājetabbaṃ. Tesaṃyeva hi taṃ pāpuṇāti, aññesaṃ sīmantarikāya vā upacārasīmāya vā ṭhitānampi na pāpuṇāti. Khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhite pana rukkhe vā pabbate vā ṭhitassa heṭṭhā vā pathavīvemajjhagatassa pāpuṇātiyeva. “Imissā upacārasīmāya saṅghassa dammī”ti dinnaṃ pana khaṇḍasīmāsīmantarikāsu ṭhitānampi pāpuṇāti. “Samānasaṃvāsasīmāya dammī”ti dinnaṃ pana khaṇḍasīmāsīmantarikāsu ṭhitānaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Avippavāsasīmālābhasīmāsu dinnaṃ tāsu sīmāsu antogatānaṃ pāpuṇāti. Gāmasīmādīsu dinnaṃ tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ abbhantare baddhasīmāya ṭhitānampi pāpuṇāti. Abbhantarasīmāudakukkhepasīmāsu dinnaṃ tattha antogatānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti. Janapadaraṭṭharajjadīpacakkavāḷasīmāsupi gāmasīmādīsu vuttasadisoyeva vinicchayo.

The region boundary is within regions like Kāsi or Kosala, where each regional division is a region boundary. The state boundary is the division of states like Kāsi or Kosala. The kingdom boundary is the domain of a king’s command, such as “Coḷa domain, Keraḷa domain.” The island boundary includes large islands and inner islands defined by the ocean’s edge. The world-system boundary is defined by the world-system mountain. In these boundaries, seeing the Saṅgha gathered for some act in a sectional boundary and saying, “I give to the Saṅgha in this boundary,” it should be divided by monks within that sectional boundary. It reaches only them, not those in the boundary’s interstices or vicinity boundary. It reaches one in a tree or mountain within the sectional boundary, below, or in the earth’s midst. Given saying, “I give to the Saṅgha in this vicinity boundary,” it reaches even those in the interstices of sectional boundaries. Given saying, “I give to the common-residence boundary,” it does not reach those in the interstices of sectional boundaries. Given to the non-separation or gain boundaries, it reaches those within those boundaries. Given to village boundaries or similar, it reaches even those in fixed boundaries within them. Given to inner or water-toss boundaries, it reaches only those within them. The same determination applies to region, state, kingdom, island, and world-system boundaries as to village boundaries.

A boundary of a province is the area of individual provinces within regions such as Kāsi and Kosala, where there are many provinces. A boundary of a region is the area of regions such as Kāsi and Kosala. A boundary of a kingdom is the area where the command of an individual king is effective, such as “the Coḷa territory, the Keraḷa territory.” An island boundary is the great islands and the intermediate islands surrounded by the ocean. A world-system boundary is that which is surrounded by the world-system mountain. Among these boundaries, when someone, seeing the Sangha assembled for some business in a partial boundary, says, “I give to the Sangha in this very boundary,” it should be distributed by as many monks as are present within the partial boundary. For it belongs to them only, and it does not belong even to those standing in an adjacent boundary or in a boundary of access. But it does belong to one standing on a tree or a mountain within a partial boundary, or to one situated below or in the middle of the earth. When it is given, saying, “I give to the Sangha of this boundary of access,” it belongs even to those standing in partial boundaries and adjacent boundaries. When it is given, saying, “I give to the boundary of common residence,” it does not belong to those standing in partial boundaries and adjacent boundaries. When given in boundaries of non-absence and boundaries of gain, it belongs to those included within those boundaries. When given in boundaries of villages and so forth, it belongs even to those standing in a bounded boundary within those boundaries. When given in inner boundaries and boundaries of water-lifting, it belongs only to those included therein. In boundaries of provinces, regions, kingdoms, islands, and world-systems, the determination is similar to that stated for boundaries of villages and so forth.

The country boundary refers to the internal divisions of countries like Kāsi and Kosala. The state boundary refers to the divisions of states like Kāsi and Kosala. The kingdom boundary refers to the territory under a king’s rule, such as the Chola or Kerala regions. The island boundary refers to large islands and small islands surrounded by the ocean. The world-system boundary is defined by the world-system’s surrounding mountains. Among these boundaries, if a Sangha gathers within a broken boundary and someone says, “I give this to the Sangha within this boundary,” the robes should be distributed among the monks within that broken boundary. Only they are entitled to it; those outside the boundary or within the adjacent boundary are not entitled. However, if one stands on a tree or a mountain within the broken boundary, the share reaches even the ground below. If one says, “I give this to the Sangha within this adjacent boundary,” the share reaches even those outside the broken boundary but within the adjacent boundary. If one says, “I give this within the shared residence boundary,” the share does not reach those outside the broken boundary. Gifts given within the non-separation or gain boundaries reach those within those boundaries. Gifts given within village boundaries reach those within those boundaries, even if they are within an inner boundary. Gifts given within inner or water-boundaries reach only those within those boundaries. The distinctions for country, state, kingdom, island, and world-system boundaries are similar to those for village boundaries.

Sace pana jambudīpe ṭhito “tambavaṇṇidīpe saṅghassa dammī”ti vadati, tambapaṇṇidīpato ekopi āgantvā sabbesaṃ gaṇhituṃ labhati. Sacepi tatreva eko sabhāgabhikkhu sabhāgānaṃ bhāgaṃ gaṇhāti, na vāretabbo. Evaṃ tāva yo sīmaṃ parāmasitvā deti, tassa dāne vinicchayo veditabbo. Yo pana “asukasīmāya”nti vattuṃ na jānāti, kevalaṃ “sīmā”ti vacanamattameva jānanto vihāraṃ āgantvā “sīmāya dammī”ti vā “sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghassa dammī”ti vā bhaṇati, so pucchitabbo “sīmā nāma bahuvidhā, katarasīmaṃ sandhāya bhaṇasī”ti. Sace vadati “ahaṃ ’asukasīmā’ti na jānāmi, sīmaṭṭhakasaṅgho bhājetvā gaṇhatū”ti, katarasīmāya bhājetabbaṃ? Mahāsīvatthero kirāha “avippavāsasīmāyā”ti. Tato naṃ āhaṃsu “avippavāsasīmā nāma tiyojanāpi hoti, evaṃ sante tiyojane ṭhitā lābhaṃ gaṇhissanti, tiyojane ṭhatvā āgantukavattaṃ pūretvā ārāmaṃ pavisitabbaṃ bhavissati, gamiko tiyojanaṃ gantvā senāsanaṃ āpucchissati, nissayappaṭipannassa tiyojanātikkame nissayo paṭippassambhissati, pārivāsikena tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapetabbaṃ bhavissati, bhikkhuniyā tiyojane ṭhatvā ārāmappavesanaṃ āpucchitabbaṃ bhavissati, sabbampetaṃ upacārasīmāparicchedavaseneva kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā upacārasīmāya bhājetabba”nti.

If one standing in Jambudīpa says, “I give to the Saṅgha in Tambapaṇṇidīpa,” even one monk from there can come and take for all, and if one similar monk takes a share for similars, he should not be stopped. Thus, the determination of giving specifying a boundary should be understood. One who does not know to say “to this boundary” but only says “to the boundary” or “to the Saṅgha in the boundary,” coming to a monastery, should be asked, “Boundaries are many—what boundary do you mean?” If he says, “I don’t know ‘this boundary’—let the Saṅgha in the boundary divide and take,” which boundary should divide it? Elder Mahāsīva reportedly said, “The non-separation boundary.” They replied, “The non-separation boundary can be three yojanas. If so, those three yojanas away would take the gain, perform guest duties three yojanas away to enter the monastery, a traveler would ask for lodging three yojanas away, a dependent’s support would lapse beyond three yojanas, a monk under probation would raise the dawn three yojanas away, a nun would ask to enter the monastery from three yojanas—all this should be done by the vicinity boundary’s limit, so it should be divided by the vicinity boundary.”

But if someone, standing in Jambudīpa, says, “I give to the Sangha in Tambapaṇṇi Island,” even one person coming from Tambapaṇṇi Island is entitled to take for all. Even if one fellow monk there takes the share of his fellows, he should not be prevented. Thus, the determination should be understood in the gift of one who gives referring to the boundary. But one who does not know how to say “in such-and-such a boundary,” and only knows the mere word “boundary,” coming to the monastery and saying, “I give to the boundary,” or “I give to the Sangha dwelling in the boundary,” should be asked, “There are many kinds of boundaries; referring to which boundary are you speaking?” If he says, “I do not know ‘such-and-such a boundary,’ let the Sangha dwelling in the boundary distribute and take,” in which boundary should it be distributed? The elder Mahāsiva said, “In the boundary of non-absence.” Then they said to him, “The boundary of non-absence is even three yojanas. If that is so, those standing within three yojanas will take the gain. Having stood within three yojanas, they will have to fulfill the duty of a visitor and enter the monastery. A traveler will ask leave of absence for the dwelling place after going three yojanas. The nissaya of one who has undertaken dependence will be remitted upon exceeding three yojanas. A probationer will have to make the dawn break after exceeding three yojanas. A bhikkhunī will have to ask leave for entering the monastery after standing within three yojanas. All this is allowable to be done only according to the definition of the boundary of access. Therefore, it should be distributed in the boundary of access.”

If someone in Jambudīpa says, “I give this to the Sangha in Tambapaṇṇidīpa,” even one monk coming from Tambapaṇṇidīpa can take the share for all. Even if one monk there takes the share for his companions, he should not be prevented. Thus, the distinctions for one who gives after touching the boundary should be understood. If someone does not know how to say, “within such and such a boundary,” but only knows the word “boundary,” and comes to the monastery and says, “I give this within the boundary” or “I give this to the Sangha within the boundary,” he should be asked, “Boundaries are of many kinds; which boundary do you mean?” If he says, “I do not know which boundary; let the Sangha within the boundary distribute it,” which boundary should be used? The elder Mahāsīva said, “The non-separation boundary.” Then they said to him, “The non-separation boundary can be three leagues wide. If so, those standing three leagues away will receive the gain. One will have to fulfill the duties of a newcomer after traveling three leagues to enter the monastery. A traveler will have to inform the monastery after traveling three leagues. The dependence of one under training will cease if he travels beyond three leagues. A probationer will have to rise before dawn after traveling three leagues. A nun will have to inform the monastery after standing three leagues away. All this should be done according to the extent of the adjacent boundary. Therefore, the distribution should be done within the adjacent boundary.”

200. Katikāya detīti ettha pana katikā nāma samānalābhakatikā. Tatrevaṃ katikā kātabbā, ekasmiṃ vihāre sannipatitehi bhikkhūhi yaṃ vihāraṃ saṅgaṇhitukāmā samānalābhaṃ kātuṃ icchanti , tassa nāmaṃ gahetvā “asuko nāma vihāro porāṇako”ti vā “buddhādhivuttho”ti vā “appalābho”ti vā ya kiñci kāraṇaṃ vatvā “taṃ vihāraṃ iminā vihārena saddhiṃ ekalābhaṃ kātuṃ saṅghassa ruccatī”ti tikkhattuṃ sāvetabbaṃ. Ettāvatā tasmiṃ vihāre nisinnopi idha nisinnova hoti. Tasmiṃ vihārepi saṅghena evameva kātabbaṃ. Ettāvatā idha nisinnopi tasmiṃ nisinnova hoti. Ekasmiṃ vihāre lābhe bhājiyamāne itarasmiṃ ṭhitassa bhāgaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ ekena vihārena saddhiṃ bahūpi āvāsā ekalābhā kātabbā. Evañca kate ekasmiṃ āvāse dinne sabbattha dinnaṃ hoti.

200. Gives by agreement—Here, an agreement is a common-gain agreement. It should be made thus: monks gathered in one monastery, wishing to unite another monastery for common gain, take its name and say, for some reason like “This monastery named so-and-so is ancient,” “Buddha-inhabited,” or “of little gain,” “Does it please the Saṅgha to make that monastery share gain with this one?” and announce it thrice. By this, one seated there is as if seated here. The Saṅgha in that monastery should do the same. By this, one seated here is as if seated there. When gain is divided in one monastery, one in the other may take a share. Thus, many residences can be united with one for common gain. When done so, giving to one residence means giving to all.

200. As for “gives by agreement”: here, an agreement is an agreement for equal gain. In this case, the agreement should be made as follows: When the monks assembled in one monastery wish to make an agreement for equal gain with another monastery, they should take the name of that monastery and state some reason, such as, “The monastery named so-and-so is old,” or “It was inhabited by the Buddha,” or “It has little gain,” and say, “It is agreeable to the Sangha to make this monastery have equal gain with that monastery,” and this should be announced three times. By this much, even one residing in that monastery is as if residing here. In that monastery also, the Sangha should do likewise. By this much, even one residing here is as if residing there. When gain is being distributed in one monastery, it is allowable to take the share of one residing in the other. In this way, many dwellings should be made to have equal gain with one monastery. And when this has been done, when something is given in one dwelling, it is as if given in all.

200. Giving by agreement refers here to an agreement for shared gains. The agreement should be made as follows: When monks gather in one monastery and wish to make a shared gain with another monastery, they should take its name and say, “The such-and-such monastery is ancient” or “It was inhabited by the Buddha” or “It is poor,” and so on, and then announce three times, “The Sangha agrees to make this monastery’s gain shared with that monastery.” By this, those sitting in that monastery are considered as sitting here. The same should be done in that monastery. By this, those sitting here are considered as sitting there. When gains are distributed in one monastery, those in the other monastery are entitled to a share. In this way, many residences can be made to share gains with one monastery. When one residence is given, it is considered given everywhere.

201. Bhikkhāpaññatti nāma attano pariccāgapaññāpanaṭṭhānaṃ, yattha saṅghassa dhuvakārā karīyanti. Ettha ca yasmiṃ vihāre imassa cīvaradāyakassa santakaṃ saṅghassa pākavaṭṭaṃ vā vattati, yasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhū attano bhāraṃ katvā sadā gehe bhojeti, yattha vā tena āvāso kārito, salākabhattādīni vā nibaddhāni, ime dhuvakārā nāma. Yena pana sakalopi vihāro patiṭṭhāpito, tattha vattabbameva natthi, tasmā sace so “yattha mayhaṃ dhuvakārā karīyanti, tattha dammī”ti vā “tattha dethā”ti vā bhaṇati, bahūsu cepi ṭhānesu dhuvakārā honti, sabbattha dinnameva hoti. Sace pana ekasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhū bahutarā honti, tehi vattabbaṃ “tumhākaṃ dhuvakāre ekattha bhikkhū bahū, ekattha appakā”ti. Sace “bhikkhugaṇanāya gaṇhathā”ti bhaṇati, tathā bhājetvā gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Ettha ca vatthabhesajjādi appakampi sukhena bhājīyati. Yadi pana mañco vā pīṭhaṃ vā ekameva hoti, taṃ pucchitvā yassa vihārassa, ekavihārepi vā yassa senāsanassa so vicāreti, tattha dātabbaṃ. Sacepi “asukabhikkhu gaṇhatū”ti vadati, vaṭṭati. Atha “mayhaṃ dhuvakāre dethā”ti vatvā avicāretvā gacchati, saṅghassapi vicāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ pana vicāretabbaṃ, “saṅghattherassa vasanaṭṭhāne dethā”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace tattha senāsanaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti, yattha nappahoti, tattha dātabbaṃ. Sace eko bhikkhu “mayhaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne senāsanaparibhogabhaṇḍaṃ natthī”ti vadati, tattha dātabbaṃ.

201. Bhikkhāpaññatti is the place of one’s alms designation, where regular services are performed for the Saṅgha. Here, in a monastery where this robe-giver’s property serves the Saṅgha regularly, where monks take on their responsibility and always feed them at home, where he built a residence, or where ticket meals or similar are fixed—these are regular services. For one who established an entire monastery, nothing need be said. Thus, if he says, “I give where my regular services are performed,” or “Give there,” even if regular services are in many places, it is given everywhere. If one monastery has more monks, they should say, “Your regular services have many monks in one place, few in another.” If he says, “Take by monk count,” it may be divided and taken so. Here, cloth, medicine, or little things are easily divided. If there is only one bed or stool, ask which monastery or lodging within one monastery he considers, and give it there. If he says, “Let this monk take,” it is allowable. If he says, “Give to my regular services,” and leaves without deciding, the Saṅgha may decide. It should be said, “Give to the Saṅgha elder’s lodging.” If that lodging is full, give where it is insufficient. If one monk says, “My lodging lacks usable goods,” give there.

201. “Personal declaration” is the place of announcing one’s relinquishment, where permanent arrangements for the Sangha are made. And here, in whichever monastery there is a regular offering for the Sangha from this robe-giver, or in whichever monastery the monks, taking it as their responsibility, always feed him in his house, or where a dwelling has been built by him, or where alms-bowls and so forth have been established, these are called permanent arrangements. As for the case where the entire monastery has been established by him, there is nothing to be said. Therefore, if he says, “I give where my permanent arrangements are made,” or “Give there,” and there are permanent arrangements in many places, it is as if given in all. But if in one monastery there are more monks, they should be told, “In your permanent arrangement, in one place there are many monks, in another place there are few.” If he says, “Take according to the number of monks,” it is allowable to distribute and take accordingly. And here, cloth, medicine, and so forth, even a small amount, are easily distributed. But if there is only one couch or seat, then having asked whose monastery it belongs to, or in a single monastery, whose dwelling place he manages, it should be given there. Even if he says, “Let such-and-such a monk take it,” it is allowable. But if he says, “Give in my permanent arrangement,” and goes away without deciding, it is allowable for the Sangha to decide. But it should be decided as follows: “It should be given in the dwelling place of the Sangha elder.” If the dwelling place there is full, it should be given where it is not sufficient. If one monk says, “In my dwelling place there is no dwelling-place equipment,” it should be given there.

201. Giving by invitation refers to the place where one declares one’s relinquishment, where the Sangha’s regular duties are performed. Here, if in a monastery there is a regular alms tour for the Sangha supported by the robe donor, or if monks there regularly provide meals to households, or if the residence was built by the donor, or if there are regular offerings like ticket meals, these are called regular duties. If the entire monastery was established by the donor, there is no need to say anything. Therefore, if the donor says, “I give this to the place where my regular duties are performed” or “Give it there,” even if there are many such places, it is considered given everywhere. If in one monastery there are more monks, they should be told, “In your regular duties, there are many monks in one place and few in another.” If they say, “Distribute it according to the number of monks,” it should be distributed accordingly. Here, even a small amount of cloth or medicine can be easily distributed. If there is only one bed or bench, it should be asked which monastery or which dwelling it belongs to, and it should be given there. If they say, “Let such-and-such monk take it,” it is allowed. If they say, “Give it to my regular duties” and leave without specifying, the Sangha can decide. The decision should be made as follows: “Give it to the senior monk’s dwelling.” If the dwelling is full, it should be given where there is space. If a monk says, “I have no bedding or furniture in my dwelling,” it should be given there.

202. Saṅghassa detīti ettha pana sace vihāraṃ pavisitvā “imāni cīvarāni saṅghassa dammī”ti deti, upacārasīmāya ṭhitena saṅghena ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā kālaṃ ghosetvā bhājetabbāni, sīmaṭṭhakassa asampattassapi bhāgaṃ gaṇhanto na vāretabbo. Vihāro mahā hoti, therāsanato paṭṭhāya vatthesu dīyamānesu alasajātikā mahātherā pacchā āgacchanti, “bhante, vīsativassānaṃ dīyati, tumhākaṃ ṭhitikā atikkantā”ti na vattabbā, ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā tesaṃ datvā pacchā ṭhitibhāya dātabbaṃ. “Asukavihāre kira bahu cīvaraṃ uppanna”nti sutvā yojanantarikavihāratopi bhikkhū āgacchanti, sampattasampattānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya dātabbaṃ, asampattānampi upacārasīmaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ antevāsikādīsu gaṇhantesu dātabbameva. “Bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhitānaṃ dethā”ti vadanti, na dātabbaṃ. Sace pana upacārasīmaṃ okkantehi ekābaddhā hutvā attano vihāradvāre vā antovihāreyeva vā honti, parisavasena vaḍḍhitā nāma sīmā hoti, tasmā dātabbaṃ. Saṅghanavakassa dinnepi pacchā āgatānaṃ dātabbameva. Dutiyabhāge pana therāsanaṃ āruḷhe āgatānaṃ paṭhamabhāgo na pāpuṇāti, dutiyabhāgato vassaggena dātabbaṃ.

202. Gives to the Saṅgha—If he enters a monastery and says, “I give these robes to the Saṅgha,” the Saṅgha within the vicinity boundary should ring the bell, announce the time, and divide them. Even one not arriving in the boundary taking a share should not be stopped. If the monastery is large and great elders of lazy nature arrive late while robes are given from the senior seat, do not say, “Venerable sirs, it’s given to those with twenty years—your standing is passed.” Set aside standing, give to them, then give by standing order. Hearing, “Much robe-material arose in that monastery,” monks come from a yojana away—they should be given from their arrival point. Even for non-arrivers entering the vicinity boundary, if pupils or similar take, it should be given. If they say, “Give to those outside the vicinity boundary,” do not give. If those entering the vicinity boundary are continuous at their monastery gate or within, the boundary grows by assembly, so it should be given. Even if given to the Saṅgha novice, give to latecomers too. In a second share, those arriving after the senior seat is taken do not get the first share—give from the second by seniority.

202. As for “gives to the Sangha”: here, if, having entered the monastery, he gives, saying, “I give these robes to the Sangha,” then the Sangha standing in the boundary of access, having rung the bell and announced the time, should distribute them. One taking the share even of one who dwells in the boundary but has not arrived should not be prevented. If the monastery is large, and when the cloths are being given starting from the elder’s seat, the senior elders of lazy nature come later, they should not be told, “Venerable sirs, it is being given to those of twenty years standing; your standing has passed.” Having set aside the standing, it should be given to them, and then it should be given according to standing. When monks from a monastery a yojana away hear, “In such-and-such a monastery, much cloth has arisen,” it should be given starting from the place where those who have arrived have stood, and even to those who have not arrived but have entered the boundary of access, when their attendants and others take, it should indeed be given. If they say, “Give to those standing outside the boundary of access,” it should not be given. But if, having entered the boundary of access, they are joined together at the gate of their own monastery or even within the monastery, the boundary is said to be increased by the assembly; therefore, it should be given. Even when it has been given to the Sangha novice, it should be given to those who come later. But in the second part, when the elder’s seat has been reached, the first part does not belong to those who have come; it should be given according to the years of seniority from the second part.

202. Giving to the Sangha means that if one enters the monastery and says, “I give these robes to the Sangha,” the Sangha within the adjacent boundary should strike the bell, announce the time, and distribute the robes. Even if the boundary Sangha has not arrived, they should not be prevented from taking their share. If the monastery is large, and the senior monks come late when the robes are being distributed, they should not be told, “Venerable sirs, robes are being given to those of twenty years’ standing; your turn has passed.” Their turn should be set aside, and they should be given later. If monks hear, “There is a large amount of robes in such-and-such monastery,” they may come from monasteries a league away. Those who arrive should be given from their place of residence; those who have not arrived but have entered the adjacent boundary should also be given, even if their pupils or attendants take the share. If they say, “Give to those outside the adjacent boundary,” it should not be given. However, if they enter the adjacent boundary and stay together at the monastery gate or inside the monastery, the boundary is considered expanded, and they should be given. Even if given to the Sangha’s novices, those who arrive later should also be given. In the second round, if senior monks arrive after the first round, they should be given from the second round onwards.

Ekasmiṃ vihāre dasa bhikkhū honti, dasa vatthāni “saṅghassa demā”ti denti, pāṭekkaṃ bhājetabbāni. Sace “sabbāneva amhākaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti gahetvā gacchanti, duppāpitāni ceva duggahitāni ca, gatagataṭṭhāne saṅghikāneva honti. Ekaṃ pana uddharitvā “idaṃ tumhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti saṅghattherassa pāpetvā “sesāni amhākaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Ekameva vatthaṃ “saṅghassa demā”ti āharanti, abhājetvāva “amhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gaṇhanti, duppāpitañceva duggahitañca. Satthakena vā haliddiādinā vā lekhaṃ katvā ekakoṭṭhāsaṃ “idaṃ ṭhānaṃ tumhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti saṅghattherassa pāpetvā “sesaṃ amhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana vatthasseva pupphaṃ vā vali vā, tena paricchedaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace ekaṃ tantaṃ uddharitvā “idaṃ ṭhānaṃ tumhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti therassa datvā “sesaṃ amhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gaṇhanti, vaṭṭati. Khaṇḍaṃ khaṇḍaṃ chinditvā bhājiyamānaṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

In one monastery with ten monks, if ten cloths are given saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” divide them individually. If they take them saying, “All reach us,” they are ill-reached and ill-taken—wherever they go, they remain Saṅgha property. Extracting one, giving it to the Saṅgha elder saying, “This reaches you,” and taking the rest saying, “The rest reach us,” is allowable. If one cloth is brought saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” taking it without dividing, saying, “It reaches us,” is ill-reached and ill-taken. Marking it with a knife or turmeric and giving part to the Saṅgha elder saying, “This part reaches you,” then taking the rest saying, “The rest reaches us,” is allowable. Dividing by the cloth’s flower or crease is not allowable. Extracting one thread and giving it to the elder saying, “This part reaches you,” then taking the rest saying, “The rest reaches us,” is allowable. Dividing piece by piece is certainly allowable.

If in one monastery there are ten monks, and ten cloths are given, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” they should be distributed individually. If they take them, saying, “All of them belong to us,” they are wrongly given and wrongly taken, and they become Sangha property in whatever place they go. But it is allowable to take one and make it belong to the Sangha elder, saying, “This belongs to you,” and to take the rest, saying, “These belong to us.” If only one cloth is brought, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” and they take it without distributing it, saying, “It belongs to us,” it is wrongly given and wrongly taken. But it is allowable to make a mark with a knife or with turmeric and so forth, and make one portion belong to the Sangha elder, saying, “This place belongs to you,” and to take the rest, saying, “The rest belongs to us.” But it is not allowable to make a division with a flower or a fold of the cloth itself. If they take out one thread and give it to the elder, saying, “This place belongs to you,” and take the rest, saying, “The rest belongs to us,” it is allowable. It is indeed allowable to distribute it after cutting it into pieces.

If there are ten monks in a monastery and ten robes are given to the Sangha, they should be distributed individually. If they take all the robes, saying, “All these belong to us,” they are improperly taken and improperly handled, and they remain Sangha property wherever they go. However, one robe can be set aside, saying, “This belongs to you,” and given to the senior monk, and the rest can be taken, saying, “These belong to us.” If one robe is brought, saying, “We give this to the Sangha,” and they take it without distributing it, it is improperly taken and improperly handled. A mark can be made with a knife or turmeric, and one portion can be given to the senior monk, saying, “This portion belongs to you,” and the rest can be taken, saying, “The rest belongs to us.” However, it is not allowed to use a flower or a fold of the robe to mark the division. If one thread is taken out and given to the senior monk, saying, “This part belongs to you,” and the rest is taken, saying, “The rest belongs to us,” it is allowed. Cutting the robe into pieces and distributing it is also allowed.

Ekabhikkhuke vihāre saṅghassa cīvaresu uppannesu sace pubbe vuttanayeneva so bhikkhu “sabbāni mayhaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti gaṇhāti, suggahitāni , ṭhitikā pana na tiṭṭhati. Sace ekekaṃ uddharitvā “idaṃ mayhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gaṇhāti, ṭhitikā tiṭṭhati. Tattha aṭṭhitāya ṭhitikāya puna aññasmiṃ cīvare uppanne sace eko bhikkhu āgacchati, majjhe chinditvā dvīhipi gahetabbaṃ. Ṭhitāya ṭhitikāya puna aññasmiṃ cīvare uppanne sace navakataro āgacchati, ṭhitikā heṭṭhā orohati. Sace vuḍḍhataro āgacchati, ṭhitikā uddhaṃ ārohati. Atha añño natthi, puna attano pāpetvā gahetabbaṃ. “Saṅghassa demā”ti vā “bhikkhusaṅghassa demā”ti vā yena kenaci ākārena saṅghaṃ āmasitvā dinnaṃ pana paṃsukūlikānaṃ na vaṭṭati “gahapaticīvaraṃ paṭikkhipāmi, paṃsukūlikaṅgaṃ samādiyāmī”ti vuttattā, na pana akappiyattā. Bhikkhusaṅghena apaloketvā dinnampi na gahetabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana bhikkhu attano santakaṃ deti, taṃ bhikkhudattiyaṃ nāma vaṭṭati, paṃsukūlaṃ pana na hoti. Evaṃ santepi dhutaṅgaṃ na bhijjati. “Bhikkhūnaṃ dema, therānaṃ demā”ti vutte pana paṃsukūlikānampi vaṭṭati, “idaṃ vatthaṃ saṅghassa dema, iminā upāhanatthavikapattatthavikaāyogaaṃsabaddhakādīni karontū”ti dinnampi vaṭṭati. Pattatthavikādīnaṃ atthāya dinnāni bahūnipi honti, cīvaratthāyapi pahonti, tato cīvaraṃ katvā pārupituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana saṅgho bhājitātirittāni vatthāni chinditvā upāhanatthavikādīnaṃ atthāya bhājeti, tato gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sāmikehi vicāritameva hi vaṭṭati, na itaraṃ. Paṃsukūlikaṃ “saṅghassa dhammakaraṇapaṭādīnaṃ atthāya demā”ti vuttepi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, parikkhāro nāma paṃsukūlikānampi icchitabbo. Yaṃ tattha atirekaṃ hoti, taṃ cīvarepi upanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Suttaṃ saṅghassa denti, paṃsukūlikehipi gahetabbaṃ. Ayaṃ tāva vihāraṃ pavisitvā “imāni cīvarāni saṅghassa dammī”ti dinnesu vinicchayo. Sace pana bahiupacārasīmāya addhānamaggappaṭipanne bhikkhū disvā “saṅghassa dammī”ti saṅghattherassa vā saṅghanavakassa vā āroceti, sacepi yojanaṃ pharitvā parisā ṭhitā hoti, ekābaddhā ce, sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Ye pana dvādasahi hatthehi parisaṃ asampattā, tesaṃ na pāpuṇāti.

In a monastery with one monk, if robes arise for the Saṅgha, if he takes them all saying, “All reach me,” as stated before, they are well-taken, but standing does not remain. If he extracts each, saying, “This reaches me,” standing remains. If another robe arises while standing persists and one monk arrives, split it and both take it. If a junior arrives while standing persists, standing descends. If a senior arrives, standing ascends. If no other comes, he takes it himself again. Given saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” or “I give to the Saṅgha of monks,” in any way specifying the Saṅgha, it is not allowable for paṃsukūlika monks due to saying, “I reject householder robes; I undertake the paṃsukūlika practice,” not because it is unallowable. Even if given without Saṅgha consultation, it should not be taken. What a monk gives from his own property, called bhikkhudattiya, is allowable but not paṃsukūla, yet the austerity is not broken. If said, “I give to monks, to elders,” it is allowable for paṃsukūlika monks too. If given saying, “I give this cloth to the Saṅgha—let them make sandal bags, bowl bags, straps, shoulder ties, or similar,” it is allowable. Even if many are given for bowl bags or similar and suffice for robes, making and wearing robes from them is allowable. If the Saṅgha divides leftover cloths, cutting them for sandal bags or similar, taking from that is not allowable—only what the owners decide is allowable, not otherwise. For a paṃsukūlika, if said, “I give to the Saṅgha for water-pots, mats, or similar,” taking is allowable—requisites are desirable even for paṃsukūlika monks. What remains can be used for robes too. If thread is given to the Saṅgha, paṃsukūlika monks may take it. This is the determination for giving, “I give these robes to the Saṅgha,” entering a monastery. If seeing monks on a road outside the vicinity boundary and saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” informing the Saṅgha elder or novice, even if the assembly stretches a yojana but is continuous, it reaches all. Those not reaching the assembly within twelve hands do not receive it.

In a monastery with only one monk, if robes arise for the Sangha, and if that monk, following the previously stated method, takes them saying, “All these are due to me,” they are well-taken, but the standing rule does not stand. If he takes them one by one, saying, “This is due to me,” the standing rule stands. There, if another robe arises when the standing rule is not established, and if another monk arrives, it should be divided in the middle and taken by both. If another robe arises when the standing rule is established, and if a newer monk arrives, the one who established the standing rule goes down in rank. If a more senior monk arrives, the one who established the standing rule goes up in rank. If there is no one else, he should take what is due to himself again. But it is not allowable for paṃsukūlikas (rag-robe wearers) to give anything after touching the Sangha in any way, saying “We give to the Sangha,” or “We give to the community of monks”, because it is said, “I refuse a robe from a householder, I undertake the practice of wearing rag-robes,” and not because it is unsuitable. Even if it is given by the community of monks without formal announcement, it should not be taken. But whatever a monk gives from his own possessions, that is allowable in a gift to a monk, but it does not become a rag-robe. Even so, the dhutaṅga (ascetic practice) is not broken. When it is said, “We give to the monks, we give to the elders,” it is allowable even for paṃsukūlikas. When it is said, “We give this cloth to the Sangha, let them make shoe-bags, bag straps, shoulder straps, and so on with it,” that is also allowable. Many things are given for the purpose of making bag-straps and so on, and they are sufficient for making robes as well, so it is allowable to make a robe from them and wear it. But if the Sangha divides surplus cloth and allocates it for the purpose of making shoe-bags and so on, it is not allowable to take from that. Only what has been considered by the owners is allowable, not otherwise. When a paṃsukūla (rag-robe) is given saying, “We give this for the purpose of the Sangha’s water-strainer cloth and so on,” it is allowable to take it, as requisites are to be desired even by paṃsukūlikas. Whatever is surplus there may be used for a robe as well. If thread is given to the Sangha, it should be taken even by paṃsukūlikas. This is the decision concerning robes given when entering a monastery and saying, “I give these robes to the Sangha.” But if, seeing monks traveling on the highway outside the boundary of the monastery’s vicinity, one says, “I give to the Sangha,” and informs the Sangha elder or the Sangha junior, even if the assembly is spread out for a yojana, if they are joined as one, it is due to all. But those who are not within twelve hatthas (cubits) of the assembly, it is not due to them.

In a monastery inhabited by a single monk, when robes are offered to the Sangha, if that monk takes them by saying, “All these robes come to me,” they are well received, but the distribution does not stand. If he takes them one by one, saying, “This robe comes to me,” the distribution stands. When the distribution is established, if another robe is offered and another monk arrives, the robe should be divided in the middle and taken by both. If, while the distribution is established, another robe is offered and a junior monk arrives, the distribution descends to the junior. If a senior monk arrives, the distribution ascends to the senior. If no one else arrives, he should take the robe after assigning it to himself. Even if it is said, “We give to the Sangha” or “We give to the community of monks,” and it is given after addressing the Sangha, it is not valid for those who practice wearing discarded robes, because they have declared, “I reject householder robes and undertake the practice of wearing discarded robes.” However, it is not improper. Even if given with the consent of the Sangha, it should not be accepted. If a monk gives what belongs to himself, it is called a monk’s gift and is valid, but it is not considered discarded cloth. Even in such cases, the ascetic practice is not broken. If it is said, “We give to the monks” or “We give to the elders,” it is valid even for those who practice wearing discarded robes. If it is said, “We give this cloth to the Sangha to make sandal straps, bag straps, bowl covers, shoulder straps, etc.,” it is also valid. Many such items are given for the purpose of bowl covers, etc., and they can also be used for making robes, which can then be worn. However, if the Sangha divides the excess cloth by cutting it and distributes it for the purpose of sandal straps, etc., it cannot be taken thereafter. Only what is decided by the owners is valid, not otherwise. Even if it is said, “We give the discarded cloth to the Sangha for the purpose of making requisites,” it can be taken, as requisites are desirable even for those who practice wearing discarded robes. Any excess there can also be used for robes. Thread given to the Sangha can also be taken by those who practice wearing discarded robes. This is the decision regarding robes given after entering the monastery and saying, “We give these robes to the Sangha.” If, however, while traveling on a road outside the monastery’s boundary, a monk sees other monks and informs the senior or junior monk of the Sangha, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” even if the assembly is spread over a yojana, if it is unified, it reaches all. Those who are not within twelve hands’ distance from the assembly do not receive it.

203. Ubhatosaṅghassa detīti ettha “ubhatosaṅghassa dammī”ti vuttepi “dvidhā saṅghassa dammī”ti, “dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ dammī”ti, “bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīsaṅghassa ca dammī”ti vuttepi ubhatosaṅghassa dinnameva hoti. Tattha sace bahukāpi bhikkhū honti, ekā bhikkhunī hoti, upaḍḍhaṃ dātabbaṃ, dve bhāge same katvā eko bhāgo dātabboti attho. Sace bahukāpi bhikkhuniyo honti, eko bhikkhu hoti, upaḍḍhaṃ dātabbaṃ. “Ubhatosaṅghassa ca tuyhañca dammī”ti vutte sace dasa dasa bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca honti, ekavīsati paṭivīse katvā eko puggalassa dātabbo, dasa bhikkhusaṅghassa, dasa bhikkhunīsaṅghassa. Yena puggaliko laddho, so saṅghatopi attano vassaggena gahetuṃ labhati. Kasmā? Ubhatosaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā. “Ubhatosaṅghassa ca cetiyassa ca dammī”ti vuttepi eseva nayo. Idha pana cetiyassa saṅghato pāpuṇanakoṭṭhāso nāma natthi, ekapuggalassa pattakoṭṭhāsasamova koṭṭhāso hoti. “Ubhatosaṅghassa ca tuyhañca cetiyassa cā”ti vutte pana dvāvīsati koṭṭhāse katvā dasa bhikkhūnaṃ, dasa bhikkhunīnaṃ, eko puggalassa, eko cetiyassa dātabbo. Tattha puggalo saṅghatopi attano vassaggena gahetuṃ labhati, cetiyassa ekoyeva.

203. Gives to both Saṅghas—If said, “I give to both Saṅghas,” “I give to the Saṅgha twofold,” “I give to the two Saṅghas,” or “I give to the Saṅgha of monks and the Saṅgha of nuns,” it is given to both Saṅghas. If many monks and one nun, half is given—meaning two equal parts, one given. If many nuns and one monk, half is given. If said, “I give to both Saṅghas and to you,” with ten monks and ten nuns, make twenty-one shares: one for the individual, ten for the monks’ Saṅgha, ten for the nuns’ Saṅgha. The individual who receives personally can take from the Saṅgha by seniority—why? Because he is included in both Saṅghas. If said, “I give to both Saṅghas and to the shrine,” the same applies. Here, the shrine has no share from the Saṅgha like an individual’s—it equals one person’s share. If said, “I give to both Saṅghas, to you, and to the shrine,” make twenty-two shares: ten for monks, ten for nuns, one for the individual, one for the shrine. The individual can take from the Saṅgha by seniority too, but the shrine gets only one.

203. In the case of gives to both Sanghas, even when 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 Sangha of monks and the Sangha of nuns,” it is still a gift to both Sanghas. There, if there are many monks and one nun, half should be given; that is, dividing it into two equal parts, one part should be given. If there are many nuns and one monk, half should be given. When it is said, “I give to both Sanghas and to you,” if there are ten monks and ten nuns, it should be divided into twenty-one portions; one should be given to the individual, ten to the Sangha of monks, and ten to the Sangha of nuns. The one who received the individual portion can also take his share from the Sangha according to his seniority. Why? Because it was included in the acceptance for both Sanghas. When it is said, “I give to both Sanghas and to the cetiya,” the same principle applies. Here, the cetiya does not have a portion due from the Sangha; its portion is the same as that of a single individual. But when it is said, “I give to both Sanghas and to you and to the cetiya,” it should be divided into twenty-two portions; ten for the monks, ten for the nuns, one for the individual, and one for the cetiya. There, the individual can also take his share from the Sangha according to his seniority; the cetiya has only one.

203. “We give to both Sanghas”: Here, even if it is said, “We give to both Sanghas,” or “We give divided to the Sangha,” or “We give to two Sanghas,” or “We give to the community of monks and the community of nuns,” it is still considered given to both Sanghas. In this case, if there are many monks and one nun, half should be given, dividing it into two equal parts and giving one part. If there are many nuns and one monk, half should be given. If it is said, “We give to both Sanghas and to you,” and there are ten monks and ten nuns, it should be divided into twenty-one parts, with one part given to the individual, ten to the community of monks, and ten to the community of nuns. What is received by the individual can also be taken by the Sangha as his seniority share. Why? Because it is taken by including both Sanghas. If it is said, “We give to both Sanghas and to the shrine,” the same method applies. Here, however, the shrine does not have a share equal to the Sangha; its share is equal to that of an individual. If it is said, “We give to both Sanghas, to you, and to the shrine,” it should be divided into twenty-two parts, with ten given to the monks, ten to the nuns, one to the individual, and one to the shrine. There, the individual can take his share from the Sangha as his seniority share, but the shrine has only one share.

“Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca dammī”ti vutte pana na majjhe bhinditvā dātabbaṃ, bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca gaṇetvā dātabbaṃ. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañcā”ti vutte pana puggalo visuṃ na labhati, pāpuṇanaṭṭhānato ekameva labhati. Kasmā? Bhikkhusaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañca cetiyassa cā”ti vuttepi cetiyassa ekapuggalapaṭivīso labbhati, puggalassa visuṃ na labbhati, tasmā ekaṃ cetiyassa datvā avasesaṃ bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca gaṇetvā bhājetabbaṃ.

If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks and to nuns,” do not split it in half—count monks and nuns and give. If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks, to nuns, and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, only from the reaching place—why? Because he is included in the monks’ Saṅgha. If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks, to nuns, to you, and to the shrine,” the shrine gets one person’s share, the individual does not separately—give one to the shrine and divide the rest by counting monks and nuns.

But when it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle and given; it should be given counting the monks and nuns. When it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to the nuns and to you,” the individual does not receive separately; he receives only one from the place where it is due. Why? Because it was included in the acceptance for the Sangha of monks. When it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to the nuns and to you and to the cetiya,” the cetiya receives a single individual’s portion; the individual does not receive separately. Therefore, one should be given to the cetiya, and the remainder should be divided counting the monks and nuns.

If it is said, “We give to the community of monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle; the monks and nuns should be counted and given accordingly. If it is said, “We give to the community of monks, to the nuns, and to you,” the individual does not receive separately; he receives only from the place of distribution. Why? Because it is taken by including the community of monks. If it is said, “We give to the community of monks, to the nuns, to you, and to the shrine,” the shrine receives one share equal to an individual, but the individual does not receive separately. Therefore, after giving one share to the shrine, the rest should be divided among the monks and nuns.

“Bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca dammī”ti vuttepi majjhe bhinditvā na dātabbaṃ, puggalagaṇanāya eva vibhajitabbaṃ. “Bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañca, bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca cetiyassa ca, bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañca cetiyassa cā”ti evaṃ vuttepi cetiyassa ekapaṭivīso labbhati, puggalassa visuṃ natthi, bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca gaṇetvā eva bhājetabbaṃ. Yathā ca bhikkhusaṅghaṃ ādiṃ katvā nayo nīto, evaṃ bhikkhunīsaṅghaṃ ādiṃ katvāpi netabbo.

If said, “I give to monks and nuns,” do not split in half—divide by individual count. If said, “I give to monks, nuns, and you,” “to monks, nuns, and the shrine,” or “to monks, nuns, you, and the shrine,” the shrine gets one share, the individual none—count monks and nuns and divide. Just as the method begins with the monks’ Saṅgha, it can begin with the nuns’ Saṅgha too.

When it is said, “I give to the monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle and given; it should be divided only by counting the individuals. When it is said, “I give to the monks and to the nuns and to you,” or “I give to the monks and to the nuns and to the cetiya,” or “I give to the monks and to the nuns and to you and to the cetiya,” even so, the cetiya receives one portion; the individual does not have a separate one; it should be divided counting the monks and nuns. And just as the principle is applied starting with the Sangha of monks, so too it should be applied starting with the Sangha of nuns.

If it is said, “We give to the monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle; it should be divided by counting the individuals. If it is said, “We give to the monks, to the nuns, and to you,” or “We give to the monks, to the nuns, and to the shrine,” or “We give to the monks, to the nuns, to you, and to the shrine,” the shrine receives one share equal to an individual, but the individual does not receive separately. The monks and nuns should be counted and divided accordingly. Just as the method is applied starting with the community of monks, the same should be applied starting with the community of nuns.

“Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā”ti vutte puggalassa visuṃ na labbhati, vassaggeneva gahetabbaṃ. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca cetiyassa cā”ti vutte pana cetiyassa visuṃ paṭivīso labbhati. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca tuyhañca cetiyassa cā”ti vuttepi cetiyasseva visuṃ labbhati, na puggalassa. “Bhikkhūnañca tuyhañcā”ti vuttepi visuṃ na labbhati, “bhikkhūnañca cetiyassa cā”ti vutte pana cetiyassa labbhati. “Bhikkhūnañca tuyhañca cetiyassa cā”ti vuttepi cetiyasseva visuṃ labbhati, na puggalassa. Bhikkhunīsaṅghaṃ ādiṃ katvāpi evameva yojetabbaṃ.

If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately—take by seniority. If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks and to the shrine,” the shrine gets a separate share. If said, “I give to the Saṅgha of monks, to you, and to the shrine,” only the shrine gets separately, not the individual. If said, “I give to monks and to you,” no separate share; if said, “to monks and the shrine,” the shrine gets one. If said, “to monks, you, and the shrine,” only the shrine gets separately, not the individual. The same applies starting with the nuns’ Saṅgha.

When it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately; it should be taken according to seniority. But when it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to the cetiya,” the cetiya receives a separate portion. When it is said, “I give to the Sangha of monks and to you and to the cetiya,” even so, only the cetiya receives separately, not the individual. When it is said, “I give to the monks and to you,” he does not receive separately; but when it is said, “I give to the monks and to the cetiya,” the cetiya receives. When it is said, “I give to the monks and to you and to the cetiya,” even so, only the cetiya receives separately, not the individual. The same should be applied starting with the Sangha of nuns.

If it is said, “We give to the community of monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately; he should take it as his seniority share. If it is said, “We give to the community of monks and to the shrine,” the shrine receives a separate share. If it is said, “We give to the community of monks, to you, and to the shrine,” the shrine receives a separate share, but the individual does not. If it is said, “We give to the monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately. If it is said, “We give to the monks and to the shrine,” the shrine receives a share. If it is said, “We give to the monks, to you, and to the shrine,” the shrine receives a separate share, but the individual does not. The same should be applied starting with the community of nuns.

Pubbe buddhappamukhassa ubhatosaṅghassa dānaṃ denti, bhagavā majjhe nisīdati, dakkhiṇato bhikkhū, vāmato bhikkhuniyo nisīdanti, bhagavā ubhinnaṃ saṅghatthero, tadā bhagavā attanā laddhapaccaye attanāpi paribhuñjati, bhikkhūnampi dāpeti. Etarahi pana paṇḍitamanussā sadhātukaṃ paṭimaṃ vā cetiyaṃ vā ṭhapetvā buddhappamukhassa ubhatosaṅghassa dānaṃ denti, paṭimāya vā cetiyassa vā purato ādhārake pattaṃ ṭhapetvā dakkhiṇodakaṃ datvā “buddhānaṃ demā”ti, tattha paṭhamaṃ khādanīyabhojanīyaṃ denti, vihāraṃ vā āharitvā “idaṃ cetiyassa demā”ti piṇḍapātañca mālāgandhādīni ca denti, tattha kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Mālāgandhādīni tāva cetiye āropetabbāni, vatthehi paṭākā, telena padīpā kātabbā. Piṇḍapātamadhuphāṇitādīni pana yo nibaddhacetiyajaggako hoti pabbajito vā gahaṭṭho vā, tassa dātabbāni. Nibaddhajaggake asati āhaṭabhattaṃ ṭhapetvā vattaṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, upakaṭṭhe kāle bhuñjitvā pacchāpi vattaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Mālāgandhādīsu ca yaṃ kiñci “idaṃ haritvā cetiye pūjaṃ karothā”ti vutte dūrampi haritvā pūjetabbaṃ, “bhikkhusaṅghassa harā”ti vuttepi haritabbaṃ. Sace pana “ahaṃ piṇḍāya carāmi, āsanasālāya bhikkhū atthi, te harissantī”ti vutte “bhante, tuyhameva dammī”ti vadati, bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Atha pana “bhikkhusaṅghassa dassāmī”ti harantassa gacchato antarāva kālo upakaṭṭho hoti, attano pāpetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

Formerly, they gave to both Saṅghas headed by the Buddha. The Buddha sat in the middle, monks to his right, nuns to his left—the Buddha was the elder of both. Then, the Buddha used what he received himself and gave to monks. Now, wise people place a relic image or shrine and give to both Saṅghas headed by the Buddha. Placing a bowl before the image or shrine, pouring water for dedication, they say, “I give to the Buddhas,” first offering edibles and food, or bringing to a monastery, saying, “I give this to the shrine,” with almsfood, garlands, scents, or similar—how to proceed? Garlands and scents should be offered at the shrine, flags made from cloth, lamps from oil. Almsfood, honey, molasses, or similar should be given to a regular shrine caretaker, ordained or lay. Without a regular caretaker, perform duties with brought food and use it—eating at a near time and performing duties later is allowable. If any garland or scent is said, “Take this and honor the shrine,” take it far and honor it. If said, “Take it to the Saṅgha of monks,” take it. If said, “I go for alms; monks in the dining hall will take it,” and he says, “Venerable sir, I give to you,” eating is allowable. If carrying it saying, “I’ll give to the Saṅgha of monks,” and the time nears en route, use it oneself—eating is allowable.

Formerly, they gave offerings to both Sanghas headed by the Buddha. The Blessed One sat in the middle, the monks on the right, and the nuns on the left. The Blessed One was the elder of both Sanghas. Then the Blessed One consumed the requisites he received himself, and he also gave to the monks. But nowadays, wise people, having set up an image containing relics or a cetiya, give offerings to both Sanghas headed by the Buddha. Placing a bowl on a stand in front of the image or cetiya, they offer water for washing, saying, “We give to the Buddhas.” There, they first offer hard food and soft food. Or, having brought it to the monastery, they offer rice gruel and flowers, incense, and so on, saying, “We give this to the cetiya.” There, how should one proceed? The flowers, incense, and so on should be offered at the cetiya; banners should be made with the cloths, and lamps with the oil. But the rice gruel, honey, molasses, and so on should be given to whoever is the regular attendant of the cetiya, whether a monastic or a householder. If there is no regular attendant, having set aside the offered food, having performed the duties, it is allowable to consume it. At the appointed time, having eaten, it is allowable to perform the duties afterwards as well. And whatever of the flowers, incense, and so on, when it is said, “Take this and make an offering at the cetiya,” it should be taken even a long distance and offered. When it is said, “Take it to the Sangha of monks,” it should be taken. But if he says, “I am going on alms round; there are monks at the resting hall; they will take it,” and one says, “Venerable Sir, I give it to you,” it is allowable to eat. But if, while taking it saying, “I will give it to the Sangha of monks,” it becomes the appointed time while he is going, he should make it his own and eat.

In the past, offerings were made to the Sangha of both monks and nuns with the Buddha at the forefront. The Blessed One would sit in the middle, with the monks on the right and the nuns on the left. The Blessed One was the elder of both Sanghas. At that time, the Blessed One would partake of the offerings himself and also have the monks partake. Nowadays, wise people make offerings to the Sangha of both monks and nuns with the Buddha at the forefront, placing a bowl in front of an image or shrine and offering water of dedication, saying, “We give to the Buddhas.” There, they first offer food and drink, and after bringing it to the monastery, they say, “We give this to the shrine,” and offer almsfood, garlands, perfumes, etc. How should one proceed? Garlands and perfumes should first be offered to the shrine, and flags should be made with cloth, and lamps with oil. Almsfood, honey, and sugar, etc., should be given to the monk or layperson who is regularly in charge of the shrine. If there is no regular caretaker, the food should be set aside, and after making an announcement, it can be consumed. If it is close to the time, it can be eaten first, and the announcement can be made afterward. Regarding garlands and perfumes, if it is said, “Take this and offer it to the shrine,” even if it is far, it should be taken and offered. If it is said, “Take it to the community of monks,” it should be taken. However, if one says, “I am going for alms, and there are monks in the meal hall who will take it,” and the donor says, “Venerable, I give this to you,” it can be consumed. If one is taking it to the community of monks and the time comes while on the way, one can consume it after assigning it to oneself.

204. Vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa detīti ettha pana sace vihāraṃ pavisitvā “imāni cīvarāni vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa dammī”ti deti, yattakā bhikkhū tasmiṃ āvāse vassacchedaṃ akatvā purimavassaṃvuṭṭhā, tehi bhājetabbaṃ, aññesaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Disāpakkantassapi sati gāhake yāva kathinassubbhārā dātabbaṃ. “Anatthate pana kathine antohemante evañca vatvā dinnaṃ pacchimavassaṃvuṭṭhānampi pāpuṇātī”ti lakkhaṇaññū vadanti. Aṭṭhakathāsu panetaṃ na vicāritaṃ. Sace pana bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhito “vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa dammī”ti vadati, sampattānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Atha “asukavihāre vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassā”ti vadati, tatra vassaṃvuṭṭhānameva yāva kathinassubbhārā pāpuṇāti. Sace pana gimhānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya evaṃ vadati, tatra sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Kasmā? Piṭṭhisamaye uppannattā. Antovasseyeva “vassaṃ vasantānaṃ dammī”ti vutte chinnavassā na labhanti, vassaṃ vasantāva labhanti. Cīvaramāse pana “vassaṃ vasantānaṃ dammī”ti vutte pacchimikāya vassūpagatānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, purimikāya vassūpagatānañca chinnavassānañca na pāpuṇāti.

204. Gives to the Saṅgha that has completed the rains—If entering a monastery and saying, “I give these robes to the Saṅgha that has completed the rains,” monks in that residence who completed the prior rains without breaking it should divide it—it does not reach others. Even for one departed to another region, if there is a taker, give until the kathina removal. Those knowing characteristics say, “If the kathina is not spread, given thus within winter, it reaches even those who completed the latter rains.” This is not considered in commentaries. If standing outside the vicinity boundary saying, “I give to the Saṅgha that has completed the rains,” it reaches all present. If saying, “To the Saṅgha that completed the rains in that monastery,” only those who completed the rains there reach it until kathina removal. If said from the first day of summer, it reaches all present there—why? Because it arose in the back season. If said within the rains, “I give to those residing in the rains,” those who broke the rains do not receive, only those residing do. In the robe month, if said, “I give to those residing in the rains,” it reaches only those who entered the latter rains, not the prior rains or breakers.

204. Here, in the case of gives to the Sangha that has spent the rains, if, having entered a monastery, one gives saying, “I give these robes to the Sangha that has spent the rains,” they should be divided by however many monks spent the earlier rains-residence in that dwelling without breaking the rains-residence; it is not due to others. Even if one has gone to another district, if there is someone to receive it, it should be given until the spreading of the kathina cloth. The experts in the characteristics say, “But if the kathina has not been spread, when it is given within the winter saying thus, it is due even to those who spent the later rains-residence.” But this is not discussed in the commentaries. But if, standing outside the boundary of the monastery’s vicinity, one says, “I give to the Sangha that has spent the rains,” it is due to all who are present. But if he says, “To the Sangha that spent the rains in such-and-such monastery,” it is due only to those who spent the rains there, until the spreading of the kathina cloth. But if he says this from the first day of the hot season, it is due to all who are present. Why? Because it arose at a later time. If, during the rains-residence itself, it is said, “I give to those who are spending the rains,” those who have broken the rains do not receive; only those who are spending the rains receive. But during the robe-month, if it is said, “I give to those who are spending the rains,” it is due only to those who entered the rains-residence on the later day; it is not due to those who entered the rains-residence on the earlier day or to those who have broken the rains.

204. “We give to the Sangha that has completed the rains retreat”: Here, if one enters the monastery and says, “We give these robes to the Sangha that has completed the rains retreat,” it should be distributed among those monks who have not broken the rains residence and have completed the previous rains retreat. It does not reach others. Even if a monk has left the region, as long as there are recipients, it should be given until the end of the Kathina period. Some say that if the Kathina is not spread, even if given after the end of the winter, it reaches those who have completed the later rains retreat. However, this is not discussed in the commentaries. If one is standing outside the monastery’s boundary and says, “We give to the Sangha that has completed the rains retreat,” it reaches all who have arrived. If one says, “We give to the Sangha that has completed the rains retreat in such-and-such monastery,” it reaches only those who have completed the rains retreat there until the end of the Kathina period. If one says this from the first day of the hot season, it reaches all who are present. Why? Because it is given at the time of the back. If it is said during the rains residence, “We give to those who are observing the rains,” those who have broken the rains do not receive it; only those who are observing the rains receive it. During the robe season, if it is said, “We give to those who are observing the rains,” it reaches only those who have entered the later rains; those who have entered the earlier rains and those who have broken the rains do not receive it.

Cīvaramāsato paṭṭhāya yāva hemantassa pacchimo divaso, tāva “vassāvāsikaṃ demā”ti vutte kathinaṃ atthataṃ vā hotu anatthataṃ vā, atītavassaṃvuṭṭhānameva pāpuṇāti. Gimhānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya vutte pana mātikā āropetabbā “atītapassāvāsassa pañca māsā atikkantā, anāgato cātumāsaccayena bhavissati, kataravassāvāsassa desī”ti. Sace “atītavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ dammī”ti vadati, taṃ antovassaṃvuṭṭhānameva pāpuṇāti, disāpakkantānampi sabhāgā gaṇhituṃ labhanti. Sace “anāgate vassāvāsikaṃ dammī”ti vadati, taṃ ṭhapetvā vassūpanāyikadivase gahetabbaṃ. Atha “agutto vihāro, corabhayaṃ atthi, na sakkā ṭhapetuṃ gaṇhitvā vā āhiṇḍitu”nti vutte “sampattānaṃ dammī”ti vadati, bhājetvā gahetabbaṃ. Sace vadati “ito me, bhante, tatiye vasse vassāvāsikaṃ na dinnaṃ, taṃ dammī”ti, tasmiṃ antovasse vuṭṭhabhikkhūnaṃ pāpuṇāti. Sace te disā pakkantā, añño vissāsiko gaṇhāti, dātabbaṃ. Athekoyeva avasiṭṭho, sesā kālakatā, sabbaṃ ekasseva pāpuṇāti. Sace ekopi natthi, saṅghikaṃ hoti, sammukhībhūtehi bhājetabbaṃ.

From the robe month until the last day of winter, if said, “I give for the rains residence,” whether kathina is spread or not, only those who completed the past rains receive. If said from the first day of summer, state the basis: “Five months have passed since the past rains residence; the future will come after four months—which rains residence do you give to?” If he says, “I give to those who completed the past rains,” it reaches only those who completed within the rains—even those departed elsewhere can have similars take. If he says, “I give for the future rains residence,” set it aside until the rains-entry day. If said, “The monastery is unguarded, there’s thief fear, it can’t be kept or taken wandering,” and he says, “I give to those present,” divide and take. If he says, “Venerable sirs, I didn’t give for the rains residence in my third year— I give that,” it reaches monks who resided there that rains. If they departed, another trusted one takes—it should be given. If only one remains, the rest deceased, all reaches him. If none remain, it becomes Saṅgha property—divide among those present.

From the robe-month until the last day of winter, when it is said, “We give the rains-residence dwelling,” whether the kathina has been spread or not, it is due only to those who have spent the past rains-residence. But when it is said from the first day of the hot season, the topic should be raised: “Five months of the past rains-residence have passed; it will be after the passing of four months in the future; to which rains-residence dwelling are you giving?” If he says, “I give to those who have spent the past rains-residence,” it is due only to those who spent the rains-residence within; even those who have gone to another district can take their share. If he says, “I give the rains-residence dwelling for the future,” it should be taken on the day of entering the rains-residence. But if he says, “The monastery is unprotected, there is danger of thieves, it is not possible to keep it or to wander around having taken it,” and he says, “I give to those who are present,” it should be divided and taken. If he says, “Venerable Sir, the rains-residence dwelling was not given to me in the third year from now; I give that,” it is due to the monks who spent the rains-residence within that year. If they have gone to another district, another trustworthy person takes it, and it should be given. If only one remains, and the rest have passed away, all is due to the one. If there is not even one, it becomes Sangha property; it should be divided by those who are present.

From the robe month until the end of winter, if it is said, “We give to the rains residents,” whether the Kathina is spread or not, it reaches only those who have completed the previous rains retreat. If it is said from the first day of the hot season, the schedule should be announced: “Five months have passed since the previous rains residence, and the next four-month period will begin. To which rains residents are we giving?” If one says, “We give to those who have completed the previous rains retreat,” it reaches only those who have completed the rains retreat within the rains residence. Even those who have left the region can take an equal share. If one says, “We give to the future rains residents,” it should be set aside and taken on the day of entering the rains. If it is said, “The monastery is unguarded, there is danger from thieves, and it is not possible to keep it or take it around,” one should say, “We give to those who have arrived,” and after distributing it, it should be taken. If one says, “Venerable, in my third year, I did not give to the rains residents; now I give,” it reaches the monks who have completed the rains retreat within the rains residence. If they have left the region, another trustworthy person can take it, and it should be given. If only one remains and the others have passed away, it all goes to that one. If no one remains, it belongs to the Sangha and should be distributed among those present.

205. Ādissa detīti ettha pana yāguyā vā bhatte vā khādanīye vā cīvare vā senāsane vā bhesajje vā ādisitvā paricchinditvā dento ādissa deti nāma. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – bhikkhū ajjatanāya vā svātanāya vā yāguyā nimantetvā tesaṃ gharaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ yāguṃ deti, yāguṃ datvā pītāya yāguyā “imāni cīvarāni yehi mayhaṃ yāgu pītā, tesaṃ dammī”ti deti, yehi nimantitehi yāgu pītā, tesaṃyeva pāpuṇāti. Yehi pana bhikkhācāravattena gharadvārena gacchantehi vā gharaṃ paviṭṭhehi vā yāgu laddhā, yesaṃ vā āsanasālato pattaṃ āharitvā manussehi nītā, yesaṃ vā therehi pesitā, tesaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Sace pana nimantihabhikkhūhi saddhiṃ aññepi bahū āgantvā antogehañca bahigehañca pūretvā nisinnā, dāyako ca evaṃ vadati “nimantitā vā hontu animantitā vā, yesaṃ mayā yāgu dinnā, sabbesaṃ imāni vatthāni hontū”ti, sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Yehi pana therānaṃ hatthato yāgu laddhā, tesaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Atha so “yehi mayhaṃ yāgu pītā, sabbesaṃ hotū”ti vadati, sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Bhattakhādanīyesupi eseva nayo. Cīvare pana pubbepi tena vassaṃ vāsetvā bhikkhūnaṃ cīvaraṃ dinnapubbaṃ hoti, so ce bhikkhū bhojetvā vadati “yesaṃ mayā pubbe cīvaraṃ dinnaṃ, tesaṃyeva imaṃ cīvaraṃ vā suttaṃ vā sappimadhuphāṇitādīni vā hontū”ti, sabbaṃ tesaṃyeva pāpuṇāti. Senāsanepi “yo mayā kārite vihāre vā pariveṇe vā vasati, tassidaṃ hotū”ti vutte tasseva hoti. Bhesajjepi “mayaṃ kālena kālaṃ therānaṃ sappiādīni bhesajjāni dema, yehi tāni laddhāni, tesaṃyevidaṃ hotū”ti vutte tesaṃyeva hoti.

205. Gives by designation—One who designates, specifying gruel, rice, edibles, robes, lodging, or medicine, and gives is said to give by designation. Here is the determination: inviting monks for gruel today or tomorrow, he gives gruel when they enter his home; after giving and they drink, he says, “I give these robes to those who drank my gruel”—it reaches only those invited who drank. It does not reach those who got gruel by alms-round at his door or entering, or whose bowl was taken from the dining hall by people, or sent by elders. If many others come with the invited, filling inside and outside, and the donor says, “Whether invited or not, let these cloths be for all to whom I gave gruel,” it reaches all. It does not reach those who got gruel from elders’ hands. If he says, “Let it be for all who drank my gruel,” it reaches all. The same applies to rice and edibles. For robes, if he previously gave robes to monks after having them reside in the rains, and after feeding them says, “Let these robes, thread, ghee, honey, molasses, or similar be only for those I previously gave robes,” all reaches them. For lodging, if said, “Let this be for one residing in the monastery or cell I built,” it is his. For medicine, if said, “We give ghee or similar medicines to elders from time to time—let this be only for those who received them,” it is theirs.

205. Here, in the case of specifying, he gives, one who gives specifying or determining rice gruel, or cooked food, or hard food, or a robe, or lodging, or medicine, is called one who gives specifying. Here is the decision concerning this: Having invited monks for today or tomorrow with rice gruel, he gives rice gruel to those who have entered his house. Having given the rice gruel, after the rice gruel has been drunk, he says, “I give these robes to those who have drunk my rice gruel.” It is due only to those invited ones who have drunk the rice gruel. But those who have received rice gruel while going by the door of the house on their alms round, or those who have entered the house, or those whose bowls have been brought from the resting hall and taken by people, or those who have been sent by the elders, it is not due to them. But if, along with the invited monks, many others also come and fill the inner house and the outer house and sit down, and the donor says thus, “Whether invited or uninvited, let these cloths be for all those to whom I have given rice gruel,” it is due to all. But those who have received rice gruel from the hands of the elders, it is not due to them. But if he says, “Let it be for all those who have drunk my rice gruel,” it is due to all. The same principle applies to cooked food and hard food. But concerning robes, if previously, having caused the monks to spend the rains, he has given robes to the monks before, and if, having fed the monks, he says, “Let this robe, or thread, or ghee, honey, molasses, and so on, be only for those to whom I have given robes before,” all is due only to them. Concerning lodging also, when it is said, “Let this be for him who dwells in the monastery or dwelling that I have had made,” it is for him. Concerning medicine also, when it is said, “We give ghee and other medicines to the elders from time to time; let this be only for those who have received them,” it is only for them.

205. “We give after specifying”: Here, if one specifies and gives gruel, rice, food, robes, lodging, or medicine, it is called giving after specifying. In this case, the decision is as follows: If monks are invited for today’s or tomorrow’s gruel, and after entering their house, gruel is given, and after drinking the gruel, one says, “We give these robes to those who have drunk my gruel,” it reaches only those who were invited. However, it does not reach those who received gruel while going for alms or entering the house, or those whose bowls were brought from the meal hall by people, or those sent by the elders. If, along with the invited monks, many others come and fill the inside and outside of the house, and the donor says, “Whether invited or not, whoever has received gruel from me, let all these cloths be theirs,” it reaches all. However, it does not reach those who received gruel from the elders’ hands. If the donor says, “Whoever has drunk my gruel, let it be theirs,” it reaches all. The same applies to rice and food. Regarding robes, if one has previously given robes to monks after staying with them for the rains, and now feeds the monks and says, “To those to whom I have previously given robes, let this robe, thread, ghee, honey, or sugar be theirs,” it all reaches them. Regarding lodging, if one says, “Whoever stays in the monastery or dwelling I have built, let this be theirs,” it belongs to that person. Regarding medicine, if one says, “We give ghee and other medicines to the elders from time to time; let this be theirs,” it belongs to them.

206. Puggalassa detīti ettha pana “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti evaṃ parammukhā vā, pādamūle ṭhapetvā “idaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ dammī”ti evaṃ sammukhā vā deti, taṃ tasseva hoti. Sace pana “idaṃ tumhākañca tumhākaṃ antevāsikānañca dammī”ti evaṃ vadati, therassa ca antevāsikānañca pāpuṇāti. Uddesaṃ gahetuṃ āgato gahetvā gacchanto ca atthi, tassapi pāpuṇāti. “Tumhehi saddhiṃ nibaddhacārikabhikkhūnaṃ dammī”ti vutte uddesantevāsikānaṃ vattaṃ katvā uddesaparipucchādīni gahetvā vicarantānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Ayaṃ “puggalassa detī”ti imasmiṃ pade vinicchayo.

206. Gives to an individual—If saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so,” in his absence, or placing it at his feet saying, “Venerable sir, I give this to you,” in his presence, it is his. If saying, “I give this to you and your pupils,” it reaches the elder and his pupils. One who came for recitation, took it, and left receives too. If said, “I give to monks regularly wandering with you,” it reaches all who perform duties for recitation pupils, take recitation and questioning, and wander. This is the determination for “gives to an individual.”

206. Here, in the case of gives to an individual, if he gives saying thus, “I give this robe to so-and-so,” thus facing away, or placing it at the feet, saying, “Venerable Sir, I give this to you,” thus facing him, it is for him. But if he says thus, “I give this to you and to your apprentices,” it is due to the elder and to his apprentices. There is also one who comes to receive instruction and takes it and goes; it is also due to him. When it is said, “I give to the monks who are your regular companions,” it is due to all those who, having performed the duties for those receiving instruction and apprentices, are wandering, receiving instruction, questioning, and so on. This is the decision in this section, “gives to an individual.”

206. “We give to an individual”: Here, if one gives a robe by saying, “We give this robe to such-and-such monk,” either in his absence or by placing it at his feet and saying, “Venerable, we give this to you,” it belongs to that monk. If one says, “We give this to you and your pupils,” it reaches the elder and his pupils. Even if one has come to take the assignment and is leaving after taking it, it reaches him. If one says, “We give to the monks who are regularly traveling with you,” it reaches all who are traveling with the assignment, taking the assignment, and inquiring about it. This is the decision regarding “giving to an individual.”

Sace koci bhikkhu ekova vassaṃ vasati, tattha manussā “saṅghassa demā”ti cīvarāni denti, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tasseva tāni cīvarāni yāva kathinassa ubbhārā”ti (mahāva. 363) vacanato sace (mahāva. aṭṭha. 363) gaṇapūrake bhikkhū labhitvā kathinaṃ atthataṃ hoti, pañca māse, no ce atthataṃ hoti, ekaṃ cīvaramāsaṃ aññattha gahetvā nītānipi tasseva tāni cīvarāni, na tesaṃ añño koci issaro. Yaṃ yañhi “saṅghassa demā”ti vā “saṅghaṃ uddissa demā”ti vā “vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa demā”ti vā “vassāvāsikaṃ demā”ti vā denti, sacepi matakacīvaraṃ avibhajitvā taṃ vihāraṃ pavisati, taṃ sabbaṃ tasseva bhikkhuno hoti. Yampi so vassāvāsatthāya vaḍḍhiṃ payojetvā ṭhapitaupanikkhepato vā tatruppādato vā vassāvāsikaṃ gaṇhāti, sabbaṃ suggahitameva hoti. Idañhettha lakkhaṇaṃ – yena tenākārena saṅghassa uppannavatthaṃ atthatakathinassa pañca māse, anatthatakathinassa ekaṃ cīvaramāsaṃ pāpuṇāti. Sace pana koci bhikkhu vassānato aññasmiṃ utukāle ekako vasati, tattha manussā “saṅghassa demā”ti cīvarāni denti, tena bhikkhunā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ “mayhimāni cīvarānī”ti. Adhiṭṭhahantena pana vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tena hi bhikkhunā ghaṇṭiṃ vā paharitvā kālaṃ vā ghosetvā thokaṃ āgametvā sace ghaṇṭisaññāya vā kālasaññāya vā bhikkhū āgacchanti, tehi saddhiṃ bhājetabbāni. Tehi ce bhikkhūhi tasmiṃ cīvare bhājiyamāne apātite kuse añño bhikkhu āgacchati, samako dātabbo bhāgo, pātite kuse añño bhikkhu āgacchati, na akāmā dātabbo bhāgo. Ekakoṭṭhāsepi hi kusadaṇḍake pātitamatte sacepi bhikkhusahassaṃ hoti, gahitameva nāma cīvaraṃ, tasmā na akāmā bhāgo dātabbo. Sace pana attano ruciyā dātukāmā honti, dentu. Anubhāgepi eseva nayo.

If one monk resides alone in the rains and people give robes saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” what to do? From, “I allow, monks, those robes to be his until the kathina removal” (mahāva. 363), if (mahāva. aṭṭha. 363) he gets monks to complete a quorum and spreads kathina, for five months; if not spread, for one robe month—even taken elsewhere, those robes are his; no one else owns them. Whatever is given saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” “I give for the Saṅgha,” “I give to the Saṅgha that completed the rains,” or “I give for the rains residence,” even if a deceased’s robes enter that monastery undivided, all is his. Whatever he arranges for increase or takes for the rains residence from deposits or local gains, all is well-taken. The characteristic here is: robes arising for the Saṅgha in any way reach him for five months if kathina is spread, one robe month if not. If a monk resides alone in a season other than the rains and people give robes saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” he should determine, “These robes are mine.” He must know the procedure: ring the bell or announce the time, wait briefly—if monks come by the bell or time signal, divide with them. If they do not come, determine, “These robes reach me.”

If a certain monk spends the rains alone, and people give robes there, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” what should be done there? Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, those robes to be his until the spreading of the kathina cloth” (Mahāva. 363), if (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 363) having obtained monks to complete the number, the kathina is spread, for five months; if it is not spread, for one robe-month, even if they are taken elsewhere, those robes are his; no one else is the owner of them. Whatever is given saying, “We give to the Sangha,” or “We give dedicating to the Sangha,” or “We give to the Sangha that has spent the rains,” or “We give the rains-residence dwelling,” even if he enters that monastery without dividing the death-robes, all that is for that monk. And whatever he takes as the rains-residence dwelling from the deposit set aside by him for the purpose of the rains-residence, or from the income from that, all is well-taken. Here is the characteristic here: In whatever way cloth arises for the Sangha, it is due for five months if the kathina is spread, for one robe-month if the kathina is not spread. But if a certain monk dwells alone during a season other than the rains, and people give robes there, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” that monk should determine, “These robes are mine.” But in determining, the procedure should be known. That monk should strike the bell or announce the time, and wait a little. If, by the signal of the bell or the signal of the time, monks come, they should be divided with them. If, while those robes are being divided by those monks, before the lots are cast, another monk arrives, an equal share should be given; after the lots are cast, another monk arrives, a share should not be given unwillingly. For even in a single portion, when the lot-stick is cast, even if there is a thousand monks, the robe is considered taken; therefore, a share should not be given unwillingly. But if they are willing to give out of their own liking, let them give. The same principle applies to a sub-division.

If a monk stays alone for the rains, and people say, “We give to the Sangha,” and offer robes, what should be done? “I allow, monks, that those robes belong to him until the end of the Kathina period” (Mahāvagga 363). According to this, if the monk obtains a full assembly and the Kathina is spread, it is five months; if not, it is one robe month. Even if robes are brought from elsewhere, they belong to that monk, and no one else has authority over them. Whatever is given by saying, “We give to the Sangha,” or “We give for the Sangha,” or “We give to the Sangha that has completed the rains retreat,” or “We give to the rains residents,” even if it is a deceased monk’s robe and not distributed, if it enters the monastery, it all belongs to that monk. Whatever he has set aside for the purpose of the rains residence, whether from interest or from what was produced there, is all well received. The characteristic here is that any cloth produced for the Sangha reaches him for five months if the Kathina is spread, and for one robe month if the Kathina is not spread. If a monk stays alone in another season outside the rains, and people say, “We give to the Sangha,” and offer robes, the monk should resolve, “These robes are mine.” When resolving, he should know the procedure. The monk should ring a bell or announce the time and wait a little. If monks come upon hearing the bell or the time, he should distribute the robes with them. If, while the robes are being distributed, another monk arrives before the lot is cast, he should be given an equal share. If another monk arrives after the lot is cast, he should not be given a share against his will. Even if a thousand monks arrive after the lot is cast on a single share, the robe is considered taken, and no share should be given against their will. If they wish to give willingly, they may do so. The same applies to other shares.

Atha ghaṇṭisaññāya vā kālasaññāya vā aññe bhikkhū na āgacchanti, “mayhimāni cīvarāni pāpuṇantī”ti adhiṭṭhātabbāni. Evaṃ adhiṭṭhite sabbāni tasseva honti, ṭhitikā pana na tiṭṭhati. Sace ekekaṃ uddharitvā “ayaṃ paṭhamabhāgo mayhaṃ pāpuṇāti, ayaṃ dutiyabhāgo”ti evaṃ gaṇhāti, gahitāni ca suggahitāni honti, ṭhitikā ca tiṭṭhati, evaṃ pāpetvā gaṇhantenapi adhiṭṭhitameva hoti. Sace pana ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā vā appaharitvā vā kālampi ghosetvā vā aghosetvā vā “ahamevettha , mayhameva imāni cīvarānī”ti gaṇhāti , duggahitāni honti. Atha “añño koci idha natthi, mayhaṃ etāni pāpuṇantī”ti gaṇhāti, suggahitāni. Atha anadhiṭṭhahitvāva tāni cīvarāni gahetvā aññaṃ vihāraṃ uddissa gacchati “tattha bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ bhājessāmī”ti, tāni cīvarāni gatagataṭṭhāne saṅghikāneva honti. Bhikkhūhi diṭṭhamattamevettha pamāṇaṃ. Tasmā sace keci paṭipathaṃ āgacchantā “kuhiṃ, āvuso, gacchasī”ti pucchitvā tamatthaṃ sutvā “kiṃ, āvuso, mayaṃ saṅgho na homā”ti tattheva bhājetvā gaṇhanti, suggahitāni. Sacepi esa maggā okkamitvā kañci vihāraṃ vā āsanasālaṃ vā piṇḍāya caranto ekagehameva vā pavisati, tatra ca naṃ bhikkhū disvā tamatthaṃ pucchitvā bhājetvā gaṇhanti, suggahitāneva.

If no monks come by bell or time signal, determine, “These robes reach me”—all are his, but standing does not remain. If extracting each, saying, “This first share reaches me, this second share,” they are taken and well-taken, and standing remains—taking thus is determined too. If taking saying, “I’m here alone; these robes are mine,” with or without ringing the bell or announcing time, they are ill-taken. If saying, “No one else is here; these reach me,” they are well-taken. If taking them without determining and going to another monastery intending, “I’ll divide with monks there,” they remain Saṅgha property wherever they go—seeing by monks is the measure here. If some meet him en route, ask, “Friend, where are you going?” hear his intent, and say, “Friend, aren’t we the Saṅgha?” dividing and taking there, they are well-taken. If he deviates from the path, enters a monastery, dining hall, or one house for alms, and monks there see him, ask his intent, divide, and take, they are well-taken.

But if, by the signal of the bell or the signal of the time, other monks do not come, he should determine, “These robes are due to me.” When it is determined thus, all are his, but the standing rule does not stand. If he takes them one by one, saying, “This first share is due to me, this second share,” thus he takes them, they are both taken and well-taken, and the standing rule stands. Even by taking after having made them his own thus, it is determined. But if, having struck the bell or not having struck it, or having announced the time or not having announced it, he takes them saying, “I am the only one here, these robes are mine,” they are wrongly taken. But if he takes them saying, “There is no one else here, these are due to me,” they are well-taken. But if, without determining them, he takes those robes and goes towards another monastery, thinking, “I will divide them there with the monks,” those robes become Sangha property in whatever place he goes. Only the seeing by monks is the measure here. Therefore, if some, coming along the path, ask, “Where are you going, friend?” and having heard that matter, say, “What, friend, are we not the Sangha?” and divide them there and take them, they are well-taken. Even if he leaves the path and enters a certain monastery or resting hall, or while going on alms round, enters even a single house, and there monks see him and ask about that matter and divide them and take them, they are well-taken.

If no other monks come upon hearing the bell or the time, he should resolve, “These robes come to me.” Once resolved, they all belong to him, but the distribution does not stand. If he takes them one by one, saying, “This first share comes to me, this second share,” etc., they are well received, and the distribution stands. Even if he takes them after assigning them to himself, they are considered resolved. However, if he rings the bell or does not ring it, or announces the time or does not announce it, and takes the robes, saying, “I alone am here; these robes are mine,” they are poorly received. If he says, “No one else is here; these robes come to me,” they are well received. If, without resolving, he takes the robes and goes to another monastery, intending to distribute them with the monks there, the robes belong to the Sangha wherever they go. The monks’ seeing them is the measure here. Therefore, if some monks meet him on the way and ask, “Where are you going, friend?” and, upon hearing the purpose, say, “What, friend, are we not the Sangha?” and distribute them there, they are well received. Even if he enters a single house while going for alms and the monks see him, ask the purpose, and distribute them, they are well received.

“Na, bhikkhave, aññatra vassaṃvuṭṭhena aññatra cīvarabhāgo sāditabbo, yo sādiyeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 364) vacanato aññatra vassaṃvuṭṭho aññatra bhāgaṃ gaṇhāti, dukkaṭaṃ. Ettha pana kiñcāpi lahukā āpatti, atha kho gahitāni cīvarāni gahitaṭṭhāne dātabbāni. Sacepi naṭṭhāni vā jiṇṇāni vā honti, tasseva gīvā. “Dehī”ti vutte adento dhuranikkhepe bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo.

From, “Monks, apart from one who has completed the rains, no one should accept a robe share; whoever accepts incurs a dukkaṭa offense” (mahāva. 364), one not completing the rains accepting a share incurs a dukkaṭa. Though a light offense, the taken robes must be given at the place taken. If lost or worn out, it’s on his neck. If told, “Give,” and he doesn’t, he should be made to pay the storehouse value by relinquishment.

Because it is said, “Monks, one should not consent to [receiving] a robe portion other than one who has completed the rains residence, other than at the time of robe distribution. Whoever should consent, there is an offense of wrong doing.” (Mahāva. 364), other than one who has completed the rains, other than when receiving a portion, there is a dukkaṭa. Here, although it is a minor offense, the robes that have been received should be given in the place where they were received. Even if they are destroyed or worn out, it is still his responsibility. If told, “Give it,” and he doesn’t give it, in neglecting his duty, he should be made to pay the price of the goods.

“Monks, a share of robes should not be accepted by one who has not completed the rains retreat, except by one who has completed the rains retreat. Whoever accepts it commits an offense of wrong conduct.” (Mahāvagga 364) Thus, one who has not completed the rains retreat and takes a share elsewhere commits a wrong conduct offense. Here, although the offense is minor, the robes taken must be given back to the place where they were taken. If they are lost or worn out, it is still the same. If, when told, “Give it back,” one does not return it, one should be made to repay it with interest.

Eko bhikkhu dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ vasati “evaṃ me bahu cīvaraṃ uppajjissatī”ti, ekaṃ puggalapaṭivīsaṃyeva labhati. Tasmā sace ekekasmiṃ vihāre ekāhamekāhaṃ vā sattāhaṃ vā vasati, ekekasmiṃ vihāre yaṃ eko puggalo labhati, tato tato upaḍḍhaṃ upaḍḍhaṃ dātabbaṃ. Evañhi ekapuggalapaṭivīso dinno hoti. Sace pana ekasmiṃ vihāre vasanto itarasmiṃ sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpeti, bahutaraṃ vasitavihārato tassa paṭivīso dātabbo. Evampi ekapuggalapaṭivīsoyeva dinno hoti. Idañca nānālābhehi nānūpacārehi ekasīmāvihārehi kathitaṃ, nānāsīmāvihāre pana senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati. Tasmā tattha cīvarapaṭivīso na pāpuṇāti, sesaṃ pana āmisabhesajjādi sabbaṃ sabbattha antosīmāgatassa pāpuṇāti.

One monk resides in two residences during the rains, thinking, “Thus I’ll get many robes”—he gets only one person’s share. If he stays one day or seven days in each monastery, give half from what one person gets in each. Thus, one person’s share is given. If residing in one and raising the dawn in the other every seven days, give his share from the monastery where he stayed more—still one person’s share. This applies to monasteries with different gains and vicinity boundaries but one boundary; in different-boundary monasteries, lodging assignment lapses, so no robe share reaches there, but other goods like medicine reach one within the boundary everywhere.

If a single bhikkhu spends the rains in two dwellings, thinking, “In this way, many robes will arise for me,” he receives only one person’s share. Therefore, if he dwells in each monastery for one day, or one week, he should be given half of what a single person receives in each monastery. In this way, one person’s share has been given. However, if, while dwelling in one monastery, he merely gets up at dawn during the seven-day period in the other, the portion should be given to him from the monastery where he dwelt for the greater time. Even in this way, only one person’s share is given. This has been said regarding monasteries with different gains, different requisites, and within the same boundary; however, in monasteries with different boundaries, the taking of lodgings is relinquished. Therefore, there he does not obtain a share of the robes; but all other things, such as food and medicine, he obtains everywhere within the boundary.

If a monk spends the rains retreat in two monasteries thinking, “In this way, I will obtain many robes,” he receives only one personal share. Therefore, if he stays in each monastery for one day, two days, or seven days, he should give half of what one person receives in each monastery. In this way, one personal share is given. If, however, while staying in one monastery, he rises at dawn in the other, the share should be given to the monastery where he stayed longer. Even so, only one personal share is given. This is explained in the context of multiple gains and services within a single boundary monastery. In monasteries with different boundaries, the allocation of lodging ceases. Therefore, there, a share of robes does not reach him, but all other material gains, such as food and medicine, reach him everywhere within the boundary.

207. “Bhikkhussa, bhikkhave, kālakate saṅgho sāmī pattacīvare, apica gilānupaṭṭhākā bahūpakārā, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghena ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dātuṃ, yaṃ tattha lahubhaṇḍaṃ lahuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetuṃ, yaṃ tattha garubhaṇḍaṃ garuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ āgatānāgatacātuddisassa saṅghassa avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgika”nti (mahāva. 369) vacanato bhikkhusmiṃ kālakate apaloketvā vā –

207. From, “Monks, when a monk dies, the Saṅgha owns his bowl and robes; yet attendants of the sick are very helpful—I allow the Saṅgha to give the triple robe and bowl to the attendants; light goods and light requisites should be divided by the present Saṅgha; heavy goods and heavy requisites are for the Saṅgha of the four quarters, present and future, not to be given away or divided” (mahāva. 369), when a monk dies, without consultation or—

207. “Monks, when a bhikkhu has passed away, the Saṅgha is the owner of his bowl and robes; however, those who attended to him during his illness were of great help. I allow, monks, the Saṅgha to give the triple robe and bowl to those who attended to the sick person. Whatever minor goods and minor requisites are there, the Saṅgha present should divide them. Whatever major goods and major requisites are there, they are not to be given away or divided by the Saṅgha of the four directions, whether present or not yet arrived.” (Mahāva. 369) Thus, when a bhikkhu has passed away, either without announcement –

207. “Monks, when a monk passes away, the Sangha is the owner of his bowl and robes. Moreover, the attendants who cared for him were of great help. I allow, monks, the Sangha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants. Whatever light items or light requisites are there, they should be distributed by the Sangha in person. Whatever heavy items or heavy requisites are there, they should not be distributed but are for the Sangha of the four directions, present and future.” (Mahāvagga 369) Thus, when a monk passes away, after informing the Sangha—

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, itthannāmo bhikkhu kālakato, idaṃ tassa ticīvarañca patto ca, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti.

“May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. The monk named so-and-so has died; this is his triple robe and bowl. If it seems proper to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give this triple robe and bowl to the attendants. This is the motion.

“Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The bhikkhu named so-and-so has passed away. This is his triple robe and bowl. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give this triple robe and bowl to those who attended to him during his illness. This is the motion.

“Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. The monk named so-and-so has passed away. These are his three robes and bowl. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha may give these three robes and bowl to the attendants. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, itthannāmo bhikkhu kālakato, idaṃ tassa ticīvarañca patto ca, saṅgho imaṃ ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ deti, yassāyasmato khamati imassa ticīvarassa ca pattassa ca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dānaṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. The monk named so-and-so has died; this is his triple robe and bowl. The Saṅgha gives this triple robe and bowl to the attendants. Whoever approves of giving this triple robe and bowl to the attendants should remain silent. Whoever does not approve should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The bhikkhu named so-and-so has passed away. This is his triple robe and bowl. The Saṅgha gives this triple robe and bowl to those who attended to him during his illness. Whichever venerable one approves of the giving of this triple robe and bowl to those who attended to him during his illness, let him remain silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. The monk named so-and-so has passed away. These are his three robes and bowl. The Sangha gives these three robes and bowl to the attendants. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to give these three robes and bowl to the attendants, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, let them speak.

“Dinnaṃ idaṃ saṅghena ticīvarañca patto ca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 367) –

“The Saṅgha has given this triple robe and bowl to the attendants. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it” (mahāva. 367)—

“This triple robe and bowl have been given by the Saṅgha to those who attended to him during his illness. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. Thus, I understand it.” (Mahāva. 367) –

“The Sangha has given the three robes and bowl to the attendants. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus do I hold it.” (Mahāvagga 367)—

Evaṃ kammavācaṃ vā sāvetvā gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ pattacīvaraṃ datvā sesaṃ lahuparikkhāraṃ sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetvā gahetabbaṃ.

Announcing this formal act, give the bowl and robes to the attendants, and the remaining light requisites should be divided and taken by the present Saṅgha.

Or after announcing the formal act of Sangha in this way, having given the bowl and robes to those who attended to the sick person, the remaining minor requisites should be divided and taken by the Sangha that is present.

Having made this formal announcement, the bowl and robes should be given to the attendants, and the remaining light requisites should be distributed by the Sangha in person and taken.

208. Gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ lābhe pana ayaṃ vinicchayo – sace sakale bhikkhusaṅghe upaṭṭhahante kālaṃ karoti, sabbepi sāmikā. Atha ekaccehi vāre kate ekaccehi akateyeva kālaṃ karoti, tatra ekacce ācariyā vadanti “sabbepi attano vāre sampatte kareyyuṃ, tasmā sabbepi sāmino”ti. Ekacce vadanti “yehi jaggito, te eva labhanti, itare na labhantī”ti. Sāmaṇerepi kālakate sace cīvaraṃ atthi, gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dātabbaṃ. No ce atthi, yaṃ atthi, taṃ dātabbaṃ. Aññasmiṃ parikkhāre sati cīvarabhāgaṃ katvā dātabbaṃ. Bhikkhu ca sāmaṇero ca sace samaṃ upaṭṭhahiṃsu, samako bhāgo dātabbo. Atha sāmaṇerova upaṭṭhahati, bhikkhussa saṃvidahanamattameva hoti, sāmaṇerassa jeṭṭhakoṭṭhāso dātabbo. Sace sāmaṇero bhikkhunā ānītaudakena yāguṃ pacitvā paṭiggahāpanamattameva karoti, bhikkhu upaṭṭhahati, bhikkhussa jeṭṭhabhāgo dātabbo. Bahū bhikkhū sabbe samaggā hutvā upaṭṭhahanti, sabbesaṃ samako bhāgo dātabbo. Yo panettha visesena upaṭṭhahati, tassa viseso kātabbo.

208. Here is the determination of gain for attendants: if he dies while the whole Saṅgha of monks attends, all are owners. If he dies with some attending by turns and some not, some teachers say, “All would attend when their turn came, so all are owners.” Others say, “Only those who attended receive; others do not.” If a novice dies with robes, give them to attendants; if none, give what there is. If other requisites exist, make a robe share and give. If a monk and novice attended equally, give equal shares. If only a novice attends and the monk merely arranges, give the novice the larger share. If a novice cooks gruel with water brought by a monk and only has it received, and the monk attends, give the monk the larger share. If many monks attend together in harmony, give all equal shares. Whoever attends specially should receive extra.

208. Concerning the gain of those who attended the sick person, this is the decision: If he passes away while the entire Saṅgha of bhikkhus is attending, all are owners. If some have performed their turn and some have not performed their turn when he passes away, some teachers say in that case, “All should perform their turn when it comes, therefore all are owners.” Some say, “Only those who looked after him receive; the others do not receive.” Even when a novice passes away, if there is a robe, it should be given to those who attended to him during his illness. If there is not, whatever there is, should be given. If there are other requisites, a share for a robe should be made and given. If a bhikkhu and a novice attended equally, an equal share should be given. If only the novice attends, and the bhikkhu only provides assistance, the novice should be given the elder’s share. If the novice only prepares gruel with water brought by the bhikkhu and merely offers it, and the bhikkhu attends, the bhikkhu should be given the elder’s share. If many bhikkhus, all being in agreement, attend, an equal share should be given to all. Whoever among them attends in a special way, a special share should be made for him.

208. Regarding the gains for attendants, this is the decision: If the entire Sangha of monks attended to him and he passes away, all are owners. If some took turns and others did not, and he passes away, some teachers say, “All should have taken their turn; therefore, all are owners.” Others say, “Only those who attended to him receive a share; the others do not.” If a novice passes away and there are robes, they should be given to the attendants. If there are none, whatever is there should be given. If there are other requisites, a share of robes should be made and given. If both a monk and a novice attended to him equally, an equal share should be given. If only the novice attended to him, the monk has only the right to consent, and the novice should receive the larger share. If the novice prepared gruel with water brought by the monk and only received it, the monk attended to him, and the monk should receive the larger share. If many monks attended to him together, all should receive an equal share. Whoever attended to him especially should receive a special portion.

Yena pana ekadivasampi gilānupaṭṭhākavasena yāgubhattaṃ vā pacitvā dinnaṃ, nhānaṃ vā paṭisāditaṃ, sopi gilānupaṭṭhākova. Yo pana samīpaṃ anāgantvā bhesajjataṇḍulādīni peseti, ayaṃ gilānupaṭṭhāko na hoti. Yo pariyesitvā gāhetvā āgacchati, ayaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākova . Eko vattasīsena jaggati, eko paccāsāya, matakāle ubhopi paccāsīsanti, ubhinnampi dātabbaṃ. Eko upaṭṭhahitvā gilānassa vā kammena attano vā kammena katthaci gato “puna āgantvā jaggissāmī”ti, etassapi dātabbaṃ. Eko ciraṃ upaṭṭhahitvā “idāni na sakkomī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā gacchati, sacepi taṃ divasameva gilāno kālaṃ karoti, upaṭṭhākabhāgo na dātabbo. Gilānupaṭṭhāko nāma gihī vā hotu pabbajito vā antamaso mātugāmopi, sabbe bhāgaṃ labhanti. Sace tassa bhikkhuno pattacīvaramattameva hoti, aññaṃ natthi, sabbaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃyeva dātabbaṃ. Sacepi sahassaṃ agghati, aññaṃ pana bahumpi parikkhāraṃ te na labhanti, saṅghasseva hoti. Avasesaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ bahu ceva mahagghañca, ticīvaraṃ appagghaṃ, tato gahetvā ticīvaraparikkhāro dātabbo, sabbañcetaṃ saṅghikatova labbhati. Sace pana so jīvamānoyeva sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ nissajjitvā kassaci adāsi, koci vā vissāsaṃ aggahesi, yassa dinnaṃ, yena ca gahitaṃ, tasseva hoti, tassa ruciyā eva gilānupaṭṭhākā labhanti. Aññesaṃ adatvā dūre ṭhapitaparikkhārāpi tattha tattha saṅghasseva honti. Dvinnaṃ santakaṃ hoti avibhattaṃ, ekasmiṃ kālakate itaro sāmī. Bahūnampi santake eseva nayo. Sabbesu matesu saṅghikaṃ hoti. Sacepi avibhajitvā saddhivihārikādīnaṃ denti, adinnameva hoti, vibhajitvā dinnaṃ pana sudinnaṃ. Taṃ tesu matesupi saddhivihārikādīnaṃyeva hoti, na saṅghassa.

One who, even for a day as an attendant, cooks and gives gruel or rice or prepares a bath is an attendant. One who sends medicine or rice without coming near is not an attendant. One who seeks, takes, and comes is an attendant. One watches by duty, another by hope—at death, both hope—all receive. One attending long, then going elsewhere for the sick’s or his own task, intending, “I’ll return and attend,” receives too. One attending long, then leaving saying, “I can’t now,” even if the sick dies that day, does not receive an attendant’s share. An attendant—lay or ordained, even a woman—all receive a share. If the monk has only a bowl and robes, nothing else, give all to attendants. Even if worth a thousand, they do not get other abundant requisites—those are the Saṅgha’s. If remaining goods are many and valuable but the triple robe is cheap, take from there and give robe-requisites—all obtained as Saṅgha property. If, while alive, he relinquished all requisites to someone or someone took trust, it belongs to whom it was given or taken, and attendants receive by his wish. Requisites not given, kept far, belong to the Saṅgha there. If two own undivided property and one dies, the other owns. The same for many. If all die, it becomes Saṅgha property. If given undivided to co-residents or similar, it’s ungiven; divided and given is well-given—it remains theirs even if they die, not the Saṅgha’s.

Whoever, even for one day, by way of attending to the sick person, has prepared and given gruel or food, or has prepared a bath, he is also an attendant to the sick person. Whoever, without coming near, sends medicine, rice, and so on, is not an attendant to the sick person. Whoever searches for, obtains, and brings [them], he is an attendant to the sick person. One looks after him with the practice of duties, one with the intention of receiving something in return; at the time of death, both are considered as intending to receive something in return, it should be given to both. One, having attended, has gone somewhere due to the work of the sick person or his own work, thinking, “I will come back and look after him,” it should also be given to him. One, having attended for a long time, thinking, “Now I am not able,” abandons his duty and goes; even if the sick person passes away on that very day, the attendant’s share should not be given. Whether the attendant to the sick person is a householder or a renunciant, even a mother, all receive a share. If that bhikkhu has only his bowl and robes, and nothing else, everything should be given to the attendants of the sick person. Even if it is worth a thousand, they do not receive other abundant requisites; they belong to the Sangha. If the remaining goods are many and valuable, and the triple robe is of little value, taking from that, a triple robe requisite should be given. All this is obtained from the Sangha. However, if while he was still alive, he relinquished all his own requisites and gave them to someone, or someone took them in trust, it belongs to the one to whom it was given, and by whom it was taken; only with his consent do the attendants of the sick person receive. Even the requisites placed at a distance without being given to others belong to the Sangha in those places. If it is the possession of two and undivided, when one passes away, the other is the owner. This is the same principle for the possessions of many. When all have died, it belongs to the Sangha. Even if they give to fellow-dwellers and others without dividing, it is not given; but having divided and given, it is well given. When they have died, it belongs to the fellow-dwellers and others, not to the Sangha.

Whoever, even for a single day, attended to the sick by preparing gruel or rice, or arranged a bath, is considered an attendant. But one who does not come nearby and sends medicine, rice, etc., is not an attendant. One who searches and brings them is considered an attendant. One attends out of duty, another out of expectation; at the time of death, both expect, and both should be given. One who attended to the sick or went elsewhere for his own work, thinking, “I will return and attend again,” should also be given. One who attended for a long time and then gives up the duty and leaves, even if the sick person passes away that same day, should not be given the attendant’s share. An attendant may be a layperson or a monastic, even a woman; all receive a share. If that monk has only a bowl and robes and nothing else, everything should be given to the attendants. Even if it is worth a thousand, but there are many other requisites, they do not receive them; they belong to the Sangha. The remaining items, whether many or valuable, the three robes being of little value, should be taken and given as robe requisites, and all this is obtained from the Sangha. If, while still alive, he relinquished all his requisites and gave them to someone, or placed trust in someone, whatever was given or taken belongs to that person, and the attendants receive according to his wish. Items not given but placed elsewhere also belong to the Sangha. If two people have undivided property, and one passes away, the other is the owner. The same applies to many people’s property. When all have passed away, it belongs to the Sangha. Even if undivided, if given to disciples, etc., it is not properly given; if divided, it is properly given. In such cases, even after death, it belongs to the disciples, etc., not to the Sangha.

Sace vassaṃvuṭṭho bhikkhu anuppanne vā uppanne vā cīvare abhājite vā pakkamati, ummattako khittacitto vedanāṭṭo ukkhittako vā hoti, sante patirūpe gāhake bhāgo dātabbo. Sace pana vibbhamati vā kālaṃ vā karoti sāmaṇero vā paṭijānāti, sikkhaṃ paccakkhātako, antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannako, paṇḍako, theyyasaṃvāsako, titthiyapakkantako, tiracchānagato, mātughātako, pitughātako, arahantaghātako, bhikkhunīdūsako, saṅghabhedako, lohituppādako, ubhatobyañjanako vā paṭijānāti, saṅgho sāmī, bhāgo na dātabbo.

If a rains-completing monk departs before robes arise or are divided—insane, deranged, pained, suspended—or becomes a novice, dies, rejects training, commits a final offense, or admits being a eunuch, impostor, sect-joiner, animal, matricide, patricide, arahant-killer, nun-defiler, Saṅgha-splitter, blood-shedder, or hermaphrodite—the Saṅgha owns; no share is given.

If a bhikkhu who has completed the rains residence, when the robes have not yet arisen, or when they have arisen but have not been divided, goes away, or becomes insane, deranged, afflicted by pain, or suspended, a portion should be given in the presence of suitable recipients. But if he wanders away, or passes away, or declares himself to be a novice, or one who has given up the training, one who has committed the last offense, a eunuch, one who lives in communion with a thief, one who has gone over to another sect, one who has become an animal, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an arahant, a violator of a bhikkhuni, a schismatic, a causer of bloodshed, or one who declares himself to be a person of double-sex, the Sangha is the owner; a portion should not be given.

If a monk who has completed the rains retreat leaves without the robe having been distributed, whether it has arisen or not, if he is insane, deranged, in pain, or suspended, a share should be given to a suitable recipient. If, however, he disrobes, passes away, or claims to be a novice, a renouncer of the training, one who has committed a grave offense, a eunuch, one who has stolen the monastic life, one who has gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an arahant, a defiler of a bhikkhunī, a schismatic, one who has shed blood, a hermaphrodite, the Sangha is the owner, and no share should be given.

Sace vassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anuppanne cīvare saṅgho bhijjati, kosambakabhikkhū viya dve koṭṭhāsā honti, tattha manussā ekasmiṃ pakkhe dakkhiṇodakañca gandhādīni ca denti, ekasmiṃ cīvarāni denti “saṅghassa demā”ti, yattha vā udakaṃ dinnaṃ, yasmiṃyeva pakkhe cīvarāni denti “saṅghassa demā”ti, saṅghasseva tāni cīvarāni, dvinnampi koṭṭhāsānaṃ pāpuṇanti, ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā dvīhipi pakkhehi ekato bhājetabbāni. Sace pana manussā ekasmiṃ pakkhe dakkhiṇodakaṃ gandhādīni ca denti, ekasmiṃ pakkhe cīvarāni denti “pakkhassa demā”ti, pakkhasseva tāni cīvarāni. Evañhi dinne yassa koṭṭhāsassa udakaṃ dinnaṃ, tassa udakameva hoti. Yassa cīvaraṃ dinnaṃ, tasseva cīvaraṃ. Yasmiṃ padese dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇaṃ hoti, tattha eko pakkho dakkhiṇodakassa laddhattā cīvarāni labhati, eko cīvarānameva laddhattāti ubhohi ekato hutvā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ bhājetabbaṃ. “Idaṃ kira parasamudde lakkhaṇa”nti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sace yasmiṃ pakkhe udakaṃ dinnaṃ, tasmiṃyeva pakkhe cīvarāni denti “pakkhassa demā”ti, pakkhasseva tāni cīvarāni, itaro pakkho anissaroyeva. Sace pana vassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ uppanne cīvare abhājite saṅgho bhijjati, sabbesaṃ samakaṃ bhājetabbaṃ.

If the Saṅgha of rains-completers splits before robes arise, like Kosambī monks, into two factions, and people give water and scents to one faction and robes to the other saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” or give robes to the faction given water saying, “I give to the Saṅgha,” those robes are the Saṅgha’s—both factions receive; ring the bell and divide together. If people give water and scents to one faction and robes to the other saying, “I give to the faction,” those robes are that faction’s. If water is given to one and robes to the other, the water-given faction gets water, the robe-given gets robes. Where water dedication is the measure, one faction, having received water, gets robes, the other only robes—both together divide by seniority. The Mahā-aṭṭhakathā says, “This is reportedly a characteristic overseas.” If robes are given to the water-given faction saying, “I give to the faction,” they are that faction’s—the other has no claim. If the Saṅgha splits after robes arise but before division, divide equally for all.

If, when robes have not yet arisen for the bhikkhus who have completed the rains residence, the Sangha is divided, like the bhikkhus of Kosambi, there are two factions; there, people give water for washing and perfumes and so on to one faction, and they give robes to one faction, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” or where water has been given, to that very faction they give robes, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” those robes belong to the Sangha, they belong to both factions. After striking the bell, both factions should divide them together. However, if people give water for washing, perfumes, and so on to one faction, and they give robes to one faction, saying, “We give to the faction,” those robes belong to the faction. Thus, when given, whatever faction has been given water, only water belongs to it. Whatever [faction] has been given robes, only robes belong to it. In whichever place the water for washing is the standard, there one faction, because of having received the water for washing, receives the robes, and one, because of having received only the robes – both, becoming one, should divide according to seniority. It is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, “This, indeed, is the characteristic in the far ocean.” If, to whichever faction water has been given, to that very faction they give robes, saying, “We give to the faction,” those robes belong to the faction; the other faction is without ownership. However, if, when robes have arisen for the bhikkhus who have completed the rains residence, but they have not been divided, the Sangha is divided, they should be divided equally among all.

If, when the robe has not yet arisen for monks who have completed the rains retreat, the Sangha splits, like the monks of Kosambī, into two factions, and people give water for dedication and perfumes, etc., to one faction and robes to the other, saying, “We give to the Sangha,” wherever the water is given, the robes given to that faction belong to the Sangha and reach both factions. They should be divided together after striking the bell. If, however, people give water for dedication and perfumes, etc., to one faction and robes to the other, saying, “We give to the faction,” the robes belong to that faction. Thus, when given, the water belongs to the faction to which it was given, and the robes belong to the faction to which they were given. In a place where the water for dedication is measured, one faction receives the robes because it received the water, and the other receives only the robes. Both should divide them according to seniority. This is said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā to be a sign from the ocean. If water is given to one faction and robes are given to the same faction, saying, “We give to the faction,” the robes belong to that faction, and the other faction has no authority. If, however, the robe has arisen for monks who have completed the rains retreat and the Sangha splits before it is distributed, it should be divided equally among all.

Sace sambahulesu bhikkhūsu addhānamaggappaṭipannesu keci bhikkhū paṃsukūlatthāya susānaṃ okkamanti, keci anāgamentā pakkamanti, anāgamentānaṃ na akāmā bhāgo dātabbo, āgamentānaṃ pana akāmāpi dātabbo bhāgo. Yadi pana manussā “idhāgatā eva gaṇhantū”ti denti, saññāṇaṃ vā katvā gacchanti “sampattā gaṇhantū”ti, sampattānaṃ sabbesampi pāpuṇāti . Sace chaḍḍetvā gatā, yena gahitaṃ, so eva sāmī. Sace keci bhikkhū paṭhamaṃ susānaṃ okkamanti, keci pacchā, tattha paṭhamaṃ okkantā paṃsukūlaṃ labhanti, pacchā okkantā na labhanti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pacchā okkantānaṃ na akāmā bhāgaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 341) vacanato pacchā okkantānaṃ akāmā bhāgo na dātabbo. Sace pana sabbepi samaṃ okkantā, keci labhanti, keci na labhanti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sadisānaṃ okkantānaṃ akāmāpi bhāgaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 341) vacanato samaṃ okkantānaṃ akāmāpi bhāgo dātabbo. Sace pana “laddhaṃ paṃsukūlaṃ sabbe bhājetvā gaṇhissāmā”ti bahimeva katikaṃ katvā susānaṃ okkantā keci labhanti, keci na labhanti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, katikaṃ katvā okkantānaṃ akāmā bhāgaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 341) vacanato katikaṃ katvā okkantānampi akāmā bhāgo dātabbo. Ayaṃ tāva cīvarabhājanīyakathā.

If among many monks on a road some enter a cemetery for paṃsukūla and some leave without returning, do not give a share to the non-returners unwillingly; give to returners even unwillingly. If people give saying, “Only those who came here take,” or signal and leave saying, “Those who arrive take,” it reaches all who arrive. If discarded and gone, whoever took is owner. If some enter the cemetery first, others later, the first get paṃsukūla, the later do not. From, “I allow, monks, not to give a share unwillingly to those entering later” (mahāva. 341), no share is given unwillingly to later entrants. If all enter equally, some get, some don’t—from, “I allow, monks, to give a share even unwillingly to those entering equally” (mahāva. 341), give even unwillingly to those entering equally. If agreeing, “We’ll divide and take paṃsukūla,” many enter the cemetery, some get, some don’t—from, “I allow, monks, to give a share unwillingly to those entering by agreement” (mahāva. 341), give even unwillingly to those entering by agreement. This is the robe-division discussion.

If, among many bhikkhus who have set out on a journey, some bhikkhus go to a cemetery for the purpose of [finding] rag-robes, and some depart without waiting, a portion should not be given against the will of those who do not wait; but a portion should be given even against the will of those who wait. But if people give, saying, “Only those who have come here should take,” or if they depart after making a sign, saying, “Those who have arrived should take,” it belongs to all those who have arrived. If they have thrown [them] away and departed, whoever has taken them is the owner. If some bhikkhus go to the cemetery first, and some later, those who went first obtain rag-robes, and those who went later do not obtain [them]. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, that a portion not be given against the will of those who went later,” (Mahāva. 341) a portion should not be given against the will of those who went later. However, if all went at the same time, and some obtain [them] and some do not obtain [them], because it is said, “I allow, monks, that a portion be given even against the will of those who went at the same time,” (Mahāva. 341) a portion should be given even against the will of those who went at the same time. But if, having made an agreement beforehand, “We will divide and take all the rag-robes obtained,” they go to the cemetery, and some obtain [them] and some do not obtain [them], because it is said, “I allow, monks, that a portion be given even against the will of those who went after making an agreement,” (Mahāva. 341) a portion should be given even against the will of those who went after making an agreement. This is the discussion on the distribution of robes.

If several monks are traveling, and some monks enter a charnel ground to seek rag-robes, while others leave without returning, no share should be given to those who do not return unwillingly, but a share should be given to those who return, even unwillingly. If, however, people say, “Let those who have come take them,” or make a sign and leave, saying, “Let those who arrive take them,” it reaches all who arrive. If they leave after discarding them, whoever takes them is the owner. If some monks enter the charnel ground first and others later, those who enter first obtain the rag-robes, and those who enter later do not. “I allow, monks, that a share should not be given to those who enter later unwillingly.” (Mahāvagga 341) Thus, no share should be given to those who enter later unwillingly. If, however, all enter at the same time, some obtain them, and others do not. “I allow, monks, that a share should be given to those who enter at the same time, even unwillingly.” (Mahāvagga 341) Thus, a share should be given to those who enter at the same time, even unwillingly. If, however, they enter the charnel ground after making an agreement, saying, “We will divide the rag-robes obtained among all,” some obtain them, and others do not. “I allow, monks, that a share should be given to those who enter after making an agreement, even unwillingly.” (Mahāvagga 341) Thus, a share should be given to those who enter after making an agreement, even unwillingly. This is the discussion on the distribution of robes.

209. Piṇḍapātabhājane pana “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghabhattaṃ uddesabhattaṃ nimantanaṃ salākabhattaṃ pakkhikaṃ uposathikaṃ pāṭipadika”nti (cūḷava. 325) evaṃ anuññātesu saṅghabhattādīsu ayaṃ vinicchayo (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325) –

209. Piṇḍapātabhājane—From, “I allow, monks, Saṅgha meals, designated meals, invitations, ticket meals, fortnightly meals, Uposatha meals, first-day meals” (cūḷava. 325), here is the determination for these permitted Saṅgha meals and so forth (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325)—

209. Concerning the distribution of almsfood, because it is allowed, “I allow, monks, almsfood for the Sangha, designated almsfood, invitation, ticket-food, fortnightly [food], Uposatha-day [food], first-day-of-the-fortnight [food],” (Cūḷava. 325) concerning these Saṅgha-almsfood and so on, this is the decision (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325):

209. Regarding the distribution of almsfood, “I allow, monks, the Sangha meal, the designated meal, the invitation meal, the ticket meal, the fortnightly meal, the Uposatha meal, and the Pāṭipadika meal.” (Cūḷavagga 325) Thus, among these allowed meals, this is the decision (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 325)—

Saṅghabhattaṃ nāma sakalassa saṅghassa dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ. Tasmā saṅghabhatte ṭhitikā nāma natthi, tatoyeva ca “amhākaṃ ajja dasa dvādasa divasā bhuñjantānaṃ, idāni aññato bhikkhū ānethā”ti na evaṃ tattha vattabbaṃ, “purimadivasesu amhehi na laddhaṃ, idāni taṃ amhākaṃ gāhethā”ti evampi vattuṃ na labhati. Tañhi āgatāgatānaṃ pāpuṇātiyeva.

Saṅgha meal is a meal to be given to the whole Saṅgha. Thus, there is no standing for a Saṅgha meal—do not say there, “We’ve eaten for ten or twelve days; now bring monks from elsewhere,” or “We didn’t get it earlier; now take it for us.” It reaches those who come.

Saṅgha-almsfood is the name for almsfood to be given to the entire Saṅgha. Therefore, in Saṅgha-almsfood, there is no such thing as a roster; and from that very fact, it should not be said there, “For us, today, after having eaten for ten or twelve days, now bring bhikkhus from elsewhere,” nor is it permissible to say, “On previous days, we did not receive; now take that for us.” Indeed, it belongs to those who have arrived and those who will arrive.

Sangha meal refers to a meal to be given to the entire Sangha. Therefore, there is no fixed rule for the Sangha meal. Thus, it should not be said, “Today, ten or twelve of us are eating; now bring monks from elsewhere,” nor should it be said, “We did not receive it in the past; now take it for us.” It reaches all who come.

Uddesabhattādīsu pana ayaṃ nayo – raññā vā rājamahāmattena vā “saṅghato uddisitvā ettake bhikkhū ānethā”ti pahite kālaṃ ghosetvā ṭhitikā pucchitabbā. Sace atthi, tato paṭṭhāya gāhetabbaṃ. No ce, therāsanato paṭṭhāya gāhetabbaṃ. Uddesakena piṇḍapātikānampi na atikkāmetabbaṃ. Te pana dhutaṅgaṃ rakkhantā sayameva atikkamissanti. Evaṃ gāhiyamāne alasajātikā mahātherā pacchā āgacchanti, “bhante, vīsativassānaṃ gāhīyati, tumhākaṃ ṭhitikā atikkantā”ti na vattabbā, ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā tesaṃ gāhetvā pacchā ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. “Asukavihāre bahu uddesabhattaṃ uppanna”nti sutvā yojanantarikavihāratopi bhikkhū āgacchanti, sampattasampattānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya gāhetabbaṃ, asampattānampi upacārasīmaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ antevāsikādīsu gaṇhantesu gāhetabbameva. “Bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ gāhethā”ti vadanti, na gāhetabbaṃ. Sace upacārasīmaṃ okkantehi ekābaddhā hutvā attano vihāradvāre vā antovihāreyeva vā honti, parisavasena vaḍḍhitā nāma sīmā hoti, tasmā gāhetabbaṃ. Saṅghanavakassa dinnepi pacchā āgatānaṃ gāhetabbameva. Dutiyabhāge pana therāsanaṃ āruḷhe puna āgatānaṃ paṭhamabhāgo na pāpuṇāti, dutiyabhāgato vassaggena gāhetabbaṃ.

Designated meals and so forth—Here is the method: if a king or official sends, “Designate and bring this many monks from the Saṅgha,” announce the time and ask for standing. If there is, take from there; if not, from the senior seat. The designator must not skip alms-goers—they, guarding their austerity, will skip themselves. If lazy great elders arrive late while taking, do not say, “Venerable sirs, it’s taken for those with twenty years—your standing is passed.” Set aside standing, take for them, then by standing. Hearing, “Many designated meals arose in that monastery,” monks come from a yojana away—take from their arrival point. For non-arrivers entering the vicinity boundary, if pupils or similar take, it should be taken. If they say, “Take for those outside the vicinity boundary,” do not take. If those entering the vicinity boundary are continuous at their monastery gate or within, the boundary grows by assembly—take it. Even given to the Saṅgha novice, take for latecomers too. In a second share, those arriving after the senior seat is taken do not get the first share—take from the second by seniority.

Concerning designated almsfood and so on, this is the method: When sent by a king or a royal minister, saying, “Having designated from the Sangha, bring so many bhikkhus,” after announcing the time, the roster should be consulted. If there is one, from that point onwards, they should be taken. If there is not, they should be taken starting from the elder’s seat. Even those who are alms-round-goers should not be passed over by the designator. However, they, maintaining their austere practice, will themselves pass over. When being taken in this way, if lazy, great elders come later, they should not be told, “Venerable sirs, twenty-year-olds are being taken; your roster has been passed over.” Having set aside the roster, having taken them, afterwards the roster should be taken. If, having heard, “Much designated almsfood has arisen in such-and-such a monastery,” bhikkhus come even from a monastery a yojana away, for those who have arrived and those who will arrive, they should be taken starting from the place where they are standing; even for those who have not arrived, but have entered the boundary of the surrounding area, when taking the resident pupils and so on, they should indeed be taken. Some say, “Take those who are standing outside the boundary of the surrounding area,” it should not be taken. If, being connected with those who have entered the boundary of the surrounding area, they are at the gate of their own monastery or even inside the monastery, the boundary is said to be extended by association; therefore, they should be taken. Even when given to a Saṅgha-novice, those who have come later should be taken. However, in the second portion, when the elder’s seat has been reached, the first portion does not belong to those who have come again; from the second portion, they should be taken according to the number of rains.

Regarding designated meals, etc., this is the rule: When a king or a royal minister sends a message, saying, “Select so many monks from the Sangha and bring them,” after announcing the time, the fixed rule should be asked. If there is one, it should be taken from there. If not, it should be taken starting from the senior monks. The selector should not bypass the almsgoers. They, observing the ascetic practices, will bypass themselves. When taking in this way, lazy senior monks come later, and it should not be said, “Venerable sir, the selection for twenty years has passed; your fixed rule has been exceeded.” After setting aside the fixed rule, they should be taken, and later the fixed rule should be taken. Hearing, “In such-and-such monastery, much designated food has arisen,” monks come even from a monastery a yojana away. Starting from the place where they have arrived, they should be taken. Even those who have not arrived but have entered the vicinity should be taken when their disciples, etc., are taking. Some say, “Take those standing outside the vicinity,” but they should not be taken. If those who have entered the vicinity are united and are at their monastery’s gate or inside the monastery, it is called an expanded boundary, and they should be taken. Even if given to a new monk of the Sangha, those who come later should be taken. In the second part, when the senior monks have ascended, the first part does not reach those who come later; they should be taken from the second part according to seniority.

Ekasmiṃ vihāre ekaṃ bhattuddesaṭṭhānaṃ paricchinditvā gāvutappamāṇāyapi upacārasīmāya yattha katthaci ārocitaṃ uddesabhattaṃ tasmiṃyeva bhattuddesaṭṭhāne gāhetabbaṃ. Eko ekassa bhikkhuno pahiṇati “sve saṅghato uddisitvā dasa bhikkhū pahiṇathā”ti, tena so attho bhattuddesakassa ārocetabbo. Sace taṃ divasaṃ pamussati, dutiyadivase pātova ārocetabbo, atha pamussitvāva piṇḍāya pavisanto sarati, yāva upacārasīmaṃ nātikkamati, tāva yā bhojanasālāya pakatiṭhitikā, tassāyeva vasena gāhetabbaṃ. Sacepi upacārasīmaṃ atikkanto, bhikkhū ca upacārasīmaṭṭhakehi ekābaddhā honti, aññamaññaṃ dvādasahatthantaraṃ avijahitvā gacchanti, pakatiṭhitikāya vasena gāhetabbaṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ pana tādise ekābaddhe asati bahiupacārasīmāya yasmiṃ ṭhāne sarati, tattha navaṃ ṭhitikaṃ katvā gāhetabbaṃ. Antogāme āsanasālāya sarantena āsanasālāya ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Yattha katthaci saritvā gāhetabbameva, agāhetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Na hi etaṃ dutiyadivase labbhatīti.

In one monastery, designating one meal place, even in a quarter-yojana vicinity boundary, a designated meal announced anywhere should be taken at that meal place. If one sends to one monk, “Tomorrow designate and send ten monks from the Saṅgha,” he should inform the meal-designator. If forgotten that day, inform early the next; if remembering while entering for alms after forgetting, as long as he doesn’t pass the vicinity boundary, take by the dining hall’s usual standing. If he passes and monks are continuous from the boundary’s edge, not breaking twelve hands apart, take by usual standing. Without such continuity, where he remembers outside the boundary, make a new standing and take. Remembering in the village dining hall, take by its standing. Wherever remembered, it must be taken—not taking is unallowable; it’s not available the next day.

In one monastery, having determined one place for the designation of almsfood, even if the boundary of the surrounding area is the measure of a gāvuta, designated almsfood announced anywhere should be taken in that very place for the designation of almsfood. If someone sends to one bhikkhu, saying, “Tomorrow, having designated from the Sangha, send ten bhikkhus,” that matter should be announced to the designator of almsfood. If he forgets that day, it should be announced early on the second day. If, forgetting and entering for alms, he remembers, as long as he has not crossed the boundary of the surrounding area, according to the usual roster in the dining hall, according to that very [roster], they should be taken. Even if he has crossed the boundary of the surrounding area, and the bhikkhus are connected with those standing within the boundary of the surrounding area, going without leaving a space of twelve cubits between each other, they should be taken according to the usual roster. However, if there is no such connection of bhikkhus, outside the boundary of the surrounding area, in whatever place he remembers, having made a new roster there, they should be taken. One remembering in the sitting hall within the village should take according to the roster of the sitting hall. Wherever he remembers, they should indeed be taken; it is not proper not to take. Indeed, this is not obtainable on the second day.

In one monastery, having designated one place for the meal selection, even within a gāvuta-sized vicinity, wherever the designated meal is announced, it should be taken at that very place of meal selection. If one monk sends a message to another, saying, “Tomorrow, select ten monks from the Sangha and send them,” the matter should be reported to the meal selector. If he forgets that day, it should be reported early the next day. If he forgets and remembers while entering for alms, as long as he has not crossed the vicinity, it should be taken according to the usual fixed rule of the dining hall. Even if he has crossed the vicinity, if the monks are united at the edge of the vicinity and do not separate more than twelve hands’ breadth from each other, it should be taken according to the usual fixed rule. If the monks are not so united outside the vicinity, wherever he remembers, a new fixed rule should be made and taken. If he remembers while in the village assembly hall, it should be taken according to the fixed rule of the assembly hall. Wherever he remembers, it should be taken; it is not proper not to take it. It is not obtained the next day.

Sace sakavihārato aññaṃ vihāraṃ gacchante bhikkhū disvā koci uddesabhattaṃ uddisāpeti, yāva antoupacāre vā upacārasīmaṭṭhakehi saddhiṃ vuttanayena ekābaddhā vā honti, tāva sakavihāre ṭhitikāvasena gāhetabbaṃ. Bahiupacāre ṭhitānaṃ dinnaṃ pana “saṅghato, bhante, ettake nāma bhikkhū uddisathā”ti vutte sampattasampattānaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Tattha dvādasahatthantaraṃ avijahitvā ekābaddhanayena dūre ṭhitāpi sampattāyevāti veditabbā. Sace yaṃ vihāraṃ gacchanti, tattha paviṭṭhānaṃ ārocenti, tassa vihārassa ṭhitikāvasena gāhetabbaṃ. Sacepi gāmadvāre vā vīthiyaṃ vā catukke vā antaraghare vā bhikkhū disvā koci saṅghuddesaṃ āroceti, tasmiṃ tasmiṃ ṭhāne antoupacāragatānaṃ gāhetabbaṃ.

If seeing monks going from their monastery to another, someone designates a meal, as long as they’re continuous within the vicinity or at its edge as stated, take by their monastery’s standing. Given to those outside the vicinity, saying, “Venerable sirs, designate this many monks from the Saṅgha,” take for those arriving. Those far off, not breaking twelve hands apart continuously, are considered arrived. If informed after entering the monastery they’re going to, take by that monastery’s standing. If seeing monks at the village gate, street, crossroad, or within homes and someone announces a Saṅgha designation, take for those within the vicinity there.

If, while going from one’s own monastery to another monastery, someone sees bhikkhus and has designated almsfood designated, as long as they are within the inner surrounding area, or connected with those standing within the boundary of the surrounding area in the manner mentioned, they should be taken according to the roster in one’s own monastery. However, when given to those standing outside the surrounding area, being told, “Venerable sirs, designate so many bhikkhus from the Sangha,” those who have arrived and those who will arrive should be taken. There, even those standing far away, without leaving a space of twelve cubits between each other, according to the principle of connection, should be considered as having arrived. If they announce to those who have entered the monastery to which they are going, they should be taken according to the roster of that monastery. Even if someone sees bhikkhus at the village gate, or in the street, or at a crossroads, or inside a house, and announces a Saṅgha-designation, those who have entered the inner surrounding area in that very place should be taken.

If monks going from their own monastery to another monastery are seen by someone who announces a designated meal, as long as they are within the inner vicinity or united at the edge of the vicinity as explained, it should be taken according to the fixed rule of their own monastery. If given outside the vicinity to those standing, when told, “Venerable sirs, select so many monks from the Sangha,” it should be taken from those who have arrived. There, even those standing far away, not separated by more than twelve hands’ breadth and united, are considered to have arrived. If they are going to a monastery and announce it upon entering, it should be taken according to the fixed rule of that monastery. If monks are seen at the village gate, street, crossroads, or between houses, and someone announces a Sangha selection, it should be taken from those who have entered the vicinity at that place.

Gharūpacāro cettha ekagharaṃ ekūpacāraṃ, ekagharaṃ nānūpacāraṃ, nānāgharaṃ ekūpacāraṃ, nānāgharaṃ nānūpacāranti imesaṃ vasena veditabbo. Tattha yaṃ ekakulassa gharaṃ ekavaḷañjaṃ hoti, taṃ suppapātaparicchedassa anto ekūpacāraṃ nāma, tatthuppanno uddesalābho ekasmiṃ upacāre bhikkhācāravattenapi ṭhitānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Etaṃ ekagharaṃ ekūpacāraṃ nāma. Yaṃ pana ekagharaṃ dvinnaṃ bhariyānaṃ sukhavihāratthāya majjhe bhittiṃ uṭṭhapetvā nānādvāravaḷañjaṃ kataṃ, tatthuppanno uddesalābho bhittiantarikassa na pāpuṇāti, tasmiṃ tasmiṃ ṭhāne nisinnasseva pāpuṇāti. Etaṃ ekagharaṃ nānūpacāraṃ nāma. Yasmiṃ pana ghare bahū bhikkhū nimantetvā antogehato paṭṭhāya ekābaddhe katvā paṭivissakagharānipi pūretvā nisīdāpenti, tattha uppanno uddesalābho sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Yampi nānākulassa nivesanaṃ majjhe bhittiṃ akatvā ekadvāreneva vaḷañjanti, tatrāpi eseva nayo. Etaṃ nānāgharaṃ ekūpacāraṃ nāma. Yo pana nānānivesanesu nisinnānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ uddesalābho uppajjati, kiñcāpi bhitticchiddena bhikkhū dissanti, tasmiṃ tasmiṃ nivesane nisinnānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti. Etaṃ nānāgharaṃ nānūpacāraṃ nāma.

The home vicinity here is understood by: one house one vicinity, one house many vicinities, many houses one vicinity, many houses many vicinities. A house of one family with one enclosure, within a well-defined space, is one house one vicinity—a designated gain arising there reaches all monks within that vicinity, even by alms-round. A house divided by a wall for two wives’ comfort with separate doors and enclosures, its designated gain doesn’t reach across the wall’s gap—each seated there receives. This is one house many vicinities. Where many monks are invited, seated continuously from inside, filling neighbor houses too, the designated gain reaches all. A dwelling of many families without a middle wall, enclosed by one door, follows the same. This is many houses one vicinity. A designated gain arising for monks in separate dwellings, though visible through wall gaps, reaches only those seated in each dwelling. This is many houses many vicinities.

Here, the surrounding area of a house should be understood according to these: one house, one surrounding area; one house, many surrounding areas; many houses, one surrounding area; many houses, many surrounding areas. There, whatever house of one family has one enclosure, within the boundary of a shower’s reach, that is called one surrounding area; the designated gain that has arisen there belongs to all those standing even with the practice of going for alms in one surrounding area. This is called one house, one surrounding area. However, when one house, for the sake of the comfortable dwelling of two wives, has been made with a wall erected in the middle and with different doors and enclosures, the designated gain that has arisen there does not belong to the one on the other side of the wall; it belongs only to the one sitting in that very place. This is called one house, many surrounding areas. However, in whatever house, having invited many bhikkhus, starting from inside the house, having made them connected, they make them sit, filling even the neighboring houses, the designated gain that has arisen there belongs to all. Even when the dwelling of many families is enclosed without making a wall in the middle, with only one door, the same principle applies there. This is called many houses, one surrounding area. However, when a designated gain arises for bhikkhus sitting in different dwellings, even though the bhikkhus are seen through the gaps in the wall, it belongs only to those sitting in that very dwelling. This is called many houses, many surrounding areas.

The vicinity of a house here is understood in four ways: one house, one vicinity; one house, multiple vicinities; multiple houses, one vicinity; multiple houses, multiple vicinities. There, a house of one family with one entrance is called one vicinity within easy reach, and the designated gain arising there reaches all monks standing in that vicinity even while on alms round. This is called one house, one vicinity. A house of one family with two wives, for their comfortable living, having built a wall in the middle and made separate entrances, the designated gain arising there does not reach beyond the wall but reaches only those sitting in that place. This is called one house, multiple vicinities. In a house where many monks are invited and seated starting from inside the house, united, filling neighboring houses as well, the designated gain arising there reaches all. Even in a dwelling of multiple families without a wall in the middle and with a single entrance, the same applies. This is called multiple houses, one vicinity. When the designated gain arises for monks seated in multiple dwellings, even if the monks are seen through a wall crack, it reaches only those seated in that dwelling. This is called multiple houses, multiple vicinities.

Yo pana gāmadvāravīthicatukkesu aññatarasmiṃ ṭhāne uddesabhattaṃ labhitvā aññasmiṃ bhikkhusmiṃ asati attanova pāpuṇāpetvā dutiyadivasepi tasmiṃyeva ṭhāne aññaṃ labhati, tena yaṃ aññaṃ navakaṃ vā vuḍḍhaṃ vā bhikkhuṃ passati, tassa gāhetabbaṃ. Sace koci natthi, attanova pāpetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace āsanasālāya nisīditvā kālaṃ paṭimānentesu bhikkhūsu koci āgantvā “saṅghuddesapattaṃ detha, uddesapattaṃ detha, saṅghato uddisitvā pattaṃ detha, saṅghikaṃ pattaṃ dethā”ti vā vadati, uddesapattaṃ ṭhitikāya gāhetvā dātabbaṃ. “Saṅghuddesabhikkhuṃ detha, saṅghato uddisitvā bhikkhuṃ detha, saṅghikaṃ bhikkhuṃ dethā”ti vuttepi eseva nayo.

If one gets a designated meal at the village gate, street, or crossroad and no other monk is there, taking it himself, then gets another there the next day, he should take it for any new or elder monk he sees. If none, take it himself. If someone arrives while monks wait in the dining hall, saying, “Give a Saṅgha-designated bowl, a designated bowl, a bowl designated from the Saṅgha, a Saṅgha bowl,” take and give by standing. If saying, “Give a Saṅgha-designated monk, a monk designated from the Saṅgha, a Saṅgha monk,” the same applies.

Whoever, having received designated almsfood in one place among village gates, streets, and crossroads, in the absence of another bhikkhu, having caused it to belong to himself, and on the second day receives another in that very place, he, whatever other new or senior bhikkhu he sees, should have him take it. If there is no one, having caused it to belong to himself, he should eat it. If, among the bhikkhus sitting in the sitting hall, waiting for the time, someone comes and says, “Give the bowl designated for the Sangha, give the designated bowl, having designated from the Sangha, give the bowl, give the Sangha’s bowl,” the designated bowl should be taken according to the roster and given. If he says, “Give a bhikkhu designated for the Sangha, having designated from the Sangha, give a bhikkhu, give the Sangha’s bhikkhu,” the same principle applies.

If one obtains a designated meal at a village gate, street, or crossroads and, in the absence of another monk, takes it for himself, and the next day obtains another at the same place, he should take it for another monk, whether junior or senior. If there is none, he should take it for himself and eat. If, while monks are sitting in the assembly hall waiting for time, someone comes and says, “Give the Sangha selection bowl, give the selection bowl, select from the Sangha and give the bowl, give the Sangha bowl,” the selection bowl should be taken according to the fixed rule and given. If someone says, “Give the Sangha selection monk, select from the Sangha and give the monk, give the Sangha monk,” the same applies.

Uddesako panettha pesalo lajjī medhāvī icchitabbo, tena tikkhattuṃ ṭhitikaṃ pucchitvā sace koci ṭhitikaṃ jānanto natthi, therāsanato gāhetabbaṃ. Sace pana “ahaṃ jānāmi, dasavassena laddha”nti koci bhaṇati, “atthāvuso, dasavassā bhikkhū”ti pucchitabbaṃ. Sace tassa sutvāva “dasavassamha dasavassamhā”ti bahū āgacchanti, “tuyhaṃ pāpuṇāti, tuyhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti agatvā “sabbe appasaddā hothā”ti vatvā paṭipāṭiyā ṭhapetabbā, ṭhapetvā “kati bhikkhū icchathā”ti upāsako pucchitabbo, “ettake nāma, bhante”ti vutte “tuyhaṃ pāpuṇāti, tuyhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti avatvā sabbanavakassa vassaggañca utu ca divasabhāgo ca chāyā ca pucchitabbā. Sace chāyāyapi pucchiyamānāya añño vuḍḍhataro āgacchati, tassa dātabbaṃ. Atha chāyaṃ pucchitvā “tuyhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti vutte vuḍḍhataro āgacchati, na labhati. Kathāpapañcena hi nisinnassapi niddāyantassapi gāhitaṃ suggāhitaṃ, atikkantaṃ suatikkantaṃ. Bhājanīyabhaṇḍañhi nāmetaṃ sampattasseva pāpuṇāti, tattha sampattabhāvo upacārena paricchinditabbo. Āsanasālāya ca antoparikkhepo upacāro, tasmiṃ ṭhitassa lābho pāpuṇāti.

The designator should be skilled, modest, intelligent—ask standing thrice; if no one knows standing, take from the senior seat. If someone says, “I know—taken by ten years,” ask, “Friend, are there ten-year monks?” If many come hearing him, saying, “Ten years, ten years,” do not say, “It reaches you, it reaches you,” but, “All be quiet,” set them in order, and ask the layperson, “How many monks do you want?” If he says, “This many, venerable sir,” do not say, “It reaches you,” but ask the youngest’s years, season, day part, and shadow. If another more senior arrives while asking shadow, give to him. If asking shadow, saying, “It reaches you,” and a senior arrives, he doesn’t receive—by debate’s flaw, even for one asleep while seated, taken is well-taken, passed is well-passed. Divisible goods reach only the arrived—arrival is defined by vicinity. The dining hall’s inner enclosure is vicinity—gain reaches one standing there.

The distributor here should be virtuous, conscientious, intelligent, and desirable. After he has inquired three times about the order, if there is no one who knows the order, it should be taken from the senior-most monk’s seat. If someone says, “I know it; I received it after ten years,” he should be asked, “Are there, friend, monks of ten years?” If, upon hearing this, many come forward saying, “I am of ten years, I am of ten years,” without approaching saying, “It is due to you, it is due to you,” they should be told, “All of you be quiet,” and they should be arranged in order. After arranging them, the lay supporter should be asked, “How many monks do you desire?” When he says, “So many, venerable sir,” without saying, “It is due to you, it is due to you,” the years of ordination, the season, the part of the day, and the shadow of the most junior monk should be asked. If, even when the shadow is being asked, another elder comes, it should be given to him. But if, after asking the shadow and saying, “It is due to you,” an elder comes, he does not receive it. For even if one is sitting or sleeping through the discussion of the matter, what has been accepted is well-accepted, and what has passed is well-passed. Indeed, that is the item to be distributed; it is due only to the one who has arrived. The state of having arrived there should be determined by proximity. The proximity is the inner circumference of the dining hall; the gain is due to the one standing within that.

Here, the one who is to be chosen as the reciter should be gentle, modest, and wise. After asking three times if anyone knows the standing order, and if no one knows it, it should be taken from the senior monks. However, if someone says, “I know, it was established ten years ago,” one should ask, “Venerable, are there monks of ten years’ standing?” If, upon hearing this, many come forward saying, “We are of ten years’ standing, we are of ten years’ standing,” one should not say, “It is yours, it is yours,” but should say, “All of you, remain silent,” and arrange them in order. After arranging them, the layperson should be asked, “How many monks do you wish for?” When he says, “So many, Venerable,” one should not say, “It is yours, it is yours,” but should ask about the year, season, time of day, and shadow of the new monks. If, while asking about the shadow, another elder monk arrives, it should be given to him. However, if after asking about the shadow, one says, “It is yours,” and an elder monk arrives, he does not receive it. For even if one is sitting engaged in conversation or dozing, it is well taken and well passed. This is like a vessel that reaches only the one who is present; the presence here should be determined by proximity. The proximity within the assembly hall is also considered, and the one standing there receives it.

Koci āsanasālato aṭṭha uddesapatte āharāpetvā satta patte paṇītabhojanānaṃ, ekaṃ udakassa pūretvā āsanasālaṃ pahiṇati, gahetvā āgatā kiñci avatvā bhikkhūnaṃ hatthesu patiṭṭhapetvā pakkamanti, yena yaṃ laddhaṃ, tasseva taṃ hoti. Yena pana udakaṃ laddhaṃ, tassa atikkantampi ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ uddesabhattaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, tañca lūkhaṃ vā labhatu paṇītaṃ vā ticīvaraparivāraṃ vā, tasseva taṃ hoti. Īdiso hissa puññaviseso, udakaṃ pana yasmā āmisaṃ na hoti, tasmā aññaṃ uddesabhattaṃ labhati. Sace pana te gahetvā āgatā “idaṃ kira, bhante, sabbaṃ bhājetvā bhuñjathā”ti vatvā gacchanti, sabbehi bhājetvā bhuñjitvā udakaṃ pātabbaṃ. “Saṅghato uddisitvā aṭṭha mahāthere detha, majjhime detha, navake detha, paripuṇṇavasse sāmaṇere detha, majjhimabhāṇakādayo detha, mayhaṃ ñātibhikkhū dethā”ti vadantassa pana “upāsaka, tvaṃ evaṃ vadasi, ṭhitikāya pana tesaṃ na pāpuṇātī”ti vatvā ṭhitikāvaseneva dātabbā. Daharasāmaṇerehi pana uddesabhattesu laddhesu sace dāyakānaṃ ghare maṅgalaṃ hoti, “tumhākaṃ ācariyupajjhāye pesethā”ti vattabbaṃ. Yasmiṃ pana uddesabhatte paṭhamabhāgo sāmaṇerānaṃ pāpuṇāti, anubhāgo mahātherānaṃ, na tattha sāmaṇerā “mayaṃ paṭhamabhāgaṃ labhimhā”ti purato gantuṃ labhanti, yathāpaṭipāṭiyā eva gantabbaṃ. “Saṅghato uddisitvā tumhe ethā”ti vutte “mayhaṃ aññadāpi jānissasi, ṭhitikā pana evaṃ gacchatī”ti ṭhitikāvaseneva gāhetabbaṃ. Atha “saṅghuddesapattaṃ dethā”ti vatvā aggāhiteyeva patte yassa kassaci pattaṃ gahetvā pūretvā āharati, āhaṭampi ṭhitikāya eva gāhetabbaṃ.

One has eight designated bowls brought from the dining hall, fills seven with fine food and one with water, sends them to the dining hall; those who take them set them in monks’ hands without speaking and leave—what each gets is his. The one getting water, even if standing passes, should take another designated meal—whether coarse, fine, or with triple-robe accessories, it’s his. Such is his merit’s distinction—water, not being material, allows another designated meal. If those who took say, “Venerable sirs, divide and eat all,” divide, eat, and drink the water. If he says, “Give eight great elders, middling ones, novices, full-year novices, middling reciters, or my kin monks from the Saṅgha,” say, “Layperson, you say so, but it doesn’t reach them by standing,” and give by standing only. If young novices get designated meals and there’s a celebration at the donor’s home, say, “Send them to your teachers and preceptors.” If the first share of a designated meal reaches novices and the later share great elders, novices cannot go ahead saying, “We got the first share”—go by order. If said, “Come designated from the Saṅgha,” say, “You’ll know me another time—standing goes thus,” and take by standing. If saying, “Give a Saṅgha-designated bowl,” taking any bowl, filling, and bringing ungiven, take by standing.

Someone has eight invitation tickets brought from the dining hall, fills seven tickets with superior foods and one with water, and sends them to the dining hall. Those who have taken them and come, without saying anything, place them in the hands of the monks and depart. Whatever is received by whom, it belongs to him. But the one who received the water should have his passed order set aside, even if it has passed, and another meal by invitation should be accepted for him. And whether he receives coarse or fine food, or a set of three robes, it belongs to him. Such is his special merit. But since water is not a material offering, therefore he receives another meal by invitation. But if those who have taken them and come say, “Venerable sirs, please divide all of this and eat it,” and depart, all should divide and eat it, and the water should be drunk. But to one who says, “Designate from the Sangha and give to eight elders, give to the middle ones, give to the novices, give to fully ordained novices, give to the reciters of the Majjhima, etc., give to my relative monks,” he should be told, “Lay supporter, you say so, but according to the order it is not due to them,” and it should be given according to the order. But when young novices have received meals by invitation, if there is a celebration in the house of the donors, they should be told, “Send your teachers and preceptors.” But in a meal by invitation where the first portion is due to the novices and the subsequent portion to the elders, the novices cannot go forward saying, “We have received the first portion,” they should go according to the order. When told, “Come, having been designated from the Sangha,” one should say, “I will know about other times, but the order goes like this,” and it should be accepted according to the order. But if, after saying, “Give the ticket for the Sangha invitation,” before the ticket is accepted, he takes the ticket of anyone, fills it, and brings it, what has been brought should still be accepted according to the order.

Someone may have eight almsbowls brought from the assembly hall, seven of which are filled with excellent food, and one filled with water, and then sent to the assembly hall. Those who bring them may say nothing and place the bowls in the hands of the monks and depart. Whatever is received by whom belongs to that person. However, if water is received, even if the standing order is passed, another alms meal should be taken, whether it is coarse or excellent, or even a set of three robes, and it belongs to that person. Such is his special merit. Since water is not considered material gain, another alms meal is received. However, if those who bring it say, “Venerable, please share and eat all of this,” then all should share and eat, and the water should be drunk. If someone says, “Give to the eight senior monks designated by the Sangha, give to the middle group, give to the junior monks, give to the fully ordained novices, give to the middle reciters, give to my relative monks,” one should say, “Layperson, you speak thus, but the standing order does not reach them,” and it should be given according to the standing order. When young novices receive alms meals, if there is a ceremony at the donors’ house, they should be told, “Send your preceptors and teachers.” If in an alms meal the first portion goes to the novices and the subsequent portion to the senior monks, the novices should not go forward saying, “We have received the first portion,” but should proceed in order. If told, “Come, designated by the Sangha,” one should say, “You will know another time, but the standing order proceeds thus,” and it should be taken according to the standing order. If someone says, “Give the Sangha’s designated bowl,” and the bowls are not yet taken, whoever takes a bowl, fills it, and brings it, the brought bowl should also be taken according to the standing order.

Eko “saṅghuddesapattaṃ āharā”ti pesito “bhante, ekaṃ pattaṃ detha, nimantanabhattaṃ āharissāmī”ti vadati, so ce “uddesabhattagharato ayaṃ āgato”ti ñatvā bhikkhūhi “nanu tvaṃ asukagharato āgato”ti vutto “āma, bhante, na nimantanabhattaṃ, uddesabhatta”nti bhaṇati, ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Yo pana “ekaṃ pattaṃ āharā”ti vutte “kinti vatvā āharāmī”ti vatvā “yathā te ruccatī”ti vutto āgacchati, ayaṃ vissaṭṭhadūto nāma. Uddesapattaṃ vā paṭipāṭipattaṃ vā puggalikapattaṃ vā yaṃ icchati, taṃ etassa dātabbaṃ. Eko bālo abyatto “uddesapattaṃ āharā”ti pesito vattuṃ na jānāti, tuṇhībhūto tiṭṭhati, so “kassa santikaṃ āgatosī”ti vā “kassa pattaṃ harissasī”ti vā na vattabbo. Evañhi vutto pucchāsabhāgena “tumhākaṃ santikaṃ āgatomhī”ti vā “tumhākaṃ pattaṃ harissāmī”ti vā vadeyya. Tato taṃ bhikkhuṃ aññe bhikkhū jigucchantā na olokeyyuṃ, “kuhiṃ gacchasi, kiṃ karonto āhiṇḍasī”ti pana vattabbo. Tassa “uddesapattatthāya āgatomhī”ti vadantassa gāhetvā patto dātabbo.

One sent, “Bring a Saṅgha-designated bowl,” says, “Venerable sirs, give one bowl—I’ll bring an invitation meal”; if monks, knowing he’s from a designated-meal house, say, “Aren’t you from that house?” and he says, “Yes, venerable sirs—not an invitation meal, a designated meal,” take by standing. If sent, “Bring one bowl,” saying, “How should I say and bring?” and told, “As you wish,” comes—he’s a free messenger. Give him a designated bowl, order bowl, or personal bowl as he wishes. A foolish, unskilled one sent, “Bring a designated bowl,” doesn’t know to speak, stands silent—do not say, “From whom did you come?” or “Whose bowl will you take?” If asked, he might say by question’s nature, “I came from you,” or “I’ll take yours.” Then other monks, disdaining him, wouldn’t look. Say, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering?” If he says, “I came for a designated bowl,” take and give a bowl.

One person, sent with “Bring the ticket for the Sangha invitation,” says, “Venerable sir, give me one ticket, I will bring the invitation meal.” If he is known by the monks to have come from the house of the meal by invitation, and when asked by the monks, “Surely you have come from such-and-such a house?” he says, “Yes, venerable sir, it is not an invitation meal, it is a meal by invitation,” it should be accepted according to the order. But when one, told, “Bring one ticket,” says, “What shall I say to bring?” and when told, “As you like,” comes, this is called a dispatched messenger. Whether it is a ticket for a meal by invitation, or a ticket in sequence, or a ticket for an individual, whatever he wishes, that should be given to him. One foolish, inarticulate person, sent with “Bring the ticket for a meal by invitation,” does not know what to say and stands silent. He should not be asked, “From whose presence have you come?” or “Whose ticket will you take?” For if asked in this way, with a question portion, he might say, “I have come from your presence,” or “I will take your ticket.” Then the other monks, despising that monk, would not look at him. But he should be asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering around?” When he says, “I have come for the ticket for a meal by invitation,” the ticket should be accepted and given to him.

One who is sent to bring the Sangha’s designated bowl says, “Venerable, give me one bowl, I will bring an invited meal.” If the monks know that he has come from the alms meal house and say, “Did you not come from such and such a house?” and he replies, “Yes, Venerable, it is not an invited meal, but an alms meal,” it should be taken according to the standing order. However, if one is told, “Bring one bowl,” and he says, “What should I say to bring it?” and is told, “As you please,” and he comes, this is called a free messenger. Whether it is a designated bowl, a sequential bowl, or a personal bowl, whatever he wishes should be given to him. One foolish and unskilled person, when sent to bring a designated bowl, does not know what to say and remains silent. He should not be asked, “Whose presence have you come to?” or “Whose bowl will you carry?” For if asked thus, he might say, “I have come to your presence,” or “I will carry your bowl.” Then other monks, despising him, would not look at him. However, he should be asked, “Where are you going? What are you wandering about for?” If he says, “I have come to bring a designated bowl,” the bowl should be given to him after taking it.

Ekā kūṭaṭṭhitikā nāma hoti. Rañño vā rājamahāmattassa vā gehe atipaṇītāni aṭṭha uddesabhattāni niccaṃ dīyanti, tāni ekacārikabhattāni katvā bhikkhū visuṃ ṭhitikāya paribhuñjanti. Ekacce bhikkhū “sve dāni amhākaṃ pāpuṇissantī”ti attano ṭhitikaṃ sallakkhetvā gatā. Tesu anāgatesuyeva aññe āgantukā bhikkhū āgantvā āsanasālāya nisīdanti. Taṅkhaṇaññeva rājapurisā āgantvā “paṇītabhattapatte dethā”ti vadanti, āgantukā ṭhitikaṃ ajānantā gāhenti, taṅkhaṇaññeva ca ṭhitikaṃ jānanakabhikkhū āgantvā “kiṃ gāhethā”ti vadanti . Rājagehe paṇītabhattanti. Kativassato paṭṭhāyāti. Ettakavassato nāmāti. “Mā gāhethā”ti nivāretvā ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Gāhite āgatehipi, pattadānakāle āgatehipi, dinnakāle āgatehipi, rājagehato patte pūretvā āhaṭakāle āgatehipi, rājā “ajja bhikkhūyeva āgacchantū”ti pesetvā bhikkhūnaṃyeva hatthe piṇḍapātaṃ deti, evaṃ dinnaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ gahetvā āgatakāle āgatehipi ṭhitikaṃ jānanakabhikkhūhi “mā bhuñjitthā”ti vāretvā ṭhitikāyameva gāhetabbaṃ.

There’s a fixed-standing type: in a king’s or official’s home, eight fine designated meals are given regularly; monks make them regular meals and use them by separate standing. Some monks, noting, “Tomorrow they’ll reach us,” leave. If guest monks arrive and sit in the dining hall without them, royal men come saying, “Give fine-meal bowls”; guests, not knowing standing, take—then standing-knowers arrive, saying, “What did you take?” “Fine meals from the royal house.” “Since how many years?” “Since this many.” Stop them, “Don’t take,” and take by standing. Even if taken by arrivers, bowl-givers, givers at giving time, fillers from the royal house, or if the king sends, “Let monks come today,” giving almsfood to monks’ hands—taken and brought, standing-knowers stop, “Don’t eat,” and take by standing.

There is a fraudulent order. In the house of a king or a great minister of the king, eight very fine meals by invitation are always given. They make those into single-round meals, and the monks consume them separately according to the order. Some monks, thinking, “Now tomorrow they will be due to us,” having noted their own order, have gone. While they have not yet arrived, other visiting monks come and sit in the dining hall. At that very moment, the king’s men come and say, “Give the tickets for the fine meals.” The visiting monks, not knowing the order, accept them. And at that very moment, the monks who know the order come and say, “What are you accepting?” “Fine meals in the king’s house.” “Starting from how many years?” “Starting from so many years.” They should be prevented, saying, “Do not accept them,” and it should be accepted according to the order. Even if they have arrived after accepting, or if they have arrived at the time of giving the tickets, or if they have arrived at the time of giving, or if they have arrived at the time when the tickets are brought filled from the king’s house, or if the king sends saying, “Today let only the monks come,” and gives the almsfood into the hands of the monks themselves, even if they have arrived at the time when the almsfood given in this way is taken, the monks who know the order should prevent them, saying, “Do not eat,” and it should be accepted according to the order.

There is something called a false standing order. In the house of a king or a high official, eight excellent alms meals are always given. These are made into a single meal, and the monks partake of them separately according to the standing order. Some monks, thinking, “Tomorrow ours will come,” go after considering their own standing order. While they are still away, other visiting monks arrive and sit in the assembly hall. At that moment, royal servants come and say, “Give the excellent meal bowls.” The visiting monks, not knowing the standing order, take them. At that very moment, monks who know the standing order arrive and say, “What are you taking?” They reply, “The excellent meal from the royal house.” The monks ask, “From how many years’ standing?” They say, “From so many years’ standing.” The monks say, “Do not take,” and stop them, and it should be taken according to the standing order. Even if they have taken it, or at the time of giving the bowls, or when the bowls have been given, or when the bowls have been filled and brought from the royal house, or when the king sends for the monks and gives alms food into the hands of the monks, even when the alms food is brought after being given thus, monks who know the standing order should say, “Do not eat,” and stop them, and it should be taken according to the standing order.

Atha ne rājā bhojetvā pattepi nesaṃ pūretvā deti, yaṃ āhaṭaṃ, taṃ ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ . Sace pana “mā tucchahatthā gacchantū”ti thokameva pattesu pakkhittaṃ hoti, taṃ na gāhetabbaṃ. “Atha bhuñjitvā tucchapattāva āgacchanti, yaṃ tehi bhuttaṃ, taṃ nesaṃ gīvā hotī”ti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero panāha “gīvākiccaṃ ettha natthi, ṭhitikaṃ pana ajānantehi yāva jānanakā āgacchanti, tāva nisīditabbaṃ siyā, evaṃ santepi bhikkhūhi bhuttaṃ subhuttaṃ, idāni pattaṭṭhānena gāhetabba”nti.

If the king feeds them and fills their bowls, take what’s brought by standing. If saying, “Don’t go empty-handed,” a little is put in bowls, do not take. Elder Mahāsuma says, “They ate and come empty-bowled—what they ate is on their necks.” Elder Mahāpaduma says, “No neck duty here—they didn’t know standing; they might wait until knowers come. Even so, monks ate well—now take by bowl-standing.”

But if the king, having fed them, also gives them their tickets filled, what has been brought should be accepted according to the order. But if, thinking, “Let them not go empty-handed,” only a little has been placed in the tickets, that should not be accepted. The great elder Suma said, “If they come with empty tickets after eating, what they have eaten is their neck.” But the great elder Paduma said, “There is no neck duty here. But if those who do not know the order should have to sit until those who know arrive, even so, what has been eaten by the monks is well-eaten. Now it should be accepted in place of the ticket.”

Then the king feeds them and also fills their bowls and gives them. Whatever is brought should be taken according to the standing order. However, if it is said, “Do not go with empty hands,” and only a little is placed in the bowls, it should not be taken. “If they eat and return with empty bowls, what they have eaten becomes their own,” said the Elder Mahāsumedha. The Elder Mahāpaduma, however, said, “There is no neck matter here. However, until those who know the standing order arrive, one should sit. Even so, what the monks have eaten is well eaten. Now, the bowls should be taken according to the standing order.”

Eko ticīvaraparivāro satagghanako piṇḍapāto avassikassa bhikkhuno patto, vihāre ca “evarūpo piṇḍapāto avassikassa patto”ti likhitvā ṭhapesuṃ. Atha saṭṭhivassaccayena añño tathārūpo piṇḍapāto uppanno, ayaṃ kiṃ avassikaṭhitikāya gāhetabbo, udāhu saṭṭhivassaṭhitikāyāti? Saṭṭhivassaṭhitikāyāti vuttaṃ. Ayañhi bhikkhuṭhitikaṃ gahetvāyeva vaḍḍhitoti. Eko uddesabhattaṃ bhuñjitvā sāmaṇero jāto, puna taṃ bhattaṃ sāmaṇeraṭhitikāya pattaṃ gaṇhituṃ labhati. Ayaṃ kira antarābhaṭṭhako nāma. Yo pana paripuṇṇavasso sāmaṇero “sve uddesabhattaṃ labhissatī”ti ajjeva upasampajjati, atikkantā tassa ṭhitikā. Ekassa bhikkhuno uddesabhattaṃ pattaṃ, patto cassa na tuccho hoti, so aññassa samīpe nisinnassa pattaṃ dāpeti, taṃ ce theyyāya haranti, gīvā hoti. Sace pana so bhikkhu “mayhaṃ pattaṃ dammī”ti sayameva deti, assa gīvā na hoti. Athāpi tena bhattena anatthiko hutvā “alaṃ mayhaṃ, tavetaṃ bhattaṃ dammi, pattaṃ pesetvā āharāpehī”ti aññaṃ vadati, yaṃ tato āharīyati, sabbaṃ pattasāmikassa hoti. Pattaṃ ce theyyāya haranti, suhaṭo, bhattassa dinnattā gīvā na hoti.

A triple-robe-accompanied almsfood worth a hundred reaches a non-rains monk; the monastery notes, “Such almsfood reached a non-rains monk.” After sixty years, another such arises—should it be taken by non-rains standing or sixty-year standing? By sixty-year standing—he took monk-standing and grew. One eats a designated meal, becomes a novice, and can take it again by novice standing—he’s an interim-taker. A full-year novice, thinking, “Tomorrow I’ll get a designated meal,” ordains today—his standing passes. A designated meal reaches one monk; his bowl isn’t empty—he has another nearby take it. If stolen by theft, it’s on his neck. If he says, “I give my bowl,” and gives it, no neck duty. If uninterested, saying, “Enough for me—I give you this meal; send and bring a bowl,” what’s brought is all the bowl-owner’s. If the bowl is stolen, well-taken—no neck duty since the meal was given.

A set of three robes and an almsfood worth a hundred were designated for a monk without the rains residence. And in the monastery, they wrote and placed, “Such an almsfood is designated for a monk without the rains residence.” Then, after sixty years, another such almsfood arose. Should this be accepted according to the order of those without the rains residence, or according to the order of sixty years? It was said according to the order of sixty years. For this monk has increased only taking the monk’s order. A novice, having eaten a meal by invitation, became a novice. Again, that meal can be taken according to the order of novices. This is called one who is supported in between. But a fully ordained novice who is about to receive a meal by invitation tomorrow, if he ordains today, his order has passed. A meal by invitation was designated for a monk, and his ticket is not empty. He has the ticket given to one sitting near him. If they steal it out of theft, it is his neck. But if that monk says, “I will give my ticket,” and gives it himself, it is not his neck. But if, being without need of that meal, he says to another, “Enough for me, I give you this meal, send for the ticket and have it brought,” whatever is brought from that, all of it belongs to the owner of the ticket. If they steal the ticket out of theft, it is well-taken; because the meal has been given, it is not his neck.

A set of three robes worth a hundred, and alms food for a monk who is not a resident, his bowl, and in the monastery it is written, “Such alms food is for the bowl of a non-resident,” and it is placed there. After sixty years, another such alms food arises. Should this be taken according to the standing order of the non-resident or the sixty-year standing order? It is said to be according to the sixty-year standing order. For this monk has grown by taking the standing order of the monks. One who has eaten an alms meal and becomes a novice, and then again takes that meal according to the standing order of the novice, is called an intermediate. However, a fully ordained novice who thinks, “Tomorrow I will receive an alms meal,” and ordains today, his standing order has passed. If a monk’s alms meal bowl is received, and his bowl is not empty, and he gives it to another sitting nearby, and if it is stolen, it becomes his own. However, if the monk himself says, “I give my bowl,” and gives it himself, it does not become his own. Even if he has no need for that meal and says, “Enough for me, I give this meal to you, send the bowl and bring it,” whatever is brought from there all belongs to the bowl’s owner. If the bowl is stolen, it is well taken, and since the meal was given, it does not become his own.

Vihāre dasa bhikkhū honti, tesu nava piṇḍapātikā, eko sādiyanako, “dasa uddesapatte dethā”ti vutte piṇḍapātikā gahetuṃ na icchanti. Itaro bhikkhu “sabbāni mayhaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti gaṇhāti, ṭhitikā na hoti. Ekekaṃ ce pāpetvā gaṇhāti, ṭhitikā tiṭṭhati. Evaṃ gāhetvā dasahipi pattehi āharāpetvā “bhante, mayhaṃ saṅgahaṃ karothā”ti nava patte piṇḍapātikānaṃ deti, bhikkhudattiyaṃ nāmetaṃ, gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace so upāsako “bhante, gharaṃ āgantabba”nti vadati, so ca bhikkhu te bhikkhū “etha, bhante, mayhaṃ sahāyā hothā”ti tassa gharaṃ gacchati, yaṃ tattha labhati, sabbaṃ tasseva hoti, itare tena dinnaṃ labhanti. Atha nesaṃ ghareyeva nisīdāpetvā dakkhiṇodakaṃ datvā yāgukhajjakādīni denti “bhante, yaṃ manussā denti, taṃ gaṇhathā”ti, tassa bhikkhuno vacaneneva itaresaṃ vaṭṭati. Bhuttāvīnaṃ patte pūretvā gaṇhitvā gamanatthāya denti, sabbaṃ tasseva bhikkhuno hoti, tena dinnaṃ itaresaṃ vaṭṭati. Yadi pana te vihāreyeva tena bhikkhunā “bhante, mayhaṃ bhikkhaṃ gaṇhatha, manussānaṃ vacanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttā gacchanti, tattha yaṃ bhuñjanti ceva nīharanti ca, sabbaṃ taṃ tesaṃyeva santakaṃ. Athāpi “mayhaṃ bhikkhaṃ gaṇhathā”ti avuttā “manussānaṃ vacanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti gacchanti, tatra ce ekassa madhurena sarena anumodanaṃ karontassa sutvā therānañca upasame pasīditvā bahuṃ samaṇaparikkhāraṃ denti, ayaṃ theresu pasādena uppanno akatabhāgo nāma, tasmā sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti.

In a monastery with ten monks—nine alms-goers, one accepter—told, “Give ten designated bowls,” alms-goers don’t want to take. The other, saying, “All reach me,” takes—no standing. Taking each, saying, “This reaches me,” standing remains. Taking so, having all ten bowls brought, he says, “Venerable sirs, support me,” giving nine to alms-goers—it’s bhikkhudattiya, allowable to take. If the layperson says, “Venerable sirs, come to the house,” and he says, “Come, venerable sirs, be my companions,” going to the house, all he gets is his; others get what he gives. If seated there, given dedication water, gruel, edibles, saying, “Venerable sirs, take what people give,” it’s allowable for others by his word. Filling bowls of eaters to take away, all is his—others take what he gives. If in the monastery he says, “Venerable sirs, take my alms—it’s proper to follow people’s word,” and they go, what they eat and take is theirs. If going without saying, “Take my alms,” but, “It’s proper to follow people’s word,” and one recites a blessing sweetly, elders calm impressing them, they give much monastic gear by faith in elders—it’s an unshared gain by faith, reaching all.

There are ten monks in the monastery. Of them, nine are alms-goers, one is a receiver. When told, “Give ten tickets for meals by invitation,” the alms-goers do not wish to take them. The other monk, thinking, “All are due to me,” takes them; it is not the order. If he takes them after making them due one by one, the order stands. Having accepted them in this way, having them brought with all ten tickets, he says, “Venerable sirs, do me a favor,” and gives nine tickets to the alms-goers; this is called a gift to monks, it is proper to take them. If that lay supporter says, “Venerable sir, you should come to the house,” and that monk says to those monks, “Come, venerable sirs, be my companions,” and goes to his house, whatever he receives there, all of it belongs to him; the others receive what is given by him. But if, having made them sit in his house, having given the water of donation, he gives gruel, snacks, etc., saying, “Venerable sirs, take what people give,” it is proper for the others only with the word of that monk. After they have eaten, their tickets are filled and given for taking and going; all of it belongs to that monk; what is given by him is proper for the others. But if, in the monastery itself, they are told by that monk, “Venerable sirs, take my alms, it is proper to do the word of people,” and go, there whatever they eat and carry out, all of it belongs to them. But if, without being told, “Take my alms,” they go, thinking, “It is proper to do the word of people,” and there, upon hearing one reciting the thanksgiving with a sweet voice, and being pleased with the calmness of the elders, they give much monastic equipment, this is called unapportioned, arisen through pleasure in the elders; therefore, it is due to all.

There are ten monks in the monastery, nine of whom are alms-goers, and one is a receiver. When told, “Give ten designated bowls,” the alms-goers do not wish to take them. The other monk says, “All are mine,” and takes them; there is no standing order. If he takes them one by one, the standing order remains. Having taken them thus, he has ten bowls brought and says, “Venerable, make a collection for me,” and gives nine bowls to the alms-goers. This is called the monk’s gift, and it is proper to take. If the layperson says, “Venerable, come to the house,” and the monk says to those monks, “Come, Venerable, be my companions,” and goes to his house, whatever is obtained there belongs to him, and the others receive what is given by him. Then, having seated them in his house, he gives them rinsing water and offers gruel and snacks, saying, “Venerable, take what people give.” By the monk’s word alone, it is proper for the others. After eating, they fill the bowls and take them for the purpose of leaving; all belongs to that monk, and what is given by him is proper for the others. However, if those monks are told by that monk in the monastery, “Venerable, take my alms, it is proper to speak to the people,” and they go, whatever they eat and take away all belongs to them. Even if they go without being told, “Take my alms,” and say, “It is proper to speak to the people,” and there one, hearing the sweet voice of one making a rejoicing, and the elders being pleased, gives much monastic requisites, this is called the unallocated portion arisen from faith in the elders, and thus it reaches all.

Eko saṅghato uddisāpetvā ṭhitikāya gāhitapattaṃ haritvā paṇītassa khādanīyabhojanīyassa pūretvā āharitvā “imaṃ, bhante, sabbo saṅgho paribhuñjatū”ti deti, sabbehi bhājetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Pattasāmikassa pana atikkantampi ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ uddesabhattaṃ dātabbaṃ. Atha paṭhamaṃyeva “sabbaṃ saṅghikapattaṃ dethā”ti vadati, ekassa lajjibhikkhuno santako patto dātabbo. Āharitvā ca “sabbo saṅgho paribhuñjatū”ti vutte bhājetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Eko pātiyā bhattaṃ āharitvā “saṅghuddesaṃ dammī”ti vadati, ekekaṃ ālopaṃ adatvā ṭhitikāya ekassa yāpanamattaṃ katvā dātabbaṃ. Atha so bhattaṃ āharitvā kiñci vattuṃ ajānanto tuṇhībhūto acchati, “kassa te ānītaṃ, kassa dātukāmosī”ti na vattabbaṃ. Pucchāsabhāgena hi “tumhākaṃ ānītaṃ, tumhākaṃ dātukāmomhī”ti vadeyya, tato taṃ bhikkhuṃ aññe bhikkhū jigucchantā gīvaṃ parivattetvā oloketabbampi na maññeyyuṃ. Sace pana “kuhiṃ yāsi, kiṃ karonto āhiṇḍasī”ti vutte “uddesabhattaṃ gahetvā āgatomhī”ti vadati, ekena lajjibhikkhunā ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Sace ābhataṃ bahu hoti, sabbesaṃ pahoti, ṭhitikākiccaṃ natthi. Therāsanato paṭṭhāya pattaṃ pūretvā dātabbaṃ.

One designates from the Saṅgha, takes a standing bowl, fills it with fine edibles and food, brings it, saying, “Venerable sirs, let the whole Saṅgha use this”—divide and use among all. The bowl-owner, even if standing passes, should take another designated meal. If he first says, “Give all as a Saṅgha bowl,” give a modest monk’s personal bowl. Bringing it, saying, “Let the whole Saṅgha use,” divide and use. One brings rice in a dish, saying, “I give a Saṅgha designation”—without giving each a morsel, make enough for one by standing and give. If bringing rice, not knowing to speak, standing silent, do not say, “For whom did you bring? Whom do you wish to give?” If by question’s nature he says, “I brought for you; I wish to give you,” others, disdaining him, wouldn’t think to look neck-turned. If asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering?” and he says, “I came with a designated meal,” one modest monk should take by standing. If much is brought, enough for all, no standing needed—fill bowls from the senior seat and give.

One, having had it designated from the Sangha, taking the ticket accepted according to the order, carrying it, filling it with fine solid and soft food, bringing it, says, “Venerable sirs, let the whole Sangha consume this.” It should be consumed after being divided by all. But another meal by invitation should be given to the owner of the ticket, even if his order has passed, after setting it aside. But if at the very beginning he says, “Give all the tickets belonging to the Sangha,” the ticket belonging to a conscientious monk should be given. And when, after bringing it, he says, “Let the whole Sangha consume it,” it should be consumed after being divided. One, having brought food in a bowl, says, “I give it as a Sangha invitation.” Without giving a single lump, it should be given after making it sufficient for one according to the order. But if he stands silent, not knowing what to say after bringing the food, he should not be asked, “For whom have you brought it? To whom do you wish to give it?” For with a question portion, he might say, “I have brought it for you, I wish to give it to you.” Then the other monks, despising that monk, would not even consider looking at him after turning their necks. But if, when asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering around?” he says, “I have come taking a meal by invitation,” it should be accepted according to the order by a conscientious monk. If what has been brought is much, it is sufficient for all, there is no duty of order. The ticket should be filled and given starting from the senior-most monk’s seat.

One, having designated by the Sangha and taken a bowl according to the standing order, brings it filled with excellent food and says, “Venerable, let the entire Sangha partake of this.” All should share and partake of it. However, even if the bowl’s owner’s standing order has passed, another alms meal should be given. If at first he says, “Give the entire Sangha’s bowl,” the bowl of one modest monk should be given. Having brought it, when told, “Let the entire Sangha partake of it,” it should be shared and partaken of. One who brings food in a bowl and says, “I give the Sangha’s designated meal,” should give it after making a portion for one according to the standing order. However, if he brings the food and, not knowing what to say, remains silent, he should not be asked, “For whom have you brought this? For whom do you wish to give it?” For if asked thus, he might say, “I have brought it for you, I wish to give it to you.” Then other monks, despising him, would not even think of turning their necks to look at him. However, if asked, “Where are you going? What are you wandering about for?” and he says, “I have come to take the designated meal,” it should be taken by one modest monk according to the standing order. If much is brought, it is enough for all, and there is no need for the standing order. Starting from the elders’ seat, the bowl should be filled and given.

“Saṅghuddesapattaṃ dethā”ti vutte “kiṃ āharissasī”ti avatvā pakatiṭhitikāya eva gāhetabbaṃ. Yo pana pāyāso vā rasapiṇḍapāto vā niccaṃ labbhati, evarūpānaṃ paṇītabhojanānaṃ āveṇikā ṭhitikā kātabbā, tathā saparivārāya yāguyā mahagghānaṃ phalānaṃ paṇītānañca khajjakānaṃ. Pakatibhattayāguphalakhajjakānaṃ ekāva ṭhitikā kātabbā. “Sappiṃ āharissāmī”ti vutte sabbasappīnaṃ ekāva ṭhitikā vaṭṭati, tathā sabbatelānaṃ. “Madhuṃ āharissāmī”ti vutte pana madhuno ekāva ṭhitikā vaṭṭati, tathā phāṇitassa laṭṭhimadhukādīnañca bhesajjānaṃ. Sace pana gandhamālaṃ saṅghuddesaṃ denti, piṇḍapātikassa vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? Āmisasseva paṭikkhittattā vaṭṭati. “Saṅghaṃ uddissa dinnattā pana na gahetabba”nti vadanti.

If saying, “Give a Saṅgha-designated bowl,” without asking, “What will you bring?” take by usual standing. For regular porridge, juice-alms, or fine food, make a separate standing; so for accompanied gruel, costly fruits, fine edibles. For usual rice, gruel, fruits, edibles, one standing suffices. If saying, “I’ll bring ghee,” one standing fits all ghee; so all oils. If saying, “I’ll bring honey,” one standing fits honey; so molasses, liquorice, medicines. If scents or garlands are given as Saṅgha-designated, allowable or not for an alms-goer? Allowable, as only material is rejected—some say, “Given for the Saṅgha, don’t take.”

When told, “Give the ticket for the Sangha invitation,” without asking, “What shall I bring?” it should be accepted according to the usual order. But for special superior foods, such as rice pudding or a lump of sweet juice, which are always obtained, a separate order should be made for such superior foods, as well as for gruel with accompaniments, expensive fruits, and fine snacks. One order should be made for the usual food, gruel, fruits, and snacks. When told, “I will bring ghee,” one order is proper for all ghee, and so for all oils. But when told, “I will bring honey,” one order is proper for honey, and so for molasses, and medicines such as licorice, etc. But if they give a garland of fragrant flowers as a Sangha invitation, is it proper for an alms-goer, or is it not proper? It is proper because only material offerings are prohibited. But they say, “Because it is given with designation to the Sangha, it should not be accepted.”

When told, “Give the Sangha’s designated bowl,” one should not say, “What will you bring?” but should take it according to the usual standing order. However, for things like porridge or rice gruel that are always available, a special standing order should be made for such excellent foods, as well as for expensive fruits and excellent snacks. For ordinary meals, gruel, fruits, and snacks, only one standing order should be made. When told, “I will bring ghee,” one standing order is proper for all ghee, and likewise for all oils. When told, “I will bring honey,” one standing order is proper for honey, and likewise for molasses, stick honey, and medicines. However, if they give a garland designated for the Sangha, is it proper for the alms-goer or not? Since material gain is rejected, it is proper. However, some say, “Since it is given designated for the Sangha, it should not be taken.”

210. Nimantanaṃ puggalikaṃ ce, sayameva issaro. Saṅghikaṃ pana uddesabhatte vuttanayeneva gāhetabbaṃ. Sace panettha dūto byatto hoti, “bhante, rājagehe bhikkhusaṅghassa bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti avatvā “bhikkhaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. Atha dūto abyatto “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, bhattuddesako byatto “bhatta”nti avatvā “bhante , tumhe yātha, tumhe yāthā”ti vadati, evampi piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati, “tumhākaṃ, bhante, paṭipāṭiyā bhattaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti vutte pana na vaṭṭati. Sace nimantituṃ āgatamanusso āsanasālaṃ pavisitvā “aṭṭha bhikkhū dethā”ti vā “aṭṭha patte dethā”ti vā vadati, evampi piṇḍapātikānaṃ vaṭṭati, “tumhe ca tumhe ca gacchathā”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace “aṭṭha bhikkhū detha, bhattaṃ gaṇhatha, aṭṭha patte detha, bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vā vadati, paṭipāṭiyā gāhetabbaṃ. Gāhentena pana vicchinditvā “bhatta”nti avadantena “tumhe ca tumhe ca gacchathā”ti vutte piṇḍapātikānaṃ vaṭṭati. “Bhante, tumhākaṃ pattaṃ detha, tumhe ethā”ti vutte pana “sādhu upāsakā”ti gantabbaṃ. “Saṅghato uddisitvā tumhe ethā”ti vuttepi ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ.

210. Invitation—If personal, he’s the owner. If Saṅgha-related, take as stated for designated meals. If the messenger is skilled, saying, “Venerable sirs, take alms at the royal house,” not “Saṅgha of monks’ meal,” it’s allowable for alms-goers too. If an unskilled messenger says, “Take a meal,” and a skilled meal-designator says, “Venerable sirs, you go,” not “meal,” it’s allowable for alms-goers. If saying, “Venerable sirs, a meal reaches you in order,” it’s not allowable. If a man entering the dining hall to invite says, “Give eight monks,” or “Give eight bowls,” it’s allowable for alms-goers—say, “You and you go.” If saying, “Give eight monks, take a meal; give eight bowls, take a meal,” take by order. Taking, without breaking and saying “meal,” saying, “You and you go,” it’s allowable for alms-goers. If saying, “Venerable sirs, give your bowl; you come,” go saying, “Good, layperson.” If saying, “Come designated from the Saṅgha,” take by standing.

210. If an invitation is for an individual, he himself is the master. But if it is for the Sangha, it should be accepted in the same way as said for meals by invitation. But if here the messenger is articulate, without saying, “Venerable sirs, take the meal for the community of monks in the king’s house,” he says, “Take the alms,” it is proper also for alms-goers. But if the messenger is inarticulate and says, “Take the meal,” and the meal designator is articulate, without saying “meal,” he says, “Venerable sirs, you go, you go,” even so, it is proper also for alms-goers. But when told, “Venerable sirs, the meal is due to you in sequence,” it is not proper. If the person who has come to invite enters the dining hall and says, “Give eight monks,” or “Give eight tickets,” even so, it is proper for alms-goers; they should be told, “You and you go.” If he says, “Give eight monks, take the meal, give eight tickets, take the meal,” it should be accepted in sequence. But when the one accepting, interrupting and not saying “meal,” says, “You and you go,” it is proper for alms-goers. But when told, “Venerable sir, give your ticket, you come,” they should say, “Good, lay supporters,” and go. When told, “Come, having been designated from the Sangha,” it should be accepted according to the order.

210. An invitation is personal, and the individual is the master. However, for a Sangha meal, it should be taken as explained in the alms meal. If here the messenger is skilled and says, “Venerable, take the meal for the Sangha of monks at the royal house,” without saying, “Take the alms,” it is proper even for the alms-goers. However, if the messenger is unskilled and says, “Take the meal,” and the meal designator is skilled and does not say, “Meal,” but says, “Venerable, you go, you go,” it is also proper for the alms-goers. However, if told, “Venerable, the meal reaches you according to your order,” it is not proper. If a person who has come to invite enters the assembly hall and says, “Give eight monks,” or “Give eight bowls,” it is also proper for the alms-goers, and one should say, “You and you, go.” If he says, “Give eight monks, take the meal, give eight bowls, take the meal,” it should be taken in order. However, when taking, if one interrupts and says, “Meal,” and then says, “You and you, go,” it is proper for the alms-goers. If told, “Venerable, give your bowl, you come,” one should say, “Good, layperson,” and go. Even if told, “Come, designated by the Sangha,” it should be taken according to the standing order.

Nimantanabhattagharato pana pattatthāya āgatassa uddesabhatte vuttanayeneva ṭhitikāya patto dātabbo. Eko “saṅghato paṭipāṭiyā patta”nti avatvā kevalaṃ “ekaṃ pattaṃ dethā”ti vatvā aggāhiteyeva patte yassa kassaci pattaṃ gahetvā pūretvā āharati, taṃ pattasāmikasseva hoti. Uddesabhatte viya ṭhitikāya na gāhetabbaṃ. Idhāpi yo āgantvā tuṇhībhūto tiṭṭhati, so “kassa santikaṃ āgatosī”ti vā “kassa pattaṃ harissasī”ti vā na vattabbo. Pucchāsabhāgena hi “tumhākaṃ santikaṃ āgato, tumhākaṃ pattaṃ harissāmī”ti vadeyya, tato so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi jigucchanīyo assa. “Kuhiṃ gacchasi, kiṃ karonto āhiṇḍasī”ti pana vutte “tassa pattatthāya āgatomhī”ti vadantassa paṭipāṭibhattaṭṭhitikāya gahetvā patto dātabbo. “Bhattaharaṇapattaṃ dethā”ti vuttepi paṭipāṭibhattaṭṭhitikāya eva dātabbo. Sace āharitvā “sabbo saṅgho bhuñjatū”ti vadati, bhājetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Pattasāmikassa atikkantampi ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ paṭipāṭibhattaṃ gāhetabbaṃ.

For one coming from an invitation-meal house for a bowl, give by standing as stated for designated meals. One saying, “A bowl by Saṅgha order,” not “in order,” but “Give one bowl,” taking any bowl ungiven, filling, bringing—it’s the bowl-owner’s. Do not take by standing as in designated meals. Here too, one arriving silent should not be asked, “From whom did you come?” or “Whose bowl will you take?” If by question’s nature he says, “I came from you; I’ll take yours,” he’d be disdained by monks. If asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering?” and saying, “I came for his bowl,” take by order-meal standing and give. If saying, “Give a meal-bringing bowl,” give by order-meal standing. If bringing, saying, “Let the whole Saṅgha eat,” divide and eat. The bowl-owner, even if standing passes, should take another order-meal.

But for one who has come from the house of invitation meals for a ticket, the ticket should be given according to the order, in the same way as said for meals by invitation. One, without saying, “A ticket in sequence from the Sangha,” merely says, “Give one ticket,” and before the ticket is accepted, he takes the ticket of anyone, fills it, and brings it; that belongs to the owner of the ticket. It should not be accepted according to the order as in meals by invitation. Here too, one who comes and stands silent should not be asked, “From whose presence have you come?” or “Whose ticket will you take?” For with a question portion, he might say, “I have come from your presence, I will take your ticket.” Then that monk would be despised by the monks. But when asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering around?” and he says, “I have come for his ticket,” the ticket should be accepted according to the order of meals in sequence and given. When told, “Give the ticket for carrying the meal,” it should also be given according to the order of meals in sequence. If, after bringing it, he says, “Let the whole Sangha eat,” it should be eaten after being divided. Another meal in sequence should be accepted for the owner of the ticket, even if his order has passed, after setting it aside.

For one who comes from the house of an invited meal to take a bowl, the bowl should be given according to the standing order as explained in the alms meal. One who says, “Give one bowl,” without saying, “From the Sangha in order,” and takes the bowl, fills it, and brings it, the bowl belongs only to its owner. It should not be taken according to the standing order as in the alms meal. Here too, if one comes and remains silent, he should not be asked, “Whose presence have you come to?” or “Whose bowl will you carry?” For if asked thus, he might say, “I have come to your presence, I will carry your bowl.” Then that monk would be despised by the monks. However, if asked, “Where are you going? What are you wandering about for?” and he says, “I have come to take the bowl,” the bowl should be given after taking it according to the standing order of the sequential meal. Even if told, “Give the meal-carrying bowl,” it should be given according to the standing order of the sequential meal. If, having brought it, he says, “Let the entire Sangha eat,” it should be shared and eaten. Even if the bowl’s owner’s standing order has passed, another sequential meal should be taken.

Eko pātiyā bhattaṃ āharitvā “saṅghassa dammī”ti vadati, ālopabhattaṭṭhitikato paṭṭhāya ālopasaṅkhepena bhājetabbaṃ. Sace pana tuṇhībhūto acchati, “kassa te ābhataṃ, kassa dātukāmosī”ti na vattabbo. Sace pana “kuhiṃ gacchasi, kiṃ karonto āhiṇḍasī”ti vutte pana “saṅghassa me bhattaṃ ābhataṃ, therānaṃ me bhattaṃ ābhata”nti vadati, gahetvā ālopabhattaṭṭhitikāya bhājetabbaṃ. Sace pana evaṃ ābhataṃ bhattaṃ bahu hoti, sakalasaṅghassa pahoti, abhihaṭabhikkhā nāma, piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati, ṭhitikāpucchanakiccaṃ natthi, therāsanato paṭṭhāya pattaṃ pūretvā dātabbaṃ.

One brings rice in a dish, saying, “I give to the Saṅgha”—divide by morsel count from morsel-meal standing. If standing silent, do not say, “For whom did you bring? Whom do you wish to give?” If asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering?” and saying, “I brought a meal for the Saṅgha; I brought for elders,” take and divide by morsel-meal standing. If much brought suffices the whole Saṅgha, it’s offered alms—allowable for alms-goers too; no standing needed—fill bowls from the senior seat and give.

One, having brought food in a bowl, says, “I give it to the Sangha.” It should be divided by way of lumps, starting from the order of lump meals. But if he stands silent, he should not be asked, “For whom have you brought it? To whom do you wish to give it?” But if, when asked, “Where are you going? What are you doing wandering around?” he says, “I have brought food for the Sangha, I have brought food for the elders,” it should be taken and divided according to the order of lump meals. But if the food brought in this way is much, it is sufficient for the whole Sangha; it is called brought alms, it is proper also for alms-goers, there is no duty of asking about the order, the ticket should be filled and given starting from the senior-most monk’s seat.

One who brings food in a bowl and says, “I give to the Sangha,” should share it starting from the standing order of the portion meal, according to the portion count. However, if he remains silent, he should not be asked, “For whom have you brought this? For whom do you wish to give it?” However, if asked, “Where are you going? What are you wandering about for?” and he says, “I have brought food for the Sangha, I have brought food for the elders,” it should be taken and shared according to the standing order of the portion meal. If such brought food is abundant, it is enough for the entire Sangha. This is called the spontaneously offered meal, and it is proper even for the alms-goers. There is no need to ask about the standing order. Starting from the elders’ seat, the bowl should be filled and given.

Upāsako saṅghattherassa vā ganthadhutaṅgavasena abhiññātassa vā bhattuddesakassa vā pahiṇati “amhākaṃ bhattagahaṇatthāya aṭṭha bhikkhū gahetvā āgacchathā”ti, sacepi ñātiupaṭṭhākehi pesitaṃ hoti, ime tayo janā pucchituṃ na labhanti, āruḷhāyeva mātikaṃ. Saṅghato aṭṭha bhikkhū uddisāpetvā attanavamehi gantabbaṃ. Kasmā? Bhikkhusaṅghassa hi ete bhikkhū nissāya lābho uppajjatīti. Ganthadhutaṅgādīhi pana anabhiññāto āvāsikabhikkhu āpucchituṃ labhati, tasmā tena “kiṃ saṅghato gaṇhāmi, udāhu ye jānāmi, tehi saddhiṃ āgacchāmī”ti mātikaṃ āropetvā yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabbaṃ. “Tumhākaṃ nissitake vā ye vā jānātha, te gahetvā ethā”ti vutte pana ye icchanti, tehi saddhiṃ gantuṃ labhati. Sace “aṭṭha bhikkhū pahiṇathā”ti pesenti, saṅghatova pesetabbā. Attanā sace aññasmiṃ gāme sakkā hoti bhikkhā labhituṃ, añño gāmo gantabbo. Na sakkā ce hoti labhituṃ, soyeva gāmo piṇḍāya pavisitabbo.

A layperson sends to the Saṅgha elder, a renowned ascetic or scholar, or meal-designator, “Come with eight monks to take our meal,” even if sent by kin-attendants—these three cannot ask; the basis is assumed. Designate eight monks from the Saṅgha and go as the ninth—why? The Saṅgha of monks’ gain arises through them. An unrenowned resident monk by scholarship or austerity can ask, “Do I take from the Saṅgha, or go with those I know?”—state the basis and act as donors say. If saying, “Come with your dependents or those you know,” he can go with those he wishes. If sending, “Send eight monks,” send from the Saṅgha only. If he can get alms elsewhere in another village, go there. If not, enter that village for alms.

A lay supporter sends to the elder of the Sangha, or to one well-known for his learning and ascetic practices, or to the meal designator, “Come taking eight monks to take the meal in our house.” Even if it is sent by relatives or supporters, these three people cannot be asked; the topic is already established. Eight monks should be designated from the Sangha, and they should go with him as the ninth. Why? Because for the community of monks, the gain arises relying on these monks. But a resident monk who is not well-known for his learning and ascetic practices can be asked. Therefore, he should establish the topic, saying, “Shall I take from the Sangha, or shall I come with those whom I know?” and he should act as the donors say. But when told, “Take your dependents or those whom you know and come,” he can go with those whom he wishes. If they send saying, “Send eight monks,” they should be sent from the Sangha. If he himself is able to receive alms in another village, another village should be gone to. If he is not able to receive them, that same village should be entered for alms.

A layperson sends to the Sangha elder or one known for his ascetic practices or the meal designator, saying, “Take eight monks and come to receive our meal.” Even if sent by relatives, these three people cannot ask; they must follow the schedule. Eight monks should be designated by the Sangha and go with the ninth. Why? Because these monks depend on the Sangha for gain. However, a resident monk who is not known for his ascetic practices can ask, “Should I take from the Sangha or those I know and go with them?” and follow the schedule as the donors say. If told, “Take those you depend on or those you know and come,” one can go with those one wishes. If they send, “Send eight monks,” they should be sent by the Sangha. If one can obtain alms in another village, one should go to another village. If one cannot obtain alms, one should enter that village for alms.

Nimantitabhikkhū āsanasālāya nisinnā honti, tatra ce manussā “patte dethā”ti āgacchanti, animantitehi na dātabbā, “ete nimantitā bhikkhū”ti vattabbaṃ, “tumhepi dethā”ti vutte pana dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ussavādīsu manussā sayameva pariveṇāni ca padhānagharāni ca gantvā tipiṭake ca dhammakathike ca bhikkhusatenapi saddhiṃ nimantenti, tadā tehi ye jānanti, te gahetvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Na hi mahābhikkhusaṅghena atthikā manussā pariveṇapadhānagharāni gacchanti, sannipātaṭṭhānatova yathāsatti yathābalaṃ bhikkhū gaṇhitvā gacchantīti.

The invited monks are seated in the dining hall. If people come there saying, “Give us your bowls,” they should not be given by those not invited. It should be said, “These monks are invited.” But if they say, “You give too,” it is permissible to give. During festivals and the like, people themselves go to the monks’ cells and meditation halls and invite even a hundred monks, including those versed in the Tipiṭaka and Dhamma preachers. In that case, those who know may take what they can and go. Why? Because people needing a large group of monks do not go to cells or meditation halls; they take monks from the gathering place according to their ability and strength and depart.

When invited monks are seated in the assembly hall, and people come there saying, “Give us the bowls,” those who are not invited should not give. They should say, “These are invited monks.” But if they are told, “You also give,” then it is permissible to give. During festivals and other occasions, people themselves go to the monasteries and chief residences and invite even groups of a hundred monks, including those learned in the Tipiṭaka and Dhamma preachers. Then, those who are known among them should be taken along. Why? Because people who need a large monastic community do not go to the monasteries and chief residences; they take monks from the meeting place according to their ability and strength.

The invited monks are seated in the assembly hall. If people come there and say, “Give alms,” they should not be given to those who are uninvited. It should be said, “These monks are invited.” However, if they say, “You also give,” then it is permissible to give. During festive occasions, people themselves go to the residential quarters and meditation halls and invite monks along with those who are well-versed in the Tipiṭaka and those who give Dhamma talks. On such occasions, those who know should take them and go. Why? Because people do not go to the residential quarters and meditation halls when there is a large gathering of monks. They go to the meeting place and, according to their ability and strength, take monks and go.

Sace pana saṅghatthero vā ganthadhutaṅgavasena abhiññāto vā bhattuddesako vā aññatra vā vassaṃ vasitvā katthaci vā gantvā puna sakaṭṭhānaṃ āgacchati, manussā ca āgantukassa sakkāraṃ karonti, ekavāraṃ ye jānanti, te gahetvā gantabbaṃ. Paṭibaddhakālato paṭṭhāya dutiyavāre āraddhe saṅghatoyeva gahetvā gantabbaṃ. Abhinavaāgantukāva hutvā “ñātī vā upaṭṭhāke vā passissāmī”ti gacchanti, tatra ce tesaṃ ñātī ca upaṭṭhākā ca sakkāraṃ karonti, ettha pana ye jānanti, te gahetvā gantumpi vaṭṭati. Yo pana atilābhī hoti, sakaṭṭhānañca āgantukaṭṭhānañca ekasadisaṃ, sabbattha manussā saṅghabhattaṃ sajjetvāva nisīdanti, tena saṅghatova gahetvā gantabbanti ayaṃ nimantane viseso. Avaseso sabbapañho uddesabhatte vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Kurundiyaṃ pana “aṭṭha mahāthere dethāti vutte aṭṭha mahātherāva dātabbā”ti vuttaṃ. Esa nayo majjhimādīsu. Sace pana avisesetvā “aṭṭha bhikkhū dethā”ti vadati, saṅghato dātabbāti.

If, however, the Sangha elder, or one renowned for learning or ascetic practices, or the meal-designator, having spent the rains elsewhere or gone somewhere, returns to his own place, and people honor the visitor, for the first time, those who know may take what they can and go. From the time of regular invitation, starting the second time, they should go only with the Sangha. Those who, as recent arrivals, go thinking, “I will see my relatives or supporters,” and there their relatives and supporters honor them—here too, those who know may take what they can and go. But one who is excessively acquisitive, for whom his own place and the visitor’s place are the same, and where people everywhere prepare Sangha meals and sit waiting—such a one should go only with the Sangha. This is the distinction in invitations. All other questions should be understood as explained in the context of designated meals. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “If they say, ‘Give to eight great elders,’ only eight great elders should be given.” The same applies to middling ones and others. But if they say without specification, “Give to eight monks,” they should be given from the Sangha.

If, however, the Saṅgha elder, or one well-known for his learning or ascetic practices, or a food distributor, or someone who has spent the rains retreat elsewhere or has gone somewhere and then returns to his own place, and people are honoring the newcomer, then for one time, those who are known should be taken along. From the fixed time onwards, if a second time is initiated, only those from the Saṅgha should be taken along. Those who have newly arrived and go saying, “I will see my relatives or supporters,” and if their relatives and supporters honor them, then, in this case, it is permissible to take those who are known. But for one who is very desirous of gain, his own place and the place of arrival are the same; everywhere people sit down after preparing a meal for the Saṅgha. Therefore, he should take only from the Saṅgha. This is the distinction regarding invitations. All other questions should be understood in the same way as described for distributed meals. In the Kurundi, however, it is said, “If they say, ‘Give to the eight great elders,’ only the eight great elders should be given.” This same principle applies to the middling elders and others. But if, without specifying, they say, “Give to eight monks,” they should be given from the Saṅgha.

If, however, a senior monk of the Saṅgha, one renowned for his mastery of texts or ascetic practices, or a meal distributor, having spent the rains elsewhere or having gone somewhere and then returned to his original place, and people honor the newcomer, then those who know should take him and go once. If the time is fixed, starting from that time, the second time, the Saṅgha itself should be taken and go. Having become new arrivals, they go thinking, “We will see our relatives or supporters.” If there their relatives and supporters honor them, then those who know should take them and go. However, if one is very prosperous, and his original place and the place of arrival are the same, and everywhere people prepare Saṅgha meals and sit, then the Saṅgha itself should be taken and go. This is the distinction in invitations. The remaining questions should be understood in the same way as explained in the section on designated meals. In Kurundiya, it is said, “If it is said, ‘Give to eight senior monks,’ then only eight senior monks should be given.” This is the method in Majjhimādi. If, however, it is said without distinction, “Give to eight monks,” then it should be given to the Saṅgha.

211. Salākabhattaṃ pana “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, salākāya vā paṭṭikāya vā upanibandhitvā opuñjitvā bhattaṃ uddisitu”nti (cūḷava. 326) vacanato rukkhasāramayāya salākāya vā veḷuvilīvatālapaṇṇādimayāya paṭṭikāya vā “asukassa nāma salākabhatta”nti evaṃ akkharāni upanibandhitvā pacchiyaṃ vā cīvarabhoge vā katvā sabbasalākāyo opuñjitvā punappunaṃ heṭṭhupariyavasena āloḷetvā pañcaṅgasamannāgatena bhattuddesakena sace ṭhitikā atthi, ṭhitikato paṭṭhāya, no ce atthi, therāsanato paṭṭhāya salākā dātabbā. Pacchā āgatānampi ekābaddhavasena dūre ṭhitānampi uddesabhatte vuttanayeneva dātabbā.

211. As for ticket-meals (salākabhatta), from the statement, “I allow, monks, to designate a meal by tying it with a ticket or strip, preparing it, and distributing it” (cūḷava. 326), with a ticket made of wood or a strip made of bamboo, cane, palm leaf, or the like, writing, “This is so-and-so’s ticket-meal,” and placing it in a basket or robe-bag, all tickets should be prepared, shuffled repeatedly up and down, and distributed by a meal-designator endowed with five qualities. If there is a fixed order, it should start from that; if not, it should start from the elder’s seat. For those arriving later, even standing far off in a single line, it should be given as explained in designated meals.

211. As for ticket meals, because it is said, “I allow, monks, a meal to be assigned by means of tickets made of wood or strips, collecting them together” (Cūḷava. 326), one should write the letters “Ticket meal for so-and-so” on a ticket made of the heartwood of a tree, or on a strip made of bamboo, palmyra palm leaf, or similar material, and put it in a bag or a bundle of robes. After collecting all the tickets, shaking them up and down repeatedly, a food distributor endowed with five qualities should distribute the tickets, starting from the fixed order if there is one, or from the eldest monk if there is not. For those who come later, even those standing far away in a single group, the distribution should be done in the same way as described for distributed meals.

211. Regarding lottery meals, the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, a meal to be designated by lot or by ticket” (Cūḷavagga 326). Accordingly, with a wooden lot or a ticket made of bamboo, reed, or palm leaf, the name of the person should be written as “So-and-so’s lottery meal,” and after tying it to the back of the robe or the robe bag, all the lots should be mixed together and shaken repeatedly up and down. A meal distributor endowed with five qualities should, if there is a standing order, start from the standing order; if not, start from the seniority order and give the lots. Those who come later or stand far away should also be given according to the method explained in the section on designated meals.

Sace vihārassa samantato bahū gocaragāmā, bhikkhū pana na bahū, gāmavasenapi salākā pāpuṇanti. “Tumhākaṃ asukagāme salākabhattaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gāmavaseneva gāhetabbaṃ. Evaṃ gāhentena sacepi ekamekasmiṃ gāme nānappakārāni saṭṭhi salākabhattāni, sabbāni gahitāneva honti. Tassa pattagāmasamīpe aññānipi dve tīṇi salākabhattāni honti, tāni tasseva dātabbāni. Na hi sakkā tesaṃ kāraṇā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ pahiṇitunti.

If the monastery is surrounded by many alms-villages but there are few monks, tickets may reach them by village. It should be taken by village, saying, “Your ticket-meal is in such-and-such a village.” Even if there are sixty ticket-meals of various kinds in each village, all are considered taken by this method. If there are two or three more ticket-meals near the village he reaches, those too should be given to him. It is not possible to send another monk for their sake.

If there are many alms-villages around the monastery, but not many monks, the tickets are distributed according to the villages. It should be arranged by saying, “Your ticket meal is available in such-and-such village,” assigning it according to the village. By arranging it in this way, even if there are sixty different kinds of ticket meals in each village, all are considered taken. If there are two or three other ticket meals near the village where his bowl is, those should also be given to him. Because it is not possible to send another monk for those.

If there are many villages around the monastery, but not many monks, the lots may reach the monks even while staying in the village. “Your lottery meal has reached such-and-such village,” and it should be taken while staying in the village. Even if in each village there are sixty different kinds of lottery meals, all should be taken. If near that village there are two or three other lottery meals, they should also be given to that monk. It is not possible to send another monk for their sake.

Sace ekaccesu gāmesu bahūni salākabhattāni sallakkhetvā sattannampi aṭṭhannampi bhikkhūnaṃ dātabbāni. Dentena pana catunnaṃ pañcannaṃ bhattānaṃ salākāyo ekato bandhitvā dātabbā. Sace taṃ gāmaṃ atikkamitvā añño gāmo hoti, tasmiñca ekameva salākabhattaṃ, taṃ pana pātova denti, tampi etesu bhikkhūsu ekassa niggahena datvā “pātova taṃ gahetvā pacchā orimagāme itarāni bhattāni gaṇhāhī”ti vattabbo. Sace orimagāme salākabhattesu aggahitesveva gahitasaññāya gacchati, parabhāgagāme salākabhattaṃ gahetvā puna vihāraṃ āgantvā itarāni gahetvā orimagāmo gantabbo. Na hi bahisīmāya saṅghalābho gāhetuṃ labbhatīti ayaṃ nayo kurundiyaṃ vutto. Sace pana bhikkhū bahū honti, gāmavasena salākā na pāpuṇanti, vīthivasena vā vīthiyaṃ ekagehavasena vā ekakulavasena vā gāhetabbaṃ. Vīthiādīsu ca yattha bahūni bhattāni, tattha gāme vuttanayeneva bahūnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ gāhetabbāni, salākāsu asati uddisitvāpi gāhetabbāni.

If in some villages many ticket-meals are noted, they should be given to seven or eight monks. When giving, the tickets for four or five meals should be tied together and given. If there is another village beyond that one with only one ticket-meal, and they give it in the morning, it should be given to one of those monks with restraint, saying, “Take it in the morning and later take the other meals in the earlier village.” If he goes thinking the earlier village’s ticket-meals are taken when they are not, takes the ticket-meal in the later village, returns to the monastery, and then takes the others to go to the earlier village—it is not permissible to take Sangha gains outside the boundary, as stated in the Kurundiya. If there are many monks and tickets do not reach by village, they should be taken by street, or within a street by house, or by family. Where there are many meals in streets or the like, as explained for villages, they should be taken for many monks; if tickets are lacking, they may be designated and taken.

If in some villages there are many ticket meals, they can be given to seven or eight monks, having noted them. But when giving, the tickets for four or five meals should be tied together and given. If there is another village beyond that village, and in that village there is only one ticket meal, and it is given early in the morning, that too should be given to one of these monks with a deduction, saying, “Take that early in the morning and then take the other meals in the nearer village later.” If he goes to the further village with the intention of having taken the ticket meals in the nearer village before they have been taken, he should take the ticket meal in the further village, return to the monastery, take the others, and go to the nearer village. Because it is not permissible to take the Saṅgha’s gain outside the boundary, this principle is stated in the Kurundi. If, however, there are many monks and the tickets are not distributed according to the villages, they should be distributed according to the streets, or one house per street, or one family. And in the streets and so on, where there are many meals, they should be assigned to many monks in the same way as described for the villages. If there are no tickets, they should be assigned even after distribution.

If in some villages many lottery meals are noticed, they should be given to seven or eight monks. When giving, the lots for four or five meals should be tied together and given. If that village is passed and there is another village with only one lottery meal, it should be given early in the morning. After giving it to one of these monks by drawing lots, it should be said, “Take this early in the morning and later take the other meals in the nearby village.” If one goes to the nearby village thinking that the lottery meals have been taken when they have not, and takes a lottery meal in the outer village, then returns to the monastery and takes the others, the nearby village should be gone to. For outside the boundary, the Saṅgha’s gain cannot be taken. This method is stated in Kurundiya. If, however, there are many monks, and the lots do not reach them by village, they should be taken by street, or by a single house in the street, or by a single family. In streets, etc., where there are many meals, they should be taken for many monks as explained in the village method. If there are no lots, they should also be taken by designation.

212. Salākadāyakena pana vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tena hi kālasseva vuṭṭhāya pattacīvaraṃ gahetvā bhojanasālaṃ gantvā asammaṭṭhaṭṭhānaṃ sammajjitvā pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā “idāni bhikkhūhi vattaṃ kataṃ bhavissatī”ti kālaṃ sallakkhetvā ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā bhikkhūsu sannipatitesu paṭhamameva vāragāme salākabhattaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, “tuyhaṃ asukasmiṃ nāma vāragāme salākā pāpuṇāti, tatra gacchā”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace abhirekagāvute gāmo hoti, taṃ divasaṃ gacchantā kilamanti, “sve tuyhaṃ vāragāme pāpuṇātī”ti ajjeva gāhetabbaṃ. Yo vāragāmaṃ pesiyamāno na gacchati, aññaṃ salākaṃ maggati, na dātabbā. Saddhānañhi manussānaṃ puññahāni ca saṅghassa ca lābhacchedo hoti, tasmā tassa dutiyepi tatiyepi divase aññā salākā na dātabbā, “attano pattaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā bhuñjāhī”ti vattabbo, tīṇi pana divasāni agacchantassa vāragāmato orimavāragāme salākā gāhetabbā. Tañce na gaṇhāti, tato paṭṭhāya tassa aññaṃ salākaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭati, daṇḍakammaṃ daḷhaṃ kātabbaṃ . Saṭṭhito vā paṇṇāsato vā na parihāpetabbaṃ. Vāragāme gāhetvā vihāravāro gāhetabbo, “tuyhaṃ vihāravāro pāpuṇātī”ti vattabbaṃ. Vihāravārikassa dve tisso yāgusalākāyo tisso catasso bhattasalākāyo ca dātabbā, nibaddhaṃ katvā pana na dātabbā. Yāgubhattadāyakā hi “amhākaṃ yāgubhattaṃ vihāragopakāvabhuñjantī”ti aññathattaṃ āpajjeyyuṃ, tasmā aññesu kulesu dātabbā.

212. The ticket-giver must know the duty. Rising early, taking bowl and robes, he should go to the dining hall, sweep unswept areas, set out drinking water and food, and, noting the time, thinking, “Now the monks will have performed their duties,” strike the bell. When the monks assemble, he should first take ticket-meals for the turn-village, saying, “Your ticket reaches such-and-such a turn-village; go there.” If the village is beyond two leagues and going that day tires them, it should be taken today, saying, “Tomorrow it reaches your turn-village.” One sent to a turn-village who does not go and seeks another ticket should not be given one. For it causes loss of merit to faithful people and loss of gain to the Sangha. Thus, he should not be given another ticket on the second or third day either; he should be told, “Go to your designated place and eat.” For one who does not go to the turn-village for three days, a ticket should be taken for the earlier turn-village. If he does not take it, from then on no other ticket should be given to him, and a firm penalty should be imposed. He should not be exempted from sixty or fifty days. After taking for the turn-village, the monastery turn should be taken, saying, “Your monastery turn has come.” For the monastery turn monk, two or three gruel tickets and three or four meal tickets may be given, but they should not be made regular. For gruel and meal donors might think otherwise, saying, “They eat our gruel and meals as monastery guards,” so they should be given in other families.

212. The ticket distributor should know the procedure. He should get up early in the morning, take his bowl and robe, go to the dining hall, sweep the unswept areas, set out drinking water and rinsing water, and, considering that “now the monks will have performed their duties,” estimate the time, ring the bell, and when the monks have gathered, first of all, the ticket meal for the village on duty should be assigned. He should say, “Your ticket is available in such-and-such village on duty, go there.” If the village is more than a gāvuta away, and those going that day become weary, he should assign it today itself, saying, “Tomorrow your ticket will be available in the village on duty.” If someone who is sent to the village on duty does not go and asks for another ticket, it should not be given. Because there is a loss of merit for faithful people and a cutting off of gain for the Saṅgha. Therefore, even on the second and third days, another ticket should not be given to him. He should be told, “Go to your assigned place and eat.” But if he does not go for three days, the ticket for the village on duty before the one on duty should be assigned. If he does not take that, then from that time onwards, it is not permissible to give him another ticket. A firm disciplinary action should be taken. He should not be deprived of sixty or fifty. After assigning the village on duty, the monastery duty should be assigned, saying, “Your monastery duty is available.” Two or three gruel tickets and three or four meal tickets should be given to the one on monastery duty, but they should not be given tied together. Because the donors of gruel and meals might become displeased, thinking, “Those who look after the monastery are eating our gruel and meals.” Therefore, they should be given in other families.

212. The giver of the lottery should know the proper procedure. Therefore, rising early in the morning, taking the bowl and robe, going to the dining hall, sweeping the unswept place, setting out drinking water and washing water, and considering, “Now the monks will have performed their duties,” he should strike the bell. When the monks have assembled, the lottery meal of the first village should be taken first. It should be said, “Your lottery has reached such-and-such village, go there.” If the village is very far and those going that day become tired, it should be taken that very day, saying, “Your village lottery will reach you tomorrow.” If one who is sent to the village does not go, but seeks another lottery, it should not be given. For faithful people lose merit, and the Saṅgha loses gain. Therefore, on the second and third day, another lottery should not be given to him. It should be said, “Go to your own place and eat.” However, for one who does not go for three days from the village, the lottery of the nearby village should be taken. If he does not take it, from then on it is not permissible to give him another lottery. A strong disciplinary action should be taken. He should not be allowed to fall below sixty or fifty. After taking the village lottery, the monastery lottery should be taken. It should be said, “Your monastery lottery has reached you.” For the monastery lottery holder, two or three porridge lots and three or four meal lots should be given, but they should not be given tied together. For the donors of porridge and meals might think, “Our porridge and meals are being eaten by the monastery caretakers,” and change their minds. Therefore, they should be given to other families.

Sace vihāravārikānaṃ sabhāgā āharitvā denti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce, vāraṃ gahetvā tesaṃ yāgubhattaṃ āharāpetabbaṃ, tāva nesaṃ salākā phātikammameva bhavanti. Vassaggena pattaṭṭhāne pana aññampi paṇītabhattasalākaṃ gaṇhituṃ labhantiyeva. Atirekauttaribhaṅgassa ekacārikabhattassa visuṃ ṭhitikaṃ katvā salākā dātabbā. Sace yena salākā laddhā, so taṃ divasaṃ taṃ bhattaṃ na labhati, puna divase gāhetabbaṃ. Bhattaññeva labhati, na uttaribhaṅgaṃ, evampi puna gāhetabbaṃ. Khīrabhattasalākāyapi eseva nayo. Sace pana khīrameva labhati, na bhattaṃ, khīralābhato paṭṭhāya puna na gāhetabbaṃ. Dve tīṇi ekacārikabhattāni ekasseva pāpuṇanti, dubbhikkhasamaye saṅghanavakena laddhakāle vijaṭetvā visuṃ gāhetabbāni. Pākatikasalākabhattaṃ aladdhassapi punadivase gāhetabbaṃ.

If monastery turn monks are given shares brought together, that is wholesome. If not, having taken the turn, their gruel and meals should be brought, and until then, their tickets remain provisional. In the place assigned for the rains, they may indeed take additional fine meal tickets. For extra upper robes or single-meal tickets, a separate fixed order should be made and tickets given. If the one who received a ticket does not get that meal that day, it should be taken the next day. If he gets only the meal and not the upper robe, it should still be taken again. The same applies to milk-meal tickets. But if he gets only milk and not the meal, it should not be taken again after the milk is received. If two or three single-meal tickets reach one monk, in times of famine when obtained by the Sangha novice, they should be separated and taken individually. Even if a natural ticket-meal is not obtained, it should be taken the next day.

If those on monastery duty bring and give what is their share, that is good. If not, taking the turn, their gruel and meals should be brought. Until then, their tickets are merely a compensation. However, at the assigned place at the end of the rains retreat, they are indeed allowed to take another superior meal ticket. For extra gains and for meals for those who go on a single round, tickets should be given after establishing a separate regulation. If the one who has received the ticket does not receive that meal on that day, it should be assigned again the next day. If he receives only the meal, but not the extra gain, even then it should be assigned again. The same principle applies to the milk-rice meal ticket. But if he receives only the milk, not the meal, from the time he receives the milk, it should not be assigned again. If two or three meals for those who go on a single round are available to one person, during a time of famine, when received by a junior monk of the Saṅgha, they should be untangled and assigned separately. Even for one who has not received the regular ticket meal, it should be assigned again the next day.

If the monastery lottery holders bring and give them together, that is good. If not, the turn should be taken and their porridge and meals should be brought. Until then, their lots are only for the caretaking duty. At the end of the rains, however, they can also take another superior meal lottery. For the extra portion of the supplementary meal, a separate standing order should be made, and the lottery should be given. If the one who obtained the lottery does not get that meal that day, it should be taken again the next day. If he gets only the meal, not the supplementary portion, it should also be taken again. The same method applies to milk meal lots. If, however, he gets only milk, not the meal, it should not be taken again after obtaining the milk. If two or three supplementary meals reach one monk, they should be separated and taken individually in times of scarcity, when obtained by the Saṅgha steward. Even if an ordinary lottery meal is not obtained, it should be taken again the next day.

Sace khuddako vihāro hoti, sabbe bhikkhū ekasambhogā, ucchusalākaṃ gāhentena yassa kassaci sammukhībhūtassa pāpetvā mahātherādīnaṃ divā tacchetvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Rasasalākaṃ pāpetvā pacchābhattampi parissāvetvā phāṇitaṃ vā kāretvā piṇḍapātikādīnampi dātabbaṃ, āgantukānaṃ āgatānāgatabhāvaṃ ñatvā gāhetabbā. Mahāāvāse ṭhitikaṃ katvā gāhetabbā. Takkasalākampi sabhāgaṭṭhāne pāpetvā vā dhūmāpetvā pacāpetvā vā therānaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Mahāāvāse vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Phalasalākapūvasalākabhesajjagandhamālāsalākāyopi visuṃ ṭhitikāya gāhetabbā. Bhesajjādisalākāyo cettha kiñcāpi piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭanti, salākavasena pana gāhitattā na sāditabbā. Aggabhikkhāmattaṃ salākabhattaṃ denti, ṭhitikaṃ pucchitvā gāhetabbaṃ. Asatiyā ṭhitikāya therāsanato paṭṭhāya gāhetabbaṃ. Sace tādisāni bhattāni bahūni honti, ekekassa bhikkhuno dve tīṇi dātabbāni. No ce, ekekameva datvā paṭipāṭiyā gatāya puna therāsanato paṭṭhāya dātabbaṃ. Atha antarāva upacchijjati, ṭhitikā sallakkhetabbā. Yadi pana tādisaṃ bhattaṃ nibaddhameva hoti, yassa pāpuṇāti, so vattabbo “laddhā vā aladdhā vā svepi gaṇheyyāsī”ti. Ekaṃ anibaddhaṃ hoti, labhanadivase pana yāvadatthaṃ labhati. Alabhanadivasā bahutarā honti, taṃ yassa pāpuṇāti, so alabhitvā “sve gaṇheyyāsī”ti vattabbo.

If it is a small monastery and all monks share together, a sugar ticket may be given to anyone present, cut during the day, and given to the great elders. A juice ticket may be filtered after meals, made into molasses, and given even to alms-goers, taken after knowing whether visitors have come or not. In a large residence, it should be taken with a fixed order. A buttermilk ticket may be given in a common place, smoked or cooked, and given to the elders. In a large residence, it should be done as explained. Fruit tickets, cake tickets, medicine tickets, and garland tickets should also be taken with a separate fixed order. Though medicine and similar tickets are permissible for alms-goers, they should not be accepted when taken by ticket. When only the chief monk’s meal is given as a ticket-meal, it should be taken after asking the fixed order; without a fixed order, it should start from the elder’s seat. If such meals are many, two or three should be given to each monk. If not, one each should be given in order, and when the round is complete, it should start again from the elder’s seat. If it stops midway, the fixed order should be noted. If such a meal is regular, the one it reaches should be told, “Whether you get it or not, take it tomorrow too.” If it is irregular, he gets as much as he wants on the day he receives it, but non-receiving days are more; the one it reaches, not getting it, should be told, “Take it tomorrow.”

If it is a small monastery, and all the monks share the same food, when assigning the sugarcane ticket, it should be given to whoever is present, and it is permissible to cut it up during the day and give it to the great elders and others. After obtaining the juice ticket, even after the meal, it should be strained or made into molasses and given to those who go on alms rounds and others. Knowing the arrival and non-arrival of the newcomers, it should be assigned. In a large monastery, it should be assigned after establishing a regulation. The curd ticket should also be given at the place where it is shared, or smoked, or cooked, and it is permissible to give it to the elders. In a large monastery, one should proceed in the same way as described before. Fruit tickets, sweet cake tickets, medicine, perfume, and garland tickets should also be assigned with separate regulations. Although medicine and other tickets here are indeed permissible for those who go on alms rounds, because they are assigned by means of tickets, they should not be enjoyed. They give only the best alms as a ticket meal; a regulation should be inquired about and it should be assigned. In the absence of a regulation, it should be assigned starting from the eldest monk’s seat. If there are many such meals, two or three should be given to each monk. If not, giving only one each, following the order, it should be given again starting from the eldest monk’s seat. If it is interrupted in between, the regulation should be considered. But if such a meal is always fixed, the one to whom it is available should be told, “Whether you receive it or not, you may take it tomorrow as well.” If one is not fixed, but on the day of receiving, he receives as much as he needs, and the days of not receiving are more numerous, the one to whom it is available should be told, “You may take it tomorrow,” without having received it.

If the monastery is small and all the monks share equally, when taking a sugarcane lottery, it should be given to anyone present, and after cutting it during the day, it can be given to the senior monks, etc. After taking a juice lottery, the leftover meal should be swept, and molasses or other items should be prepared and given to the alms-goers, etc. Knowing the coming and going of newcomers, it should be taken. In a large monastery, a standing order should be made and taken. A turmeric lottery should also be given to the seniors after preparing it in a common place or smoking or cooking it. In a large monastery, the method stated should be followed. Fruit lotteries, cake lotteries, medicine lotteries, and garland lotteries should also be taken separately with a standing order. Although medicine lotteries, etc., are permissible for alms-goers, since they are taken by lottery, they should not be enjoyed. A senior monk’s portion of the lottery meal is given, and it should be taken after asking the standing order. If there is no standing order, it should be taken starting from the seniority order. If there are many such meals, two or three should be given to each monk. If not, one should be given to each in turn, and then starting again from the seniority order. If it is interrupted in between, the standing order should be considered. If, however, such a meal is fixed, whoever it reaches should be told, “Whether obtained or not, you may take it tomorrow.” One is unfixed, but on the day of obtaining, as much as desired is obtained. Days of not obtaining are more numerous. Whoever it reaches, if not obtained, should be told, “Take it tomorrow.”

Yo salākāsu gahitāsu pacchā āgacchati, tassa atikkantāva salākā na upaṭṭhāpetvā dātabbā. Salākaṃ nāma ghaṇṭiṃ paharaṇato paṭṭhāya āgantvā hatthaṃ pasārentova labhati, aññassa āgantvā samīpe ṭhitassapi atikkantā atikkantāva hoti. Sace panassa añño gaṇhanto atthi, sayaṃ anāgatopi labhati, sabhāgaṭṭhāne “asuko anāgato”ti ñatvā “ayaṃ tassa salākā”ti ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace “anāgatassa na dātabbā”ti katikaṃ karonti, adhammikā hoti. Antoupacāre ṭhitassa hi bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ pāpuṇāti. Sace pana “anāgatassa dethā”ti mahāsaddaṃ karonti, daṇḍakammaṃ ṭhapetabbaṃ, “āgantvā gaṇhantū”ti vattabbaṃ. Cha pañcasalākā naṭṭhā honti, bhattuddesako dāyakānaṃ nāmaṃ na sarati, so ce naṭṭhasalākā mahātherassa vā attano vā pāpetvā bhikkhū vadeyya “mayā asukagāme salākabhattaṃ mayhaṃ pāpitaṃ, tumhe tattha laddhasalākabhattaṃ bhuñjeyyāthā”ti, vaṭṭati, vihāre apāpitaṃ pana āsanasālāya taṃ bhattaṃ labhitvā tattheva pāpetvā bhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. “Ajja paṭṭhāya mayhaṃ salākabhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte tatra āsanasālāya gāhetuṃ na vaṭṭati, vihāraṃ ānetvā gāhetabbaṃ. “Sve paṭṭhāyā”ti vutte pana bhattuddesakassa ācikkhitabbaṃ “sve paṭṭhāya asukakulaṃ nāma salākabhattaṃ deti, salākaggāhaṇakāle sareyyāsī”ti. Dubbhikkhe salākabhattaṃ pacchinditvā subhikkhe jāte kañci bhikkhuṃ disvā “ajja paṭṭhāya amhākaṃ salākabhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti puna paṭṭhapenti, antogāme agāhetvā vihāraṃ ānetvā gāhetabbaṃ. Idañhi salākabhattaṃ nāma uddesabhattasadisaṃ na hoti, vihārameva sandhāya dīyati, tasmā bahiupacāre gāhetuṃ na vaṭṭati, “sve paṭṭhāyā”ti vutte pana vihāre gāhetabbameva.

One who arrives after the tickets are taken should not be given an expired ticket without arranging it. A ticket is obtained by coming and extending the hand from the striking of the bell; even for one who comes and stands nearby, an expired ticket remains expired. But if another takes it for him, he gets it even without coming himself. In a common place, knowing, “So-and-so has not come,” it is permissible to set aside, saying, “This is his ticket.” If they make an agreement, “Do not give to one who has not come,” it is unrighteous. For one standing within the precinct, a shareable item reaches him. If they make a loud noise, saying, “Give to one who has not come,” a penalty should be set, saying, “Come and take it.” If six or five tickets are lost and the meal-designator does not recall the donors’ names, if he assigns the lost tickets to a great elder or himself and tells the monks, “I assigned a ticket-meal in such-and-such a village to myself; you eat the ticket-meal obtained there,” it is permissible. But a meal not assigned in the monastery, obtained in the dining hall, cannot be assigned and eaten there. If they say, “From today, take my ticket-meal,” it cannot be taken in the dining hall there; it must be brought to the monastery and taken. If they say, “From tomorrow,” the meal-designator should be told, “From tomorrow, such-and-such a family gives a ticket-meal; remember at ticket-taking time.” In famine, when a ticket-meal is discontinued and later, in plenty, they see a monk and say, “From today, take our ticket-meal,” restarting it, it must be brought to the monastery and taken, not taken in the village. For this ticket-meal is not like a designated meal; it is given with the monastery in mind. Thus, it cannot be taken outside the precinct; if they say, “From tomorrow,” it must indeed be taken in the monastery.

If someone comes after the tickets have been taken, the tickets that have passed should not be set out and given to him. A ticket, from the time the bell is rung, is received only by one who comes and stretches out his hand. Even for someone who comes and stands nearby, those that have passed have passed. But if there is someone else taking for him, he receives even if he himself does not come. At the place where it is shared, knowing that “so-and-so has not come,” it is permissible to set aside, “This is his ticket.” If they make a rule, “It should not be given to one who has not come,” it is unlawful. For the shareable item is available to one who is standing within the boundary. But if they make a loud noise, “Give to the one who has not come,” a disciplinary action should be established, and they should be told, “Come and take.” Six or five tickets are lost, and the food distributor does not remember the names of the donors. If he assigns the lost tickets to the great elder or to himself and says to the monks, “I have assigned the ticket meal in such-and-such village to myself, you may eat the ticket meal received there,” it is permissible. But having received that meal in the assembly hall, which was not assigned in the monastery, it is not permissible to assign it there and eat it. If it is said, “From today onwards, take my ticket meal,” it is not permissible to assign it there in the assembly hall. It should be brought to the monastery and assigned. But if it is said, “From tomorrow onwards,” the food distributor should be informed, “From tomorrow onwards, such-and-such family is giving a ticket meal, remember it at the time of taking the tickets.” During a famine, the ticket meal is discontinued. When prosperity returns, seeing a certain monk, they re-establish it, saying, “From today onwards, take our ticket meal.” Without assigning it within the village, it should be brought to the monastery and assigned. Because this ticket meal is not like the distributed meal, it is given with reference to the monastery. Therefore, it is not permissible to assign it outside the boundary. But if it is said, “From tomorrow onwards,” it should indeed be assigned in the monastery.

If one comes after the lots have been taken, the passed lots should not be set aside and given to him. The lottery is obtained by stretching out the hand immediately after striking the bell. Even if another comes and stands nearby, the passed ones are already passed. If, however, there is another taking for him, even if he has not come, he can obtain it. In a common place, knowing, “So-and-so has not come,” it is permissible to set aside, “This is his lottery.” If they make a rule, “It should not be given to one who has not come,” it is improper. For one standing within the boundary, the vessel and goods reach him. If, however, they make a loud noise, “Give to the one who has not come,” a disciplinary action should be taken. It should be said, “Let them come and take.” If five or six lots are lost, and the meal distributor does not remember the donors’ names, he should place the lost lots before the senior monk or himself and tell the monks, “I have arranged a lottery meal in such-and-such village for myself. You who have obtained the lottery meal there should eat.” It is permissible. However, if it is not arranged in the monastery, but the meal is obtained in the assembly hall, it is not permissible to arrange it there and eat. If it is said, “From today, take my lottery meal,” it is not permissible to take it in the assembly hall. It should be brought to the monastery and taken. If it is said, “From tomorrow,” the meal distributor should be informed, “From tomorrow, such-and-such family gives a lottery meal. Be present at the time of taking the lottery.” In times of scarcity, if a lottery meal is cut off and, when abundance arises, seeing a certain monk, they say, “From today, take our lottery meal,” it should be started again. Without taking it within the village, it should be brought to the monastery and taken. For this lottery meal is not like a designated meal. It is given specifically for the monastery. Therefore, it is not permissible to take it outside the boundary. If it is said, “From tomorrow,” it should be taken in the monastery.

Gamiko bhikkhu yaṃ disābhāgaṃ gantukāmo, tattha aññena vāragāmasalākā laddhā hoti, taṃ gahetvā itaraṃ bhikkhuṃ “mayhaṃ pattasalākaṃ tvaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vatvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Tena pana upacārasīmaṃ anatikkanteyeva tasmiṃ tassa salākā gāhetabbā. Chaḍḍitavihāre vasitvā manussā “bodhicetiyādīni jaggitvā bhuñjantū”ti salākabhattaṃ paṭṭhapenti, bhikkhū sabhāgaṭṭhānesu vasitvā kālasseva gantvā tattha vattaṃ karitvā taṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjanti, vaṭṭati. Sace tesu svātanāya attano pāpetvā gatesu āgantuko bhikkhu chaḍḍitavihāre vasitvā kālasseva vattaṃ katvā ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā salākabhattaṃ attano pāpetvā āsanasālaṃ gacchati, sova tassa bhattassa issaro. Yo pana bhikkhūsu vattaṃ karontesuyeva bhūmiyaṃ dve tayo sammuñjanīpahāre datvā ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā “dhuragāme salākabhattaṃ mayhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gacchati, tassa taṃ corikāya gahitattā na pāpuṇāti, vattaṃ katvā pāpetvā pacchāgatabhikkhūnaṃyeva hoti.

A monk intending to travel, if a turn-village ticket in that direction has been obtained by another, may take it, tell another monk, “Take my assigned ticket,” and go. But that monk must take his ticket before he crosses the precinct boundary. Living in an abandoned monastery, if people establish a ticket-meal, saying, “Tend the Bodhi tree, shrine, and eat,” monks living in common places may go early, perform duties there, and eat that meal—it is permissible. If, after those who went with their own assignment and ate tomorrow’s meal, a visiting monk lives in the abandoned monastery, performs duties early, strikes the bell, assigns the ticket-meal to himself, and goes to the dining hall, he alone is the owner of that meal. But one who, while monks are performing duties, gives two or three broom strokes on the ground, strikes the bell, and says, “The ticket-meal in the chief village reaches me,” and goes—since he took it by theft, it does not reach him; it belongs to the monks who performed duties, assigned it, and came later.

A village monk wishes to go in a certain direction, where another has received a ticket for the village on duty. Taking that and telling another monk, “You take my bowl ticket,” it is permissible to go. But the ticket for that one should be assigned by that one without crossing the boundary of the vicinity. Living in an abandoned monastery, people establish a ticket meal, saying, “Let them look after the Bodhi tree, the shrine, and so on, and eat.” The monks, living in places where they share, go early in the morning, perform their duties there, and eat that meal. It is permissible. If, when they have assigned it to themselves for the next day and gone, a visiting monk, living in the abandoned monastery, performs his duties early in the morning, rings the bell, assigns the ticket meal to himself, and goes to the assembly hall, he is the owner of that meal. But if a monk, while the monks are still performing their duties, throws two or three sweeping strokes on the ground, rings the bell, and goes, saying, “The ticket meal in the village at the end is available to me,” it is not available to him because it was taken by theft. It belongs to the monks who came later, after assigning it after performing their duties.

A traveling monk who wishes to go to a certain direction, if a village lottery is obtained there by another, should take it and tell another monk, “Take my bowl lottery,” and then go. However, the lottery should be taken for him before he crosses the boundary. Living in a deserted monastery, if people say, “After worshiping the Bodhi tree, etc., let them eat,” and arrange a lottery meal, the monks, staying in common places, should go early in the morning, perform their duties there, and eat that meal. It is permissible. If, however, after arranging for themselves to go the next day, a newcomer monk stays in the deserted monastery, performs his duties early in the morning, strikes the bell, arranges the lottery meal for himself, and goes to the assembly hall, he is the owner of that meal. If, however, while the monks are performing their duties, he strikes the bell after giving two or three strokes on the ground and goes saying, “The village lottery has reached me,” it does not reach him because it is taken by theft. After performing his duties and arranging it, it belongs to the monks who come later.

Eko gāmo atidūre hoti, bhikkhū niccaṃ gantuṃ na icchanti, manussā “mayaṃ puññena paribāhirā homā”ti vadanti, ye tassa gāmassa āsannavihāre sabhāgabhikkhū, te vattabbā “imesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anāgatadivase tumhe bhuñjathā”ti, salākā pana devasikaṃ pāpetabbā. Tā ca kho pana ghaṇṭipaharaṇamattena vā pacchicālanamattena vā pāpitā na honti, pacchiṃ pana gahetvā salākā pīṭhake ākiritabbā, pacchi pana mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ na gahetabbā. Sace hi tattha ahi vā vicchiko vā bhaveyya, dukkhaṃ uppādeyya, tasmā heṭṭhā gahetvā pacchiṃ parammukhaṃ katvā salākā ākiritabbā “sacepi sappo bhavissati, ettova palāyissatī”ti. Evaṃ salākā ākiritvā gāmādivasena pubbe vuttanayeneva gāhetabbā.

If a village is very far and monks do not wish to go regularly, and people say, “We are excluded from merit,” the monks in a nearby monastery sharing with that village should be told, “On days they don’t come, you eat.” The tickets should be assigned daily. But they are not assigned merely by striking the bell or shaking the basket; the basket must be taken, and tickets poured onto a stand. The basket should not be taken by the mouth-ring, for if a snake or scorpion is there, it could cause pain. Thus, taking it from below, facing the basket away, tickets should be poured, thinking, “Even if a snake is there, it will flee this way.” Having poured the tickets, they should be taken by village or the like, as explained before.

One village is very far away, and the monks do not always want to go. The people say, “We are excluded from merit.” Those who are monks sharing in the monasteries near that village should be told, “On the days when these monks do not come, you eat.” But the tickets should be assigned daily. And those are not assigned merely by ringing the bell or shaking the bag. But taking the bag, the tickets should be scattered on a board. But the bag should not be held by the mouth opening. Because if there is a snake or a scorpion there, it might cause harm. Therefore, holding it below, turning the bag away, the tickets should be scattered, thinking, “Even if there is a snake, it will flee from here.” After scattering the tickets in this way, they should be assigned according to the villages and so on, in the same way as described before.

If a village is very far, and the monks do not wish to go regularly, and people say, “We are excluded from merit,” the monks of the nearby monastery who are in common should be told, “On the day we do not come, you eat.” The lots, however, should be arranged daily. They are not arranged merely by striking the bell or by sweeping. Afterwards, however, the lots should be taken and scattered on the seat. They should not be taken afterwards in the mouth circle. For if there is a snake or a scorpion there, it would cause pain. Therefore, taking them below, turning the mouth away, the lots should be scattered, thinking, “Even if there is a snake, it will flee only this much.” After scattering the lots in this way, they should be taken according to the village method as stated before.

Apica ekaṃ mahātherassa pāpetvā “avasesā mayhaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti attano pāpetvā vattaṃ katvā cetiyaṃ vanditvā vitakkamāḷake ṭhitehi bhikkhūhi “pāpitā, āvuso, salākā”ti vutte “āma, bhante, tumhe gatagatagāme salākabhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vattabbaṃ. Evañhi pāpitāpi supāpitāva honti. Bhikkhū sabbarattiṃ dhammassavanatthaṃ aññaṃ vihāraṃ gacchantā “mayaṃ tattha dānaṃ aggahetvāva amhākaṃ gocaragāme piṇḍāya caritvā āgamissāmā”ti salākā aggahetvāva gatā vihāre therassa pattaṃ salākabhattaṃ bhuñjituṃ āgacchanti, vaṭṭati. Atha mahātheropi “ahaṃ idha kiṃ karomī”ti tehiyeva saddhiṃ gacchati, tehi gatavihāre abhuñjitvāva gocaragāmaṃ anuppattehi “detha, bhante, patte, salākayāguādīni āharissāmā”ti vutte pattā na dātabbā. Kasmā, bhante, na dethāti. Vihāraṭṭhakaṃ bhattaṃ vihāre vutthānaṃ pāpuṇāti, mayaṃ aññavihāre vutthāti. “Detha, bhante, na mayaṃ vihāre pālikāya dema, tumhākaṃ dema, gaṇhatha amhākaṃ bhikkha”nti vutte pana vaṭṭati.

Moreover, assigning one to a great elder and saying, “The rest reach me,” performing duties, honoring the shrine, and when monks standing at the discussion hall say, “Friend, the tickets are assigned,” he should say, “Yes, venerable sirs, take the ticket-meals in the villages you go to.” Thus, even if assigned, they are well-assigned. Monks going to another monastery all night to hear Dhamma, thinking, “We’ll return after alms-round in our alms-village without taking alms there,” go without taking tickets. Returning to eat a ticket-meal at the monastery is permissible. If the great elder, thinking, “What do I do here?” goes with them, and those reaching that monastery without eating there, arriving at the alms-village, say, “Venerable sirs, give your bowls; we’ll fetch ticket gruel or the like,” the bowls should not be given. “Why, venerable sirs, don’t you give?” “The meal at the monastery reaches those who dwelt there; we dwelt in another monastery.” If they say, “Venerable sirs, give; we won’t give to the monastery’s bowl, but to you; take our alms,” then it is permissible.

Moreover, after assigning one to the great elder and saying, “The rest are available to me,” assigning them to himself, performing his duties, venerating the shrine, and when the monks standing in the meditation hall say, “Have the tickets been assigned, venerable sir?” he should say, “Yes, venerable sirs, take the ticket meal in the villages where you have gone and are going.” Because those assigned in this way are indeed well assigned. Monks going to another monastery for listening to the Dhamma all night, thinking, “Without taking any offering there, we will go on alms round in our alms-village and come,” go without taking the tickets. They come to the monastery to eat the great elder’s bowl ticket meal. It is permissible. Then the great elder also thinks, “What am I doing here?” and goes with them. When they have reached the alms-village without eating in the monastery where they went, if it is said, “Give the bowls, venerable sirs, we will bring the gruel and other things from the tickets,” the bowls should not be given. “Why, venerable sirs, do you not give?” “The meal belonging to the monastery is available to those who have stayed in the monastery. We have stayed in another monastery.” But if it is said, “Give, venerable sirs, we are not giving according to the monastery’s rule, we are giving to you. Take our alms,” then it is permissible.

Furthermore, after arranging one for the senior monk, saying, “The rest reach me,” and arranging for oneself, performing the duties, worshiping the shrine, and standing in the thinking hall, when the monks say, “The lots have been arranged, venerable,” it should be said, “Yes, venerable, you take the lottery meal in the village you go to.” Thus, even if arranged, they are well arranged. Monks who go to another monastery all night to listen to the Dhamma, thinking, “Without taking the offering, we will go for alms in our own village and return,” take the lots and go. Coming to the monastery, they eat the senior monk’s bowl lottery meal. It is permissible. Then the senior monk also thinks, “What shall I do here?” and goes with them. Having gone to that monastery without eating, when they reach the village, they say, “Give, venerable, the bowls. We will bring the porridge and other items.” The bowls should not be given. Why, venerable, do you not give? The meal belonging to the monastery reaches those who stay in the monastery. We stay in another monastery. “Give, venerable, we do not give within the monastery boundary, we give to you. Take our alms.” If said thus, it is permissible.

213. Pakkhikādīsu pana yaṃ abhilakkhitesu cātuddasī pañcadasī pañcamī aṭṭhamīti imesu pakkhesu kammappasutehi uposathaṃ kātuṃ satikaraṇatthāya dīyati, taṃ pakkhikaṃ nāma. Taṃ salākabhattagatikameva hoti, gāhetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace salākabhattampi pakkhikabhattampi bahuṃ sabbesaṃ vinivijjhitvā gacchati, dvepi bhattāni visuṃ visuṃ gāhetabbāni. Sace bhikkhusaṅgho mahā, pakkhikaṃ gāhetvā tassa ṭhitikāya salākabhattaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, salākabhattaṃ vā gāhāpetvā tassa ṭhitikāya pakkhikaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Yesaṃ na pāpuṇāti, te piṇḍāya carissanti. Sace dvepi bhattāni bahūni, bhikkhū mandā, salākabhattaṃ nāma devasikaṃ labbhati, tasmā taṃ ṭhapetvā “pakkhikaṃ, āvuso, bhuñjathā”ti pakkhikameva dātabbaṃ. Pakkhikaṃ paṇītaṃ denti, visuṃ ṭhitikā kātabbā, “sve pakkho”ti ajja pakkhikaṃ na gāhetabbaṃ. Sace pana dāyakā vadanti “svepi amhākaṃ ghare lūkhabhattaṃ bhavissati, ajjeva pakkhikabhattaṃ uddisathā”ti, evaṃ vaṭṭati.

213. As for fortnightly meals (pakkhikādi) and the like, what is given on the fortnights marked by the fourteenth, fifteenth, fifth, and eighth days, for the sake of mindfulness in performing Uposatha with inspired action, is called fortnightly (pakkhika). It follows the ticket-meal pattern and should be taken and eaten. If both ticket-meals and fortnightly meals are many and distributed to all, both should be taken separately. If the Sangha is large, after taking the fortnightly meal, ticket-meals should be taken by its fixed order, or after assigning ticket-meals, fortnightly meals should be taken by its fixed order. Those who do not receive them will go for alms. If both meals are many and monks are few, since ticket-meals are daily, setting them aside, saying, “Friends, eat the fortnightly meal,” only the fortnightly should be given. If the fortnightly meal is fine, a separate fixed order should be made; it should not be taken today, thinking, “Tomorrow is the fortnight.” But if donors say, “Tomorrow there will be coarse food at our house; designate the fortnightly meal today,” then it is permissible.

213. As for fortnightly meals and others, that which is given on the specially marked fourteenth, fifteenth, fifth, and eighth days of the lunar fortnights, when people are engaged in work, for the purpose of making a resolution to perform the Uposatha, is called fortnightly. That is of the same category as the ticket meal; it should be assigned and eaten. If both the ticket meal and the fortnightly meal are abundant, going through all of them, both meals should be assigned separately. If the monastic community is large, the fortnightly meal should be assigned, and according to its regulation, the ticket meal should be assigned. Or, after having the ticket meal assigned, according to its regulation, the fortnightly meal should be assigned. Those to whom it is not available will go on alms round. If both meals are abundant, and the monks are few, the ticket meal is available daily. Therefore, setting that aside, the fortnightly meal should be given, saying, “Eat the fortnightly meal, venerable sirs.” The fortnightly meal is given superior; a separate regulation should be made. Saying, “Tomorrow is the fortnight,” the fortnightly meal should not be assigned today. But if the donors say, “Tomorrow there will be a coarse meal in our house, assign the fortnightly meal today,” then it is permissible.

213. Regarding fortnightly meals, etc., what is given on the fourteenth, fifteenth, fifth, and eighth days of the fortnight, marked for the purpose of mindfulness by those preparing for the Uposatha, is called a fortnightly meal. It is the same as a lottery meal and should be taken and eaten. If both lottery meals and fortnightly meals are abundant and go to all, both meals should be taken separately. If the Saṅgha is large, the fortnightly meal should be taken, and with its standing order, the lottery meal should be taken. Or the lottery meal should be taken, and with its standing order, the fortnightly meal should be taken. Those who do not obtain should go for alms. If both meals are abundant and the monks are few, the lottery meal is obtained daily. Therefore, setting it aside, it should be said, “Venerable, eat the fortnightly meal,” and only the fortnightly meal should be given. If the donors give a superior fortnightly meal, a separate standing order should be made. “Tomorrow is the fortnight,” so the fortnightly meal should not be taken today. If, however, the donors say, “Tomorrow our house will have coarse food, designate the fortnightly meal today,” it is permissible.

Uposathikaṃ nāma anvaḍḍhamāse uposathadivase uposathaṅgāni samādiyitvā yaṃ attanā bhuñjati, tadeva dīyati. Pāṭipadikaṃ nāma “uposathe bahū saddhā pasannā bhikkhūnaṃ sakkāraṃ karonti, pāṭipade pana bhikkhū kilamanti, pāṭipade dinnaṃ dubbhikkhadānasadisaṃ mahapphalaṃ hoti, uposathakammena vā parisuddhasīlānaṃ dutiyadivase dinnaṃ mahapphalaṃ hotī”ti sallakkhetvā pāṭipade dīyamānakadānaṃ. Tampi ubhayaṃ salākabhattagatikameva. Iti imāni sattapi bhattāni piṇḍapātikānaṃ na vaṭṭanti, dhutaṅgabhedaṃ karontiyeva.

What is called Uposatha meal (uposathika) is given on the fortnightly Uposatha day, having undertaken the Uposatha factors, as what one eats oneself. What is called first-day meal (pāṭipadika) is a gift given on the day after Uposatha, considering, “On Uposatha, many faithful and devoted people honor the monks; on the first day, monks tire; what is given on the first day is like a famine gift, greatly fruitful; or what is given on the second day to those with virtue purified by Uposatha action is greatly fruitful.” Both follow the ticket-meal pattern. Thus, these seven meals are not permissible for alms-goers; they indeed break the ascetic practice.

Uposatha meal is that which, on the Uposatha day in the half-month, after undertaking the Uposatha precepts, one eats oneself and the same is given. Pāṭipadika meal is the offering given on the day after the Uposatha, considering, “On the Uposatha, many faithful and devoted people honor the monks. But on the day after, the monks are weary. What is given on the day after is like a gift during a famine, it is of great fruit. Or, what is given on the second day to those who are pure in virtue through the Uposatha practice is of great fruit.” Both of those are also of the same category as the ticket meal. Thus, all these seven meals are not permissible for those who go on alms rounds, as they break the ascetic practice.

An Uposatha meal is what one eats oneself on the Uposatha day every half month after undertaking the Uposatha factors. A Pāṭipadika meal is given on the day after the Uposatha, considering, “On the Uposatha, many faithful people honor the monks, but on the following day, the monks are tired. A gift given on the following day is like a gift in times of scarcity, very fruitful. Or, given the day after the Uposatha to those purified by the Uposatha observance, it is very fruitful.” These two are also the same as lottery meals. Thus, these seven types of meals are not permissible for alms-goers; they are specifically for those undertaking ascetic practices.

214. Aparānipi cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 350) visākhāya varaṃ yācitvā dinnāni āgantukabhattaṃ gamikabhattaṃ gilānabhattaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākabhattanti cattāri bhattāni pāḷiyaṃ āgatāneva. Tattha āgantukānaṃ dinnaṃ bhattaṃ āgantukabhattaṃ. Esa nayo sesesu. Sace panettha āgantukabhattānipi āgantukāpi bahū honti, sabbesaṃ ekekaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Bhattesu appahontesu ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Eko āgantuko paṭhamameva āgantvā sabbaṃ āgantukabhattaṃ attano gāhetvā nisīdati, sabbaṃ tasseva hoti. Pacchā āgatehi āgantukehi tena dinnāni paribhuñjitabbāni. Tenapi ekaṃ attano gahetvā sesāni dātabbāni. Ayaṃ uḷāratā. Sace pana paṭhamaṃ āgantvāpi attano aggahetvā tuṇhībhūto nisīdati, pacchā āgatehi saddhiṃ paṭipāṭiyā gaṇhitabbaṃ. Sace niccaṃ āgantukā āgacchanti, āgatadivaseyeva bhuñjitabbaṃ. Antarantarā ce āgacchanti, dve tīṇi divasāni bhuñjitabbaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana “satta divasāni bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Āvāsiko katthaci gantvā āgato, tenapi āgantukabhattaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ. Sace pana taṃ vihāre nibandhāpitaṃ hoti, vihāre gāhetabbaṃ. Atha vihāro dūre hoti, āsanasālāya nibandhāpitaṃ, āsanasālāya gāhetabbaṃ. Sace pana dāyakā “āgantukesu asati āvāsikāpi bhuñjantū”ti vadanti, vaṭṭati, avutte pana na vaṭṭati.

214. There are also other meals mentioned in the robe section (mahāva. 350), granted at Visākhā’s request: visitor’s meal, traveler’s meal, sick meal, and sick-attendant’s meal—four meals explicitly stated in the text. Here, the meal given to visitors is visitor’s meal (āgantukabhatta). The same applies to the others. If there are many visitor’s meals and many visitors, each should take one. If meals are insufficient, they should be taken by fixed order. If one visitor arrives first and takes all the visitor’s meals for himself and sits, all belong to him. Later visitors should eat what he gives. He too should take one for himself and give the rest. This is nobility. But if he arrives first and sits silently without taking, he should take in order with those arriving later. If visitors come regularly, it should be eaten on the day of arrival. If they come intermittently, it may be eaten for two or three days. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “It is permissible to eat for seven days.” A resident returning from somewhere may also eat the visitor’s meal. If it is regularly provided at the monastery, it should be taken there. If the monastery is far and it is regularly provided at the dining hall, it should be taken there. If donors say, “If there are no visitors, residents may eat too,” it is permissible; if not said, it is not permissible.

214. Furthermore, in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 350), four kinds of meals—food for newcomers, food for those departing, food for the sick, and food for those attending the sick—are mentioned as having been requested by Visākhā and granted. Of these, the food given to newcomers is food for newcomers (āgantukabhattaṃ). This same method [of explanation] applies to the rest. If, in this case, there are many who are eligible for food for newcomers and many newcomers, each one should receive a portion. If the meals are insufficient, they should be distributed according to a pre-established order. If a single newcomer arrives first and takes all the food for newcomers for himself, it all belongs to him. The newcomers who arrive later should partake of what is given by him. He should also take one portion for himself and give the rest. This is generosity. If, however, he arrives first but does not take [anything] for himself and sits silently, he should take [his portion] in turn with those who arrive later. If newcomers arrive regularly, they should eat only on the day of their arrival. If they arrive intermittently, they may eat for two or three days. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is said, “It is permissible to eat for seven days.” A resident monk who has gone somewhere and returned should also partake of the food for newcomers. If it is designated for that particular monastery, it should be taken in the monastery. If the monastery is far away, and it is designated for the assembly hall, it should be taken in the assembly hall. If, however, the donors say, “If there are no newcomers, the residents may also eat,” it is permissible; but if they do not say so, it is not permissible.

214. Furthermore, in the section on robes (Mahāvagga 350), four types of meals are mentioned as having been given by Visākhā after she requested a boon: the meal for incoming guests, the meal for travelers, the meal for the sick, and the meal for those attending the sick. Among these, the meal given to incoming guests is called āgantukabhatta. The same principle applies to the others. If, however, there are many incoming guests and the meal for incoming guests is insufficient, each should receive a portion. If the meals are insufficient, they should be distributed by standing in line. If one guest arrives first and takes the entire meal for incoming guests, it all belongs to him. Later arriving guests should share what has been given by him. He should take one portion for himself and give the rest to others. This is the higher standard. If, however, the first guest arrives and sits silently without taking his share, the later arrivals should take their shares in order. If guests come regularly, the meal should be consumed on the day of arrival. If they come intermittently, the meal can be consumed for two or three days. Mahāpaccariya states, “It is permissible to consume it for up to seven days.” If a resident monk goes somewhere and returns, he too is entitled to the meal for incoming guests. If, however, the meal is designated for a specific monastery, it should be taken there. If the monastery is far away and the meal is designated for the assembly hall, it should be taken there. If the donors say, “When there are no incoming guests, the resident monks may consume it,” it is permissible. If they do not say so, it is not permissible.

Gamikabhattepi ayameva kathāmaggo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – āgantuko āgantukabhattameva labhati, gamiko āgantukabhattampi gamikabhattampi. Āvāsikopi pakkamitukāmo gamiko hoti, gamikabhattaṃ labhati. Yathā pana āgantukabhattaṃ, evamidaṃ dve tīṇi vā satta vā divasāni na labhati. “Gamissāmī”ti bhuttopi taṃ divasaṃ kenaci kāraṇena na gato, punadivasepi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati saussāhattā. “Gamissāmī”ti bhuttassa corā vā panthaṃ rundhanti, udakaṃ vā devo vā vassati, sattho vā na gacchati, saussāhena bhuñjitabbaṃ. “Ete upaddave olokentena dve tayo divase bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. “Gamissāmi gamissāmī”ti pana lesaṃ oḍḍetvā bhuñjituṃ na labhati.

The same reasoning applies to traveler’s meal (gamikabhatta). The distinction is this: a visitor gets only the visitor’s meal; a traveler gets both visitor’s and traveler’s meals. A resident intending to depart becomes a traveler and gets the traveler’s meal. Unlike the visitor’s meal, this is not received for two, three, or seven days. One who eats it intending, “I will go,” but does not go that day for some reason, may eat it the next day too, due to eagerness. If robbers block the path, water or rain falls, or the caravan does not go after he eats intending, “I will go,” he may eat it eagerly. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “Considering these obstacles, it is permissible to eat for two or three days.” But one does not get to eat by making excuses, saying, “I will go, I will go.”

The same principle applies to food for those departing (gamikabhatta). This, however, is the difference: a newcomer receives only the food for newcomers, while one departing receives both the food for newcomers and the food for those departing. A resident monk who intends to leave is also considered one departing and receives food for those departing. However, unlike the food for newcomers, this is not received for two, three, or seven days. Even if he has eaten saying, “I will go,” but for some reason does not go on that day, he may eat again the next day because of his intention. If, after he has eaten saying, “I will go,” robbers block the road, or it rains heavily, or the caravan does not depart, he may eat due to his intention. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya, “Considering these obstacles, it is permissible to eat for two or three days.” However, one should not eat making up excuses, repeatedly saying, “I will go, I will go.”

The same principle applies to gamikabhatta (the meal for travelers). However, there is this distinction: an incoming guest receives only the meal for incoming guests, while a traveler receives both the meal for incoming guests and the meal for travelers. A resident monk who intends to depart becomes a traveler and is entitled to the meal for travelers. Unlike the meal for incoming guests, this meal is not available for two or three or seven days. If one eats the meal intending to travel but does not leave that day due to some reason, it is permissible to eat it again the next day with the same intention. If, after eating with the intention to travel, one is prevented by robbers blocking the road, or if it rains heavily, or if the caravan does not depart, one may eat with the same intention. Mahāpaccariya states, “Considering these obstacles, it is permissible to eat for two or three days.” However, one cannot eat by deceitfully saying, “I will travel, I will travel.”

Gilānabhattampi sace sabbesaṃ gilānānaṃ pahoti, taṃ sabbesaṃ dātabbaṃ. No ce, ṭhitikaṃ katvā gāhetabbaṃ. Eko gilāno arogarūpo sakkoti antogāmaṃ gantuṃ, eko na sakkoti, ayaṃ mahāgilāno nāma, etassa gilānabhattaṃ dātabbaṃ. Dve mahāgilānā, eko lābhī abhiññāto bahuṃ khādanīyabhojanīyaṃ labhati, eko anātho appalābhatāya antogāmaṃ pavisati, etassa gilānabhattaṃ dātabbaṃ. Gilānabhatte divasaparicchedo natthi, yāva rogo na vūpasammati, sappāyabhojanaṃ abhuñjanto na yāpeti, tāva bhuñjitabbaṃ. Yadā pana missakayāguṃ vā missakabhattaṃ vā bhuttassapi rogo na kuppati, tato paṭṭhāya na bhuñjitabbaṃ.

For sick meal (gilānabhatta), if it suffices for all the sick, it should be given to all. If not, it should be taken by fixed order. One sick monk who looks healthy can go into the village; another cannot—this is a gravely sick one, and the sick meal should be given to him. If there are two gravely sick monks, one is acquisitive, well-known, and gets much food, while the other, unsupported, enters the village due to little gain—the sick meal should be given to the latter. There is no day limit for the sick meal; as long as the illness does not subside and he cannot survive without suitable food, he may eat it. When mixed gruel or mixed rice does not aggravate the illness, he should not eat it thereafter.

As for food for the sick (gilānabhatta), if there is enough for all the sick, it should be given to all of them. If not, a pre-established order should be made, and they should receive accordingly. If one sick monk is healthy enough to go into the village, and another is not, the latter is called a seriously ill monk, and the food for the sick should be given to him. If there are two seriously ill monks, and one is fortunate and well-known, receiving much solid and soft food, while the other is destitute and enters the village due to lack of provisions, the food for the sick should be given to the latter. There is no limit of days for the food for the sick; as long as the illness is not pacified, and he cannot manage without suitable food, he should eat. When, however, his illness does not flare up even after eating mixed gruel or mixed food, from that time on, he should not eat [the special food for the sick].

Regarding gilānabhatta (the meal for the sick), if it is sufficient for all the sick monks, it should be given to all. If not, it should be distributed by standing in line. If one sick monk is able to go into the village and another is not, the latter is considered seriously ill and should be given the meal for the sick. If there are two seriously ill monks, one who is well-known and receives much food, and another who is destitute and enters the village due to lack of food, the meal for the sick should be given to the latter. There is no fixed time limit for the meal for the sick; it should be consumed as long as the illness persists and the sick monk cannot sustain himself without suitable food. However, when the sick monk can eat mixed gruel or mixed food without aggravating the illness, he should no longer consume the meal for the sick.

Gilānupaṭṭhākabhattampi yaṃ sabbesaṃ pahoti, taṃ sabbesaṃ dātabbaṃ. No ce pahoti, ṭhitikaṃ katvā gāhetabbaṃ. Idampi dvīsu gilānesu mahāgilānupaṭṭhākassa gāhetabbaṃ, dvīsu mahāgilānesu anāthagilānupaṭṭhākassa. Yaṃ kulaṃ gilānabhattampi deti gilānupaṭṭhākabhattampi, tattha yassa gilānassa gilānabhattaṃ pāpuṇāti, tadupaṭṭhākassapi tattheva gāhetabbaṃ. Gilānupaṭṭhākabhattepi divasaparicchedo natthi, yāva gilāno labhati, tāvassa upaṭṭhākopi labhatīti. Imāni cattāri bhattāni sace evaṃ dinnāni honti “āgantukagamikagilānagilānupaṭṭhākā mama bhikkhaṃ gaṇhantū”ti, piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. Sace pana “āgantukādīnaṃ catunnaṃ bhattaṃ nibandhāpemi, mama bhattaṃ gaṇhantū”ti evaṃ dinnāni honti, piṇḍapātikānaṃ na vaṭṭati.

For sick-attendant’s meal (gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta), if it suffices for all, it should be given to all. If not, it should be taken by fixed order. This too, among two sick monks, should be taken by the attendant of the gravely sick; among two gravely sick, by the attendant of the unsupported sick. In a family giving both sick and sick-attendant’s meals, the attendant of the sick monk who gets the sick meal should take it there too. There is no day limit for the sick-attendant’s meal; as long as the sick monk receives it, the attendant receives it too. If these four meals are given thus: “Let visitors, travelers, the sick, and their attendants take my alms,” they are permissible even for alms-goers. But if given thus: “I establish meals for the four—visitors and the like; let them take my meals,” they are not permissible for alms-goers.

As for food for those attending the sick (gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta), what is sufficient for all should be given to all. If it is not sufficient, a pre-established order should be made, and they should receive accordingly. Among two sick monks, this should also be given to the attendant of the seriously ill monk; among two seriously ill monks, to the attendant of the destitute sick monk. In the household that gives both food for the sick and food for the attendant of the sick, the attendant of the sick monk who receives the food for the sick should also receive [his portion] there. There is no limit of days for the food for the attendant of the sick either; as long as the sick monk receives, his attendant also receives. If these four kinds of meals are given with the statement, “Let the newcomers, those departing, the sick, and those attending the sick take my alms,” then it is permissible even for those who live solely on alms (piṇḍapātika). If, however, they are given with the statement, “I designate the meals for the four [groups] of newcomers and so forth; let them take my meals,” then it is not permissible for those who live solely on alms.

Regarding gilānupaṭṭhākabhatta (the meal for those attending the sick), if it is sufficient for all, it should be given to all. If not, it should be distributed by standing in line. This meal should be given to the attendant of the seriously ill monk among two sick monks, or to the attendant of the destitute sick monk among two seriously ill monks. If a family provides both the meal for the sick and the meal for the attendant, the attendant should also receive his share at the same place where the sick monk receives his meal. There is no fixed time limit for the meal for the attendant; as long as the sick monk receives his meal, the attendant also receives his. If these four meals are given with the instruction, “Let the incoming guests, travelers, sick, and attendants take my meal,” even alms-goers are entitled to them. However, if the meals are designated specifically for the four categories, alms-goers are not entitled to them.

215. Aparānipi dhurabhattaṃ kuṭibhattaṃ vārakabhattanti tīṇi bhattāni. Tattha dhurabhattanti niccabhattaṃ vuccati, taṃ duvidhaṃ saṅghikañca puggalikañca. Tattha yaṃ “saṅghassa dhurabhattaṃ demā”ti nibandhāpitaṃ, taṃ salākabhattagatikaṃ. “Mama nibaddhabhikkhaṃ gaṇhantū”ti vatvā dinnaṃ pana piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. Puggalikepi “tumhākaṃ dhurabhattaṃ dammī”ti vutte piṇḍapātiko ce, na vaṭṭati, “mama nibaddhabhikkhaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte pana vaṭṭati, sāditabbaṃ. Sace pacchā katipāhe vītivatte “dhurabhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, mūle suṭṭhu sampaṭicchitattā vaṭṭati.

215. There are also three other meals: chief meal, hut meal, and turn-meal. Here, chief meal (dhurabhatta) means a regular meal, of two types: Sangha-related and individual. What is established as “We give a chief meal to the Sangha” follows the ticket-meal pattern. If given with, “Take my regular alms,” it is permissible even for alms-goers. For an individual, if said, “I give you a chief meal,” it is not permissible for an alms-goer; but if said, “Take my regular alms,” it is permissible and should be accepted. If later, after some days, they say, “Take the chief meal,” it is permissible due to initial full acceptance.

215. Furthermore, there are three other kinds of meals: permanent meals (dhurabhattaṃ), hut meals (kuṭibhattaṃ), and turn-by-turn meals (vārakabhattaṃ). Of these, permanent meals (dhurabhattaṃ) refer to regular meals, which are of two kinds: for the Saṅgha and for individuals. Of these, what is designated with the statement, “We give permanent meals to the Saṅgha,” follows the distribution by ticket method. But what is given saying, “Let them take my regular alms,” is permissible even for those who live solely on alms. In the case of individual [meals], if it is said, “I give you a permanent meal,” and the recipient is one who lives solely on alms, it is not permissible; but if it is said, “Take my regular alms,” it is permissible and should be accepted. If, after some days have passed, he says, “Take the permanent meal,” it is permissible because it was well accepted at the beginning.

215. Furthermore, there are three other types of meals: the regular meal, the hut meal, and the duty meal. Among these, dhurabhatta refers to a regular meal, which is of two kinds: communal and personal. If a meal is designated as “a regular meal for the Saṅgha,” it follows the rules of the lottery meal. If it is given with the instruction, “Let my designated monks take it,” even alms-goers are entitled to it. For a personal regular meal, if it is offered with the words, “I give you a regular meal,” and the recipient is an alms-goer, it is not permissible unless the donor says, “Let my designated monks take it.” If, after a few days, the donor says, “Take the regular meal,” it is permissible due to the initial proper acceptance.

Kuṭibhattaṃ nāma yaṃ saṅghassa āvāsaṃ kāretvā “amhākaṃ senāsanavāsino amhākaṃyeva bhattaṃ gaṇhantū”ti evaṃ nibandhāpitaṃ, taṃ salākabhattagatikameva hoti, gāhetvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. “Amhākaṃ senāsanavāsino amhākaṃyeva bhikkhaṃ gaṇhantū”ti vutte pana piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana puggale pasīditvā tassa āvāsaṃ katvā “tumhākaṃ demā”ti dinnaṃ, taṃ tasseva hoti, tasmiṃ katthaci gate nissitakehi bhuñjitabbaṃ.

Hut meal (kuṭibhatta) is what is established after building a residence for the Sangha, saying, “Let those dwelling in our lodging take our meal.” It follows the ticket-meal pattern and should be taken and eaten. If said, “Let those dwelling in our lodging take our alms,” it is permissible even for alms-goers. What is given to an individual out of devotion, building a residence for him, saying, “We give to you,” belongs to him; if he goes elsewhere, his dependents may eat it.

Hut meals (kuṭibhattaṃ) are those designated with the statement, “Having built a dwelling for the Saṅgha, let those residing in our dwelling take only our meals,” this also follows the distribution by ticket method and should be taken and eaten. But if it is said, “Let those residing in our dwelling take only our alms,” it is permissible even for those who live solely on alms. However, what is given out of faith in an individual, having built a dwelling for him with the statement, “We give to you,” belongs to him alone; when he has gone somewhere, those who are his dependents should eat it.

Kuṭibhatta refers to a meal provided after constructing a dwelling for the Saṅgha, with the instruction, “Let the residents of our dwelling take our meal.” This also follows the rules of the lottery meal and should be taken and consumed. If the instruction is, “Let the residents of our dwelling take our meal,” even alms-goers are entitled to it. If a meal is given personally after constructing a dwelling, it belongs solely to that person, and his dependents should consume it wherever he goes.

Vārakabhattaṃ nāma dubbhikkhasamaye “vārena bhikkhū jaggissāmā”ti dhuragehato paṭṭhāya dinnaṃ, tampi bhikkhāvacanena dinnaṃ piṇḍapātikānaṃ vaṭṭati, “vārakabhatta”nti vutte pana salākabhattagatikaṃ hoti. Sace taṇḍulādīni pesenti “sāmaṇerā pacitvā dentū”ti, piṇḍapātikānaṃ vaṭṭati. Iti imāni ca tīṇi, āgantukabhattādīni ca cattārīti satta, tāni saṅghabhattādīhi saha cuddasa bhattāni honti.

Turn-meal (vārakabhatta) is given in times of famine, starting from the chief house, saying, “We will tend the monks by turns.” If given with alms-language, it is permissible for alms-goers; if called “turn-meal,” it follows the ticket-meal pattern. If they send rice or the like, saying, “Let novices cook and give,” it is permissible for alms-goers. Thus, these three, along with the four like visitor’s meal, make seven; with Sangha meals and the like, they total fourteen meals.

Turn-by-turn meals (vārakabhattaṃ) are given during a time of famine, starting from the head of the household, saying, “We will look after the monks in turn.” This, too, if given with the statement of alms, is permissible for those who live solely on alms; but if it is said “turn-by-turn meal,” it follows the distribution by ticket method. If they send rice and other ingredients, saying, “Let the novices cook and give,” it is permissible for those who live solely on alms. Thus, these three, and the four beginning with food for newcomers, make seven; these, together with the meals for the Saṅgha and others, make fourteen meals.

Vārakabhatta refers to a meal given during a famine with the intention, “We will provide for the monks in turn,” starting from the duty house. If given in the name of the monks, even alms-goers are entitled to it. If called a “duty meal,” it follows the rules of the lottery meal. If rice or other provisions are sent with the instruction, “Let the novices cook and give it,” alms-goers are entitled to it. Thus, these three meals, along with the four previously mentioned, make seven, and together with the Saṅgha meals, there are fourteen types of meals.

216. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana vihārabhattaṃ aṭṭhakabhattaṃ catukkabhattaṃ guḷhakabhattanti aññānipi cattāri bhattāni vuttāni. Tattha vihārabhattaṃ nāma vihāre tatruppādabhattaṃ, taṃ saṅghabhattena saṅgahitaṃ. Taṃ pana tissamahāvihāracittalapabbatādīsu paṭisambhidāppattehi khīṇāsavehi yathā piṇḍapātikānampi sakkā honti paribhuñjituṃ, tathā paṭiggahitattā tādisesu ṭhānesu piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. “Aṭṭhannaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ dema, catunnaṃ demā”ti evaṃ dinnaṃ pana aṭṭhakabhattañceva catukkabhattañca, tampi bhikkhāvacanena dinnaṃ piṇḍapātikānaṃ vaṭṭati. Mahābhisaṅkhārena atirasakapūvena pattaṃ thaketvā dinnaṃ guḷhakabhattaṃ nāma. Imāni tīṇi salākabhattagatikāneva. Aparampi guḷhakabhattaṃ nāma atthi, idhekacce manussā mahādhammassavanañca vihārapūjañca kāretvā “sakalasaṅghassa dātuṃ na sakkoma, dve tīṇi bhikkhusatāni amhākaṃ bhikkhaṃ gaṇhantū”ti bhikkhuparicchedajānanatthaṃ guḷhake denti, idaṃ piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati.

216. In the commentary, four other meals are mentioned: monastery meal, eight-meal, four-meal, and sugar-meal. Here, monastery meal (vihārabhatta) is a meal arising at the monastery, included under Sangha meal. In places like Tissa Mahāvihāra or Cittala Mountain, where arahants with analytical knowledge accepted it, it is permissible for alms-goers too due to its manner of acceptance. What is given as “We give to eight monks” or “We give to four monks” is eight-meal (aṭṭhakabhatta) and four-meal (catukkabhatta); if given with alms-language, it is permissible for alms-goers. What is given with great preparation, over-seasoned cakes filling the bowl, is called sugar-meal (guḷhakabhatta). These three follow the ticket-meal pattern. There is also another sugar-meal: some people, after holding a great Dhamma hearing or monastery worship, say, “We cannot give to the whole Sangha; let two or three hundred monks take our alms,” giving sugar lumps to mark the number of monks—this too is permissible for alms-goers.

216. In the commentary, however, four other kinds of meals are mentioned: monastery meals (vihārabhattaṃ), meals for eight (aṭṭhakabhattaṃ), meals for four (catukkabhattaṃ), and secret meals (guḷhakabhattaṃ). Of these, monastery meals (vihārabhattaṃ) are meals arising in the monastery; they are included in the meals for the Saṅgha. However, in places like Tissa Mahāvihāra and Cittala Pabbata, because they were accepted by arahants who had attained the analytical insights in such a way that even those who live solely on alms could partake of them, in such places, it is permissible even for those who live solely on alms. “We give to eight monks, we give to four,” thus given, meals for eight and meals for four, if given with the statement of alms, are permissible for those who live solely on alms. Secret meals (guḷhakabhattaṃ) are given by filling a bowl with exceptionally delicious cakes made with great effort. These three follow the distribution by ticket method. There is also another kind of secret meal (guḷhakabhattaṃ): here, some people, having organized a great Dhamma discourse and a monastery offering, say, “We cannot give to the entire Saṅgha; let two or three hundred monks take our alms,” and they give secret tokens to determine the number of monks; this is permissible even for those who live solely on alms.

216. In the commentary, four additional meals are mentioned: the monastery meal, the group meal, the quadruple meal, and the lump meal. Among these, vihārabhatta refers to a meal provided in the monastery, which is included in the Saṅgha meal. In places like the Tissamahāvihāra, Cittalapabbata, etc., where Arahants reside, even alms-goers are allowed to partake of it due to its proper acceptance. If a meal is given with the instruction, “We give to eight monks” or “We give to four monks,” it is called aṭṭhakabhatta and catukkabhatta, and even alms-goers are entitled to it if given in the name of the monks. A meal given with excessive rice piled up in a bowl is called guḷhakabhatta. These three follow the rules of the lottery meal. There is another type of guḷhakabhatta where some people, after organizing a great Dhamma discourse and monastery worship, say, “We cannot offer to the entire Saṅgha, so let two or three hundred monks take our meal,” and they give it in a lump. This is also permissible for alms-goers.

217. Gilānapaccayabhājanīyaṃ pana evaṃ veditabbaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325 pakkhikabhattādikathā) – sappiādīsu bhesajjesu rājarājamahāmattā sappissa tāva kumbhasatampi kumbhasahassampi vihāraṃ pesenti, ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā therāsanato paṭṭhāya gahitabhājanaṃ pūretvā dātabbaṃ, piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati. Sace alasajātikā mahātherā pacchā āgacchanti, “bhante, vīsativassānaṃ dīyati, tumhākaṃ ṭhitikā atikkantā”ti na vattabbā, ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā tesaṃ datvā pacchā ṭhitikāya dātabbaṃ. “Asukavihāre bahu sappi uppanna”nti sutvā yojanantaravihāratopi bhikkhū āgacchanti, sampattasampattānampi ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya dātabbaṃ. Asampattānampi upacārasīmaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ antevāsikādīsu gaṇhantesu dātabbameva. “Bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhitānaṃ dethā”ti vadanti, na dātabbaṃ. Sace pana upacārasīmaṃ okkantehi ekābaddhā hutvā attano vihāradvāre antovihāreyeva vā honti, parisavasena vaḍḍhitā nāma sīmā hoti, tasmā dātabbā. Saṅghanavakassa dinnepi pacchā āgatānaṃ dātabbameva. Dutiyabhāge pana therāsanaṃ āruḷhe āgatānaṃ paṭhamabhāgo na pāpuṇāti, dutiyabhāgato vassaggena dātabbaṃ. Antoupacārasīmaṃ pavisitvā yattha katthaci dinnaṃ hoti, sabbaṃ sannipātaṭṭhāneyeva bhājetabbaṃ.

217. The sharing of requisites for the sick (gilānapaccayabhājanīya) should be understood thus (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325 pakkhikabhattādikathā): For medicines like ghee, kings or great ministers may send a hundred or a thousand pots of ghee to the monastery. Striking the bell, starting from the elder’s seat, the assigned share should be filled and given; it is permissible even for alms-goers. If lazy great elders come later, it should not be said, “Venerable sirs, it is given to those with twenty years; your fixed order has passed.” Setting aside the fixed order, it should be given to them, then by fixed order afterward. Hearing, “Much ghee has arisen in such-and-such a monastery,” monks come even from a monastery a yojana away; it should be given to all who arrive, starting from their standing place. Even for those not arriving, if their disciples or the like take it within the precinct boundary, it should indeed be given. If they say, “Give to those standing outside the precinct boundary,” it should not be given. But if those entering the precinct boundary form a single line at their monastery door or within the monastery, the boundary expands by the assembly, so it should be given. Even after giving to the Sangha novice, it should still be given to those arriving later. In the second portion, when the elder’s seat is reached, the first portion does not reach those arriving; it should be given by seniority from the second portion. Whatever is given anywhere within the precinct boundary should be shared only at the gathering place.

217. The distribution of requisites for the sick (gilānapaccayabhājanīyaṃ) should be understood as follows (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325, on occasional meals, etc.): Among medicines such as ghee, kings and great ministers send even a hundred pots or a thousand pots of ghee to the monastery. After striking the bell, starting from the elder’s seat, the container that is held should be filled and given; it is permissible even for those who live solely on alms. If senior monks of lazy nature arrive later, they should not be told, “Venerable sirs, it is being given to those of twenty years [in the Order], your turn has passed.” Setting aside the pre-established order, it should be given to them, and then it should be given according to the order. If monks arrive from monasteries a yojana away, hearing, “Much ghee has arisen in such-and-such a monastery,” it should be given to those who have arrived, starting from the place where they are standing. Even to those who have not yet arrived but have entered the boundary of the monastery’s vicinity, if their pupils or others are taking [for them], it should be given. If they say, “Give to those standing outside the boundary of the vicinity,” it should not be given. If, however, those who have crossed the boundary of the vicinity are connected in a line, at the gate of their own monastery or even within the monastery, the boundary is said to be extended by the assembly; therefore, it should be given. Even if it has been given to the Saṅgha’s novice, it should still be given to those who arrive later. In the second part, however, those who arrive when the elder’s seat has been ascended do not receive the first part; it should be given according to the number of years [in the Order] from the second part. What has been given anywhere within the boundary of the vicinity should all be distributed at the meeting place.

217. The section on medicinal provisions should be understood as follows (Cūḷavagga, Aṭṭhakathā 325, discussion on the half-month meal, etc.): Among medicinal items like ghee, when kings or ministers send a hundred or a thousand pots of ghee to the monastery, after striking the bell, the senior monks should fill the received vessels and distribute them. Even alms-goers are entitled to it. If senior monks who are slow to arrive come later, they should not be told, “Venerable, the twenty-year limit has passed, your turn has been missed.” Instead, their share should be set aside and given to them later. If monks from a monastery a yojana away come upon hearing that much ghee is available, they should be given their share starting from their arrival. Even those who have not yet arrived but have entered the boundary should be given their share when their attendants receive it. However, those standing outside the boundary should not be given. If, however, they enter the boundary together and remain at the monastery gate or inside the monastery, the boundary is considered extended, and they should be given. Even if given to the Saṅgha steward, those who arrive later should still be given. In the second round, if senior monks arrive after the first round is over, they should be given from the second round onwards. Any distribution made within the boundary should be divided at the assembly place.

Yasmiṃ vihāre dasa bhikkhū, daseva ca sappikumbhā dīyanti, ekekakumbhavasena bhājetabbaṃ. Eko sappikumbho hoti, dasabhikkhūhi bhājetvā gahetabbaṃ. Sace “yathāṭhitaṃyeva amhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti gaṇhanti, duggahitaṃ, taṃ gatagataṭṭhāne saṅghikameva hoti. Kumbhaṃ pana āvajjetvā thālake thokaṃ sappiṃ katvā “idaṃ mahātherassa pāpuṇāti, avasesaṃ amhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti vatvā tampi kumbheyeva ākiritvā yathicchitaṃ gahetvā gantabbaṃ. Sace thinaṃ sappi hoti, lekhaṃ katvā “lekhato parabhāgo mahātherassa pāpuṇāti, avasesaṃ amhāka”nti gahitampi suggahitaṃ. Vuttaparicchedato ūnādhikesu bhikkhūsu sappikumbhesu ca eteneva upāyena bhājetabbaṃ. Sace paneko bhikkhu, eko kumbho hoti, ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvā “ayaṃ mayhaṃ pāpuṇātī”tipi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Ayaṃ paṭhamabhāgo mayhaṃ pāpuṇāti, ayaṃ dutiyabhāgo”ti evaṃ thokaṃ thokampi pāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Esa nayo navanītādīsupi . Yasmiṃ pana vippasannatilatelādimhi lekhā na santiṭṭhati, taṃ uddharitvā bhājetabbaṃ. Siṅgiveramaricādibhesajjampi avasesapattathālakādisamaṇaparikkhāropi sabbo vuttānurūpeneva nayena suṭṭhu sallakkhetvā bhājetabboti. Ayaṃ gilānapaccayabhājanīyakathā.

In a monastery with ten monks where ten ghee pots are given, they should be shared one pot each. If there is one ghee pot, it should be shared among ten monks. If they take it thinking, “What is there reaches us as it is,” it is wrongly taken; it becomes Sangha property wherever it goes. Reflecting on the pot, putting a little ghee in a plate, saying, “This reaches the great elder; the rest reaches us,” and pouring it back into the pot, they should take as desired and go. If the ghee is solid, marking it and saying, “The portion beyond the mark reaches the great elder; the rest is ours,” it is well-taken. With fewer or more monks or ghee pots than specified, it should be shared by this method. If there is one monk and one pot, striking the bell and saying, “This reaches me,” he may take it. Saying, “This first portion reaches me, this second portion,” even small amounts may be assigned—it is permissible. The same applies to fresh butter and the like. For clear sesame oil or the like where marks do not hold, it should be scooped and shared. Ginger, pepper, and other medicines, as well as remaining bowls, plates, and monastic requisites, should all be carefully considered and shared by the same method. This is the discussion on sharing requisites for the sick.

In a monastery where there are ten monks, and ten pots of ghee are given, it should be distributed by the method of one pot each. If there is one pot of ghee, it should be distributed among the ten monks and taken. If they take it saying, “It belongs to us just as it is,” it is wrongly taken; wherever it goes, it belongs to the Saṅgha. However, having stirred the pot and put a little ghee in a dish, saying, “This belongs to the great elder, the rest belongs to us,” and pouring that also into the pot, they should take as much as they wish and go. If the ghee is thick, making a line and saying, “The portion beyond the line belongs to the great elder, the rest belongs to us,” even what is taken is well taken. If the monks and the pots of ghee are less or more than the stated number, it should be distributed in the same way. If, however, there is one monk and one pot, after striking the bell, it is permissible to take it, saying, “This belongs to me.” It is permissible to apportion even a little at a time, saying, “This first portion belongs to me, this second portion,” and so on. This same method applies to fresh butter and other [requisites] as well. However, in the case of clarified sesame oil and the like, where a line does not stay, it should be ladled out and distributed. Ginger, pepper, and other medicines, as well as all other requisites of a monk, such as bowls, dishes, etc., should all be carefully considered and distributed according to the method described above. This is the discussion on the distribution of requisites for the sick.

In a monastery with ten monks and ten pots of ghee, each monk should receive one pot. If there is one pot of ghee for ten monks, they should divide it and take their shares. If they take it as it is, saying, “Let it reach us as it stands,” it is improperly taken and becomes communal property. However, if they pour a little ghee from the pot into a vessel, saying, “This portion is for the senior monk, the rest is for us,” and then pour it back into the pot, they may take as they wish. If the ghee is thick, they may mark it, saying, “The marked portion is for the senior monk, the rest is for us,” and it is properly taken. The same method applies when there are fewer or more monks and pots of ghee. If there is one monk and one pot of ghee, after striking the bell, he may take it, saying, “This is mine.” He may also divide it into portions, saying, “This is my first portion, this is my second portion.” The same applies to butter and other items. If the ghee is mixed with sesame oil and cannot be marked, it should be scooped out and divided. Ginger, pepper, and other medicines, as well as all other requisites like bowls and robes, should be carefully distributed according to the aforementioned method. This is the discussion on medicinal provisions.

218. Idāni senāsanaggāhe vinicchayo veditabbo (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) – ayaṃ senāsanaggāho nāma duvidho hoti utukāle ca vassāvāse ca. Tattha utukāle tāva keci āgantukā bhikkhū purebhattaṃ āgacchanti, keci pacchābhattaṃ paṭhamayāmaṃ majjhimayāmaṃ pacchimayāmaṃ vā. Ye yadā āgacchanti, tesaṃ tadāva bhikkhū uṭṭhāpetvā senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, akālo nāma natthi. Senāsanapaññāpakena pana paṇḍitena bhavitabbaṃ, ekaṃ vā dve vā mañcaṭṭhānāni ṭhapetabbāni. Sace vikāle eko vā dve vā therā āgacchanti, te vattabbā “bhante, ādito paṭṭhāya vuṭṭhāpiyamāne sabbepi bhikkhū ubbhaṇḍikā bhavissanti, tumhe amhākaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne vasathā”ti.

218. Now, the assignment of lodgings (senāsanaggāha) judgment should be understood (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): This assignment of lodgings is twofold—during the season and during the rains residence. During the season (utukāle), some visiting monks arrive before meals, some after meals, in the first, middle, or last watch. Whenever they arrive, monks should be roused then and lodgings given; there is no unsuitable time. The lodging-assigner must be wise, keeping one or two bed spaces aside. If one or two elders arrive at an odd time, they should be told, “Venerable sirs, if we rouse from the start, all monks will be displaced; stay in our dwelling place.”

218. Now, the decision regarding the allocation of lodgings (senāsanaggāhe) should be understood (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318): This allocation of lodgings is of two kinds: during the non-rains retreat and during the rains retreat. Of these, during the non-rains retreat, some newcomer monks arrive before the meal, some after the meal, in the first watch, the middle watch, or the last watch [of the night]. Whenever they arrive, the monks should be awakened at that time, and lodgings should be given; there is no such thing as an untimely hour. However, the monk assigning lodgings should be wise; one or two bed-places should be kept [vacant]. If one or two elders arrive at an unusual time, they should be told, “Venerable sirs, if all the monks are awakened from the very beginning, everyone will be disturbed; you stay in the place where we stay.”

218. Now, the rules regarding senāsanaggāha (allocation of lodging) should be understood (Cūḷavagga, Aṭṭhakathā 318): The allocation of lodging is of two kinds: during the season and during the rains retreat. Regarding the season, some incoming monks arrive before the meal, some after the meal, in the first, middle, or last watch of the night. Whenever they arrive, the monks should be asked to rise and lodging should be given to them immediately; there is no inappropriate time. However, the monk in charge of allocating lodging should be wise and should set aside one or two bed spaces. If one or two senior monks arrive at an inconvenient time, they should be told, “Venerable, if all the monks are asked to rise from the beginning, they will be disturbed. Please stay in our residence.”

Bahūsu pana āgatesu vuṭṭhāpetvā paṭipāṭiyā dātabbaṃ. Sace ekekaṃ pariveṇaṃ pahoti, ekekaṃ pariveṇaṃ dātabbaṃ. Tattha aggisālādīghasālāmaṇḍalamāḷādayo sabbepi tasseva pāpuṇanti. Evaṃ appahonte pāsādaggena dātabbaṃ, pāsādesu appahontesu ovarakaggena dātabbaṃ, ovarakesu appahontesu seyyaggena dātabbaṃ, seyyaggesu appahontesu mañcaṭṭhānena dātabbaṃ, mañcaṭṭhāne appahonte ekapīṭhakaṭṭhānavasena dātabbaṃ, bhikkhuno pana ṭhitokāsamattaṃ na gāhetabbaṃ. Etañhi senāsanaṃ nāma na hoti. Pīṭhakaṭṭhāne pana appahonte ekaṃ mañcaṭṭhānaṃ vā ekaṃ pīṭhaṭṭhānaṃ vā “vārena vārena, bhante, vissamathā”ti tiṇṇaṃ janānaṃ dātabbaṃ. Na hi sakkā sītasamaye sabbarattiṃ ajjhokāseva vasituṃ. Mahātherena paṭhamayāmaṃ vissamitvā nikkhamitvā dutiyattherassa vattabbaṃ “āvuso idha pavisāhī”ti. Sace mahāthero niddāgaruko hoti, kālaṃ na jānāti, ukkāsitvā dvāraṃ ākoṭetvā “bhante kālo jāto, sītaṃ anudahatī”ti vattabbaṃ. Tena nikkhamitvā okāso dātabbo, adātuṃ na labhati. Dutiyattherenapi majjhimayāmaṃ vissamitvā purimanayeneva itarassa dātabbaṃ. Niddāgaruko vuttanayeneva vuṭṭhāpetabbo. Evaṃ ekarattiṃ ekamañcaṭṭhānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ dātabbaṃ. Jambudīpe pana ekacce bhikkhū “senāsanaṃ nāma mañcaṭṭhānaṃ vā pīṭhaṭṭhānaṃ vā kiñcideva kassaci sappāyaṃ hoti, kassaci asappāya”nti āgantukā hontu vā mā vā, devasikaṃ senāsanaṃ gāhenti. Ayaṃ utukāle senāsanaggāho nāma.

When many arrive, they should be roused and given in order. If one cell suffices for each, one cell should be given to each. There, the fire hall, long hall, round hall, and the like all reach him. If insufficient, it should be given by building; if buildings are insufficient, by room; if rooms are insufficient, by bed; if beds are insufficient, by bed space; if bed spaces are insufficient, by chair space. But a monk’s mere standing space should not be taken, for that is not a lodging. If chair spaces are insufficient, one bed space or chair space should be given to three people, saying, “Venerable sirs, rest by turns.” In cold weather, it is not possible to stay outside all night. The great elder, resting in the first watch, should leave and tell the second elder, “Friend, enter here.” If the great elder is heavy with sleep and does not know the time, coughing or knocking on the door, he should be told, “Venerable sir, the time has come; the cold burns.” He must leave and give the space; he cannot refuse. The second elder, resting in the middle watch, should give it to the other by the same method. If heavy with sleep, he should be roused as described. Thus, one bed space may be given to three for one night. In Jambudīpa, some monks, thinking, “A lodging—whether bed or chair space—is suitable for some, unsuitable for others,” take lodgings daily, whether visitors come or not. This is the seasonal assignment of lodgings.

If many arrive, they should be awakened, and [lodgings] should be given in turn. If there is enough for each one to have a separate cell, a separate cell should be given. In that case, the fire hall, long hall, circular hall, and other [buildings] all belong to him. If there are not enough in this way, it should be given according to the order of pavilions; if there are not enough pavilions, it should be given according to the order of rooms; if there are not enough rooms, it should be given according to the order of beds; if there are not enough beds, it should be given according to the order of a single stool-place; however, just the space where a monk stands should not be taken. For this is not called a lodging. If there are not enough stool-places, one bed-place or one stool-place should be given to three people, saying, “Venerable sirs, rest in turn.” For it is not possible to stay in the open air all night in the cold season. The senior monk, having rested in the first watch, should go out and say to the second elder, “Friend, enter here.” If the senior monk is sleepy and does not know the time, one should cough and knock on the door, saying, “Venerable sir, the time has come; the cold is burning.” He should go out and give the space; he is not allowed not to give. The second elder should also rest in the middle watch and give to the other in the same way as before. The sleepy one should be awakened in the same way as described. Thus, one bed-place should be given to three people for one night. In Jambudīpa, however, some monks, thinking, “A lodging, whether a bed-place or a stool-place, or anything else, is suitable for some, unsuitable for others,” take lodgings daily, whether newcomers arrive or not. This is the allocation of lodgings during the non-rains retreat.

If many monks arrive, they should be asked to rise and lodging should be given in order. If each can be given a separate cell, a separate cell should be given. In such cases, the fire hall, long hall, circular hall, and pavilion all belong to the same category. If these are insufficient, lodging should be given on the upper floor of the monastery. If the upper floors are insufficient, lodging should be given in the inner rooms. If the inner rooms are insufficient, lodging should be given on the veranda. If the veranda is insufficient, lodging should be given on the bed platform. If the bed platform is insufficient, lodging should be given on a single seat. However, a monk should not be given merely standing space, as this does not constitute lodging. If even a single seat is insufficient, one bed space or one seat should be given to three people, saying, “Venerable, take turns to rest.” It is not possible to stay outdoors all night in the cold. After the senior monk has rested in the first watch and left, the second senior monk should be told, “Friend, come in here.” If the senior monk is heavy with sleep and does not know the time, he should be awakened by coughing or knocking on the door, saying, “Venerable, the time has come, the cold is increasing.” He should then leave and make room for others; it is not permissible to refuse. The second senior monk should also rest in the middle watch and then give his place to another in the same manner. A heavy sleeper should be awakened as described. Thus, one bed space can be given to three people for one night. In India, some monks take lodging daily, whether there are incoming guests or not, saying, “Lodging is a bed space or a seat, suitable for some and unsuitable for others.” This is the allocation of lodging during the season.

219. Vassāvāse pana atthi āgantukavattaṃ, atthi āvāsikavattaṃ. Āgantukena tāva sakaṭṭhānaṃ muñcitvā aññattha gantvā vasitukāmena vassūpanāyikadivasameva tattha na gantabbaṃ. Vasanaṭṭhānaṃ vā hi tatra sambādhaṃ bhaveyya, bhikkhācāro vā na sampajjeyya, tena na phāsukaṃ vihareyya, tasmā “idāni māsamattena vassūpanāyikā bhavissatī”ti taṃ vihāraṃ pavisitabbaṃ. Tattha māsamattaṃ vasanto sace uddesatthiko, uddesasampattiṃ sallakkhetvā, sace kammaṭṭhāniko, kammaṭṭhānasappāyataṃ sallakkhetvā, sace paccayatthiko, paccayalābhaṃ sallakkhetvā antovasse sukhaṃ vasissati. Sakaṭṭhānato ca tattha gacchantena na gocaragāmo ghaṭṭetabbo. Na tattha manussā vattabbā “tumhe nissāya salākabhattādīni vā yāgukhajjakādīni vā vassāvāsikaṃ vā natthi, ayaṃ cetiyassa parikkhāro, ayaṃ uposathāgārassa, idaṃ tāḷañceva sūci ca, sampaṭicchatha tumhākaṃ vihāra”nti. Senāsanaṃ pana jaggitvā dārubhaṇḍamattikābhaṇḍāni paṭisāmetvā gamikavattaṃ pūretvā gantabbaṃ.

219. During the rains residence (vassāvāsa), there is the visitor’s duty and the resident’s duty. A visitor intending to leave his own place and dwell elsewhere should not go there on the very day of entering the rains. The dwelling place there might be crowded, or alms-round might not succeed, making it uncomfortable. Thus, thinking, “Now, in about a month, the rains entry will come,” he should enter that monastery. Dwelling there for about a month, if seeking recitation, he should note its availability; if a meditator, its suitability for meditation; if seeking requisites, the gain of requisites—then he can dwell happily during the rains. Going there from his own place, he should not disturb the alms-village. He should not say to the people there, “Depending on you, there are no ticket-meals, gruel, snacks, or rains requisites; this is for the shrine’s upkeep, this for the Uposatha hall, here are palm leaf and needle—accept them for your monastery.” He should tend the lodging, repair wooden and clay items, fulfill the traveler’s duty, and go.

219. During the rains retreat, there is the practice for newcomers and the practice for residents. A newcomer who wishes to leave his own place and stay elsewhere should not go there on the very day of entering the rains retreat. For the place of residence there might be crowded, or the alms round might not be successful, so he might not live comfortably; therefore, thinking, “Now, in a month, it will be the time for entering the rains retreat,” he should enter that monastery. Residing there for a month, if he is seeking instruction, he should consider the success of the instruction; if he is practicing meditation, he should consider the suitability of the meditation subject; if he is seeking requisites, he should consider the gain of requisites; and he will live happily during the rains retreat. And when going there from his own place, he should not disturb the village where he goes for alms. He should not say to the people there, “Depending on you, there is no ticket-food or gruel, snacks, or rains-residence cloth; this is the offering for the cetiya, this is for the uposatha hall, this is the lock and the needle; accept the monastery that belongs to you.” However, having looked after the lodging, repaired the wooden and clay utensils, fulfilled the duties of one departing, he should go.

219. Regarding the rains retreat, there are rules for incoming guests and rules for residents. An incoming guest who wishes to leave his usual place and stay elsewhere should not go there on the day the rains retreat begins. His presence might cause overcrowding, or alms rounds might not be successful, making his stay uncomfortable. Therefore, he should enter the monastery a month before the rains retreat begins. By staying there for a month, if he is a student, he can assess the quality of instruction; if he is a meditator, he can assess the suitability of the meditation object; if he is in need of requisites, he can assess the availability of support, and thus he will live comfortably during the rains. When leaving his usual place, he should not disturb the alms route. He should not tell the people, “We depend on you for lottery meals or morning gruel and evening snacks, or for the rains retreat. This is the shrine’s property, this is the Uposatha hall’s property, these are the drum and needle; please accept them for your monastery.” He should prepare the lodging, put away wooden and earthenware items, and fulfill the duties of a traveler before leaving.

Evaṃ gacchantenapi daharehi pattacīvarabhaṇḍikāyo ukkhipāpetvā telanāḷikattaradaṇḍādīni gāhetvā chattaṃ paggayha attānaṃ dassentena gāmadvāreneva na gantabbaṃ, paṭicchannena aṭavimaggena gantabbaṃ. Aṭavimagge asati gumbādīni maddantena na gantabbaṃ, gamikavattaṃ pana pūretvā vitakkaṃ chinditvā suddhacittena gamanavatteneva gantabbaṃ. Sace pana gāmadvārena maggo hoti, gacchantañca naṃ saparivāraṃ disvā manussā “amhākaṃ thero viyā”ti upadhāvitvā “kuhiṃ, bhante, sabbaparikkhāre gahetvā gacchathā”ti vadanti, tesu ce eko evaṃ vadati “vassūpanāyikakālo nāmāyaṃ, yattha antovassenibaddhabhikkhācāro bhaṇḍapaṭicchādanañca labbhati, tattha bhikkhū gacchantī”ti, tassa ce sutvā te manussā “bhante, imasmimpi gāme jano bhuñjati ceva nivāseti ca, mā aññattha gacchathā”ti vatvā mittāmacce pakkositvā sabbe sammantayitvā vihāre nibaddhavattañca salākabhattādīni ca vassāvāsikañca ṭhapetvā “idheva, bhante, vasathā”ti yācanti, sabbesaṃ sādituṃ vaṭṭati. Sabbañcetaṃ kappiyañceva anavajjañca. Kurundiyaṃ pana “kuhiṃ gacchathāti vutte ’asukaṭṭhāna’nti vatvā ’kasmā tattha gacchathā’ti vutte ’kāraṇaṃ ācikkhitabba”’nti vuttaṃ. Ubhayampi panetaṃ suddhacittattāva anavajjaṃ. Idaṃ āgantukavattaṃ nāma.

Even when going, he should not have young monks carry bowl-and-robe bags, take oil tubes, staffs, or the like, hold up an umbrella, and show himself by the village gate. He should go discreetly by a forest path. If there is no forest path, he should not go trampling bushes or the like, but fulfill the traveler’s duty, cut off speculation, and go with a pure mind by the travel duty alone. If the path is by the village gate and people see him with his entourage, saying, “He’s like our elder,” and ask, “Venerable sir, where are you going with all your requisites?” if one says, “This is the time for entering the rains; monks go where regular alms-round and shelter are available,” and hearing this, they say, “Venerable sirs, people eat and dress here too; don’t go elsewhere,” calling friends and ministers, agreeing together, establishing regular duties, ticket-meals, and rains requisites at the monastery, and request, “Venerable sirs, dwell here,” all may accept. All this is lawful and blameless. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “When asked, ‘Where are you going?’ say, ‘To such-and-such a place.’ When asked, ‘Why go there?’ the reason should be explained.” Both are blameless due to purity of mind. This is the visitor’s duty (āgantukavatta).

Even when going in this way, he should not go by the village gate, making the young monks carry his bowl and robes, holding his oil container, walking stick, and other items, displaying himself with his umbrella raised. He should go by a secluded forest path. If there is no forest path, he should not go crushing bushes and other things; but having fulfilled the duties of one departing, cutting off discursive thoughts, with a pure mind, he should go only with the conduct of going. If, however, the path is through the village gate, and seeing him going with his retinue, people approach, thinking, “He is like our elder,” and say, “Where, venerable sir, are you going, taking all your requisites?” If one of them says, “This is the time for entering the rains retreat; monks go where they can find a regular alms round and covering for their robes during the rains retreat,” and hearing this, those people say, “Venerable sir, in this village too, people eat and provide robes; do not go elsewhere,” and calling their friends and relatives, they all confer and establish regular duties, ticket-food, and other things, as well as the rains-residence cloth, and request, “Stay here, venerable sir,” it is permissible to accept for all of them. And all this is permissible and blameless. In the Kurundi, however, 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?’ one should explain the reason.” Both of these, however, are blameless because of the purity of mind. This is called the practice for newcomers.

Even when leaving, he should have the young monks carry the bowl, robe, and other belongings, take the oil flask, staff, and umbrella, and proceed without showing himself at the village gate. He should go by a concealed forest path. If there is no forest path, he should not go by crushing bushes. He should fulfill the duties of a traveler, cut off thoughts, and proceed with a pure mind, following the traveler’s duties. If the path goes through the village gate, and people see him going with his retinue and say, “Our elder is leaving,” and approach him, saying, “Venerable, where are you going with all these requisites?” and if one of them says, “This is the time for the rains retreat, where monks go to stay where alms rounds and requisites are available,” and the people, hearing this, say, “Venerable, in this village too, people eat and clothe themselves; do not go elsewhere,” and call their friends and relatives, and after discussing, establish the rains retreat and lottery meals, saying, “Stay here, Venerable,” it is permissible to please them. All this is proper and blameless. In Kurundiya, it is said, “When asked where you are going, you should say, ‘To such and such a place,’ and when asked why, you should explain the reason.” Both are blameless if done with a pure mind. These are the rules for incoming guests.

Idaṃ pana āvāsikavattaṃ. Paṭikacceva hi āvāsikehi vihāro jaggitabbo, khaṇḍaphullapaṭisaṅkharaṇaparibhaṇḍāni kātabbāni, rattiṭṭhānadivāṭṭhānavaccakuṭipassāvaṭṭhānāni padhānagharavihāramaggoti imāni sabbāni paṭijaggitabbāni. Cetiye sudhākammaṃ muṇḍavedikāya telamakkhanaṃ mañcapīṭhajaggananti idampi sabbaṃ kātabbaṃ “vassaṃ vasitukāmā āgantvā uddesaparipucchākammaṭṭhānānuyogādīni karontā sukhaṃ vasissantī”ti. Kataparikammehi āsāḷhījuṇhapañcamito paṭṭhāya vassāvāsikaṃ pucchitabbaṃ. Kattha pucchitabbaṃ? Yato pakatiyā labbhati. Yehi pana na dinnapubbaṃ, te pucchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Kasmā pucchitabbaṃ? Kadāci hi manussā denti, kadāci dubbhikkhādīhi upaddutā na denti, tattha ye na dassanti, te apucchitvā vassāvāsike gāhite gāhitabhikkhūnaṃ lābhantarāyo hoti, tasmā pucchitvāva gāhetabbaṃ.

This is the resident’s duty (āvāsikavatta). Residents must tend the monastery in advance, repair cracks and breaks, and maintain all areas: night and day stations, latrine, urine pit, meditation hall, and monastery path. Whitewashing the shrine, oiling the balustrade, tending beds and chairs—all this should be done, thinking, “Those wishing to dwell for the rains will come, recite, question, practice meditation, and dwell happily.” After preparations, from the fifth day of the bright Āsāḷhī fortnight, rains requisites should be asked for. Where should they be asked? From where they are naturally received. Those who have not given before should not be asked. Why ask? Sometimes people give, sometimes, afflicted by famine or the like, they do not. If requisites are taken without asking from those who will not give, it hinders the gain of the monks who took it. Thus, they should be taken only after asking.

This is the practice for residents. The residents should look after the monastery beforehand; repairs of broken and cracked [parts] and utensils should be done; the night quarters, day quarters, latrine, urinal, meditation hall, and monastery path—all these should be attended to. Plaster work on the cetiya, oiling of the circular platform, and looking after the beds and stools—all this should also be done, thinking, “Those who wish to spend the rains retreat, having come, will live happily, engaging in instruction, questioning, and meditation practice.” Those who have completed the duties should ask for the rains-residence cloth from the fifth day of the bright half of the month of Āsāḷha. Where should it be asked for? From where it is usually obtained. However, it is not permissible to ask those who have not given before. Why should it be asked for? Sometimes people give, sometimes, afflicted by famine and other calamities, they do not give; in that case, if the rains-residence cloth is taken without asking those who will not give, it becomes an obstacle to the gain of those monks who have taken it; therefore, it should be taken only after asking.

These are the rules for residents. The residents should prepare the monastery in advance, repair broken and worn items, and attend to the night quarters, day quarters, restrooms, and paths to the main hall. The shrine should be whitewashed, the railings oiled, and the beds and seats prepared, thinking, “Those who come to spend the rains retreat will live happily, practicing recitation, questioning, meditation, etc.” After completing the preparations, the rains retreat should be requested from the fifth day of the waxing moon of Āsāḷhī. Where should it be requested? From where it is usually obtained. Those who have not given before should not be asked. Why should it be requested? Sometimes people give, and sometimes, due to famine or other difficulties, they do not. If those who do not give are not asked, and the rains retreat is taken without asking, it creates a loss for the monks who have taken it. Therefore, it should be requested before taking it.

Pucchantena “tumhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ gāhaṇakālo upakaṭṭho”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace vadanti “bhante, imaṃ saṃvaccharaṃ chātakādīhi upaddutamha, na sakkoma dātu”nti vā “yaṃ pubbe dema, tato ūnataraṃ dassāmā”ti vā “idāni kappāso sulabho, yaṃ pubbe dema, tato bahutaraṃ dassāmā”ti vā, taṃ sallakkhetvā tadanurūpena nayena tesaṃ senāsane bhikkhūnaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Sace manussā vadanti “yassa amhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ pāpuṇāti, so temāsaṃ pānīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetu, vihāramaggaṃ jaggatu, cetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇāni jaggatu, bodhirukkhe udakaṃ āsiñcatū”ti, yassa taṃ pāpuṇāti, tassa ācikkhitabbaṃ. Yo pana gāmo paṭikkamma yojanadviyojanantare hoti, tatra ce kulāni upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā pahāre vassāvāsikaṃ dentiyeva, tāni kulāni āpucchitvāpi tesaṃ senāsane vattaṃ katvā vasantassa vassāvāsitaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Sace pana tesaṃ senāsane paṃsukūliko vasati, āgatañca taṃ disvā “tumhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ demā”ti vadanti, tena saṅghassa ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace tāni kulāni saṅghassa dātuṃ na icchanti, “tumhākaṃyeva demā”ti vadanti, sabhāgo bhikkhu “vattaṃ katvā gaṇhāhī”ti vattabbo. Paṃsukūlikassa panetaṃ na vaṭṭati. Iti saddhādeyyadāyakamanussā pucchitabbā.

When asking, it should be said, “The time to take your rains requisites is near.” If they say, “Venerable sirs, this year we are afflicted by famine or the like and cannot give,” or “We will give less than before,” or “Now cotton is plentiful; we will give more than before,” considering this, the monks’ rains requisites should be taken for that lodging accordingly. If people say, “Whoever our rains requisites reach must provide drinking water for three months, tend the monastery path, tend the shrine and Bodhi courtyards, and water the Bodhi tree,” this should be explained to the one it reaches. If a village is one or two yojanas away by a side path, and families there give rains requisites with a pledge and effort, after asking those families and performing duties at their lodging, the rains residence should be taken. If a rag-robe wearer dwells at their lodging and, seeing him arrive, they say, “We give you our rains requisites,” he should inform the Sangha. If those families do not wish to give to the Sangha and say, “We give only to you,” a sharing monk should be told, “Perform duties and take it.” For a rag-robe wearer, this is not permissible. Thus, faithful donors should be asked.

When asked, one should say, “The time for you to provide the rains-residence cloth is approaching.” If they say, “Venerable sirs, this year we are afflicted by famine and other troubles, we are unable to give,” or, “We will give less than what we gave before,” or, “Now cotton is easily available, we will give more than what we gave before,” one should take note of that and, accordingly, arrange for the monks to receive the rains-residence cloth in those dwellings. If the people say, “Whoever receives the rains-residence cloth from us should provide drinking water for three months, look after the monastery path, look after the courtyards of the shrine and the Bodhi tree, and pour water on the Bodhi tree,” one should inform the one who receives it. If a village is one or two yojanas away after going back, and if the families there, having placed a deposit, are indeed giving rains-residence cloth as an offering, even after requesting those families, having performed the duties in their dwelling, one should assign the rains-residence to the one who is residing. But if a refuse-rag wearer is residing in their dwelling, and having seen him arrive, they say, “We will give you the rains-residence cloth,” he should inform the Sangha. If those families do not wish to give to the Sangha, and say, “We will give it to you only,” the compatible monk should be told, “Perform the duties and take it.” But this is not appropriate for a refuse-rag wearer. Thus, faithful and generous laypeople should be asked.

When asking, one should say, “The time for receiving your vassa offering is approaching.” If they say, “Venerable sir, this year we have been troubled by locusts and the like, and we are unable to give,” or “We will give less than what we gave before,” or “Now cotton is plentiful, we will give more than what we gave before,” then after considering this, the vassa offering should be received from them in a manner appropriate to their situation. If people say, “Whoever receives our vassa offering should provide drinking water for three months, maintain the monastery path, tend to the shrine grounds and bodhi tree grounds, and water the bodhi tree,” then whoever is eligible should be informed. If a village is located one or two yojanas away, and families there, after making an offering, give the vassa offering even after being informed, then after informing those families, one should stay in their residence and receive the vassa offering. If a rag-robed monk is staying in their residence and they see him and say, “We will give you the vassa offering,” this should be reported to the Sangha. If those families do not wish to give to the Sangha but say, “We will give only to you,” a monk who is a part of the Sangha should be told, “After fulfilling the duties, receive it.” However, this does not apply to a rag-robed monk. Thus, faithful donors should be asked.

Tatruppāde pana kappiyakārakā pucchitabbā. Kathaṃ pucchitabbā? Kiṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa bhaṇḍapaṭicchādanaṃ bhavissatīti? Sace vadanti “bhavissati, bhante, ekekassa navahatthasāṭakaṃ dassāma, vassāvāsikaṃ gāhethā”ti, gāhetabbaṃ. Sacepi vadanti “sāṭakā natthi, vatthu pana atthi, gāhetha, bhante”ti, vatthumhi santepi gāhetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Kappiyakārakānañhi hatthe “kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ paribhuñjathā”ti dinnavatthuto yaṃ yaṃ kappiyaṃ, sabbaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anuññātaṃ. Yaṃ panettha piṇḍapātatthāya gilānapaccayatthāya ca uddissa dinnaṃ, taṃ cīvare upanāmentehi saṅghasuṭṭhutāya apaloketvā upanāmetabbaṃ, senāsanatthāya pana uddissa dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti. Cīvaravaseneva pana catupaccayavasena vā dinnaṃ cīvare upanāmentānaṃ apalokanakammakiccaṃ natthi. Apalokanakammaṃ karontehi ca puggalavaseneva kātabbaṃ, saṅghavasena na kātabbaṃ. Jātarūparajatavasenapi āmakadhaññavasena vā apalokanakammaṃ na vaṭṭati, kappiyabhaṇḍavasena cīvarataṇḍulādivaseneva ca vaṭṭati. Taṃ pana evaṃ kattabbaṃ “idāni subhikkhaṃ sulabhapiṇḍaṃ, bhikkhū cīvarena kilamanti, ettakaṃ nāma taṇḍulabhāgaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvaraṃ kātuṃ ruccatī”ti, “gilānapaccayo sulabho, gilāno vā natthi, ettakaṃ nāma taṇḍulabhāgaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvaraṃ kātuṃ ruccatī”ti.

For what arises there, lawful workers should be asked. How? “Friends, will there be shelter for the Sangha?” If they say, “There will be, venerable sirs; we will give each a nine-hand cloth; take the rains requisites,” it should be taken. Even if they say, “There are no cloths, but there is fabric; take it, venerable sirs,” it is indeed permissible to take even with fabric present. For whatever is lawful from fabric given into the hands of lawful workers, saying, “Use lawful goods,” all is permitted to be used. What is given specifically for alms or sick requisites should be offered for robes by those presenting it, with the Sangha’s consent for its welfare; what is given specifically for lodging is a heavy item. But what is given for robes or the four requisites needs no consent action when offered for robes. Consent action should be done only for individuals, not the Sangha. Consent action is not permissible with gold, silver, or raw grain, but only with lawful goods like robe-rice. It should be done thus: “Now there is plenty, alms are easy, monks struggle with robes; such a portion of rice for robes suits the monks,” or “Sick requisites are plentiful, or there are no sick; such a portion of rice for robes suits the monks.”

In the case of arising (of donations), the kappiyakārakas (lay attendants) should be asked. How should they be asked? “Friend, will there be cloth covering for the Sangha’s requisites?” If they say, “There will be, venerable sir, we will give a nine-cubit cloth to each, assign the rains-residence,” it should be assigned. Even if they say, “There are no cloths, but there is material, assign it, venerable sir,” even if there is only material, it is appropriate to assign it. For whatever is appropriate from the material given into the hands of the kappiyakārakas, saying “Use the allowable requisites,” all that is permitted to be used. Herein, what is given for the sake of almsfood and for the sake of requisites for the sick, when directing it towards robes, it should be directed after informing the Sangha well, but what is given for the sake of lodging is heavy equipment. However, for those directing what is given for robes only, or by way of the four requisites, towards robes, there is no need for the act of informing. And when performing the act of informing, it should be done on an individual basis, not on a Sangha basis. The act of informing is not appropriate on the basis of gold and silver or on the basis of raw grain, but it is appropriate on the basis of allowable requisites and on the basis of robes, rice, etc. But it should be done thus: “Now there is abundant food, almsfood is easily obtained, the monks are troubled by robes, it is agreeable to make such and such a portion of rice into robes for the monks,” or, “Requisites for the sick are easily obtained, or there are no sick, it is agreeable to make such and such a portion of rice into robes for the monks.”

In that case, the stewards should also be asked. How should they be asked? “Friend, will there be robes and coverings for the Sangha?” If they say, “Yes, Venerable sir, we will give each monk a nine-cubit robe, please receive the vassa offering,” it should be received. Even if they say, “There are no robes, but there is cloth, please receive it, Venerable sir,” it is permissible to receive the cloth. For whatever is given into the hands of the stewards with the words, “Use this as allowable goods,” all such items are permitted to be used. However, what is given specifically for alms food or for the needs of the sick, when being allocated to robes, should be brought to the attention of the Sangha for approval. But what is given for the purpose of lodging is considered heavy goods. When allocating robes or the four requisites, there is no need for a formal announcement. If a formal announcement is made, it should be done individually, not collectively. A formal announcement is not required for gold, silver, raw grain, or allowable goods, but it is required for robes, rice, and the like. This should be done as follows: “Now there is abundant food and alms are easily obtained, the monks are weary from making robes, it is agreed to allocate such and such portion of rice for the monks to make robes,” or “Medicines for the sick are easily obtained, there are no sick monks, it is agreed to allocate such and such portion of rice for the monks to make robes.”

Evaṃ cīvarapaccayaṃ sallakkhetvā senāsanassa kāle ghosite sannipatite saṅghe senāsanaggāhako sammannitabbo. Sammannantena ca dve sammannitabbāti vuttaṃ. Evañhi navako vuḍḍhassa, vuḍḍho ca navakassa gāhessatīti. Mahante pana mahāvihārasadise vihāre tayo cattāro janā sammannitabbā. Kurundiyaṃ pana “aṭṭhapi soḷasapi jane sammannituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tesaṃ sammuti kammavācāyapi apalokanenapi vaṭṭatiyeva. Tehi sammatehi bhikkhūhi senāsanaṃ sallakkhetabbaṃ. Cetiyagharaṃ bodhigharaṃ āsanagharaṃ sammuñjaniaṭṭo dāruaṭṭo vaccakuṭi iṭṭhakasālā vaḍḍhakisālā dvārakoṭṭhako pānīyamāḷo maggo pokkharaṇīti etāni hi asenāsanāni, vihāro aḍḍhayogo pāsādo hammiyaṃ guhā maṇḍapo rukkhamūlaṃ veḷugumboti imāni senāsanāni, tāni gāhetabbāni.

Having considered robe requisites, when the time for lodging is announced and the Sangha gathers, a lodging-assigner should be appointed. It is said two should be appointed: a novice will take for an elder, and an elder for a novice. In a large monastery like a great vihāra, three or four should be appointed. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “Even eight or sixteen may be appointed.” Their appointment is permissible by proclamation or consent. Those appointed should consider the lodgings. Shrine-house, Bodhi-house, seat-house, sweeping-post, wood-post, latrine, brick-hall, carpenter-hall, gatehouse, water-shed, path, and pond are not lodgings. Monastery, half-yoke, building, upper chamber, cave, pavilion, tree-root, and bamboo grove are lodgings; these should be taken.

Thus, having considered the robe requisites, when the time for lodging is announced, the Sangha should convene, and a lodging assigner should be appointed. And it has been said that two should be appointed. For in this way, a new monk will assign for an elder, and an elder will assign for a new monk. But in a large monastery like the Mahāvihāra, three or four people should be appointed. In Kurundi, however, it is said, “It is appropriate to appoint even eight or sixteen people.” Their appointment is appropriate by means of a formal act statement or by informing. Those appointed monks should consider the lodging. The shrine room, the Bodhi tree room, the seat room, the place for sweeping, the place for firewood, the toilet, the brick hall, the carpenter’s hall, the gatehouse, the drinking water hall, the path, the pond – these are not lodgings; the dwelling, the half-dwelling, the mansion, the attic, the cave, the pavilion, the root of a tree, the bamboo thicket – these are lodgings, they should be assigned.

Having considered the robe requisites in this way, at the appropriate time, when the announcement is made and the Sangha has assembled, a monk should be appointed as the allocator of lodgings. It is said that two should be appointed. For a junior monk should receive from a senior, and a senior should receive from a junior. In large monasteries like the Mahāvihāra, three or four people should be appointed. In Kurundiya, it is said, “Even eight or sixteen people may be appointed.” Their appointment can be done either by formal motion or by announcement. The appointed monks should consider the lodgings. The shrine house, bodhi tree house, assembly hall, storeroom, wood shed, restroom, brick hall, carpenter’s hall, gatehouse, drinking water hall, path, and pond are not considered lodgings. The monastery, half-hut, mansion, upper chamber, cave, pavilion, and tree root are considered lodgings, and these should be allocated.

220. Gāhentena ca “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṃ bhikkhū gaṇetuṃ, bhikkhū gaṇetvā seyyā gaṇetuṃ, seyyā gaṇetvā seyyaggena gāhetu”nti(cūḷava. 318) ādivacanato paṭhamaṃ vihāre bhikkhū gaṇetvā mañcaṭṭhānāni gaṇetabbāni, tato ekekaṃ mañcaṭṭhānaṃ ekekassa bhikkhuno gāhetabbaṃ. Sace mañcaṭṭhānāni atirekāni honti, vihāraggena gāhetabbaṃ. Sace vihārāpi atirekā honti, pariveṇaggena gāhetabbaṃ. Pariveṇesupi atirekesu puna aparopi bhāgo dātabbo. Atimandesu hi bhikkhūsu ekekassa bhikkhuno dve tīṇi pariveṇāni dātabbāni. Gahite pana dutiyabhāge añño bhikkhu āgacchati, na attano aruciyā so bhāgo tassa dātabbo. Sace pana yena gahito, so attano ruciyā taṃ dutiyabhāgaṃ vā paṭhamabhāgaṃ vā deti, vaṭṭati.

220. When taking, from the statement, “I allow, monks, to first count the monks, then count the beds, then take by beds” (cūḷava. 318), first the monks in the monastery should be counted, then bed spaces counted, and one bed space taken for each monk. If bed spaces are extra, it should be taken by monastery; if monasteries are extra, by cell; if cells are extra, another portion should be given again. With very few monks, two or three cells should be given to each. If another monk arrives after the second portion is taken, that portion should not be given to him against one’s will. But if the one who took it gives the second or first portion willingly, it is permissible.

220. And when assigning, according to the words, “I allow, monks, first to count the monks, having counted the monks to count the beds, having counted the beds to assign by the bed,” (Cūḷava. 318) etc., first, having counted the monks in the dwelling, the bed-places should be counted, then one bed-place should be assigned to each monk. If there are extra bed-places, they should be assigned by dwelling. If there are also extra dwellings, they should be assigned by precinct. If there are extra precincts, another portion should be given. For when the monks are very few, two or three precincts should be given to each monk. But when a second portion has been taken, another monk arrives, that portion should not be given to him against one’s will. But if the one who took it, of his own accord, gives that second portion or the first portion, it is appropriate.

220. When allocating, “I allow, monks, to first count the monks, then count the beds, and then allocate by the head of the bed” (Cūḷavagga 318), thus first count the monks in the monastery, then count the bed spaces, and then allocate each bed space to each monk. If there are extra bed spaces, they should be allocated by the head of the monastery. If there are extra monasteries, they should be allocated by the head of the residence. If there are extra residences, another portion should be given. For very slow monks, two or three residences may be given to each monk. If, after allocation, another monk arrives, that portion should not be given to him against his will. But if the one who allocated it wishes to give the second portion or the first portion, it is permissible.

“Na, bhikkhave, nissīme ṭhitassa senāsanaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, yo gāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 318) vacanato upacārasīdhato bahi ṭhitassa na gāhetabbaṃ, antoupacārasīmāya pana dūre ṭhitassapi labbhatiyeva.

From the statement, “Monks, a lodging should not be taken for one standing outside the boundary; whoever takes it commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 318), it should not be taken for one outside the precinct boundary, but it is indeed available for one standing far within the precinct boundary.

Because of the statement, “Monks, a lodging should not be assigned to one standing outside the boundary, whoever should assign it, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” (Cūḷava. 318) it should not be assigned to one standing outside the boundary of the surrounding area, but it is indeed obtainable for one standing far away within the boundary of the surrounding area.

“Monks, a lodging should not be allocated to one staying outside the boundary. If one does so, it is an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷavagga 318). Thus, one staying outside the proximity boundary should not be allocated, but one staying within the proximity boundary, even if far away, may be allocated.

“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa patirūpaṃ seyyaṃ dātu”nti (cūḷava. 316) vacanato yo (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 316) kāsasāsabhagandarātisārādīhi gilāno hoti, kheḷamallakavaccakapālādīni ṭhapetabbāni honti, kuṭṭhī vā hoti, senāsanaṃ dūseti, evarūpassa heṭṭhāpāsādapaṇṇasālādīsu aññataraṃ ekamantaṃ senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ. Yasmiṃ vasante senāsanaṃ na dussati, tassa varaseyyāpi dātabbāva. Yopi sinehapānavirecananatthukammādīsu yaṃ kiñci bhesajjaṃ karoti, sabbo so gilānoyeva. Tassapi sallakkhetvā patirūpaṃ senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ.

From the statement, “I allow, monks, to give a suitable bed to the sick” (cūḷava. 316), one sick with cough, asthma, fistula, dysentery, or the like (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 316), requiring a spittoon, latrine bowl, or the like, or a leper who soils the lodging—such a one should be given a lodging apart, like a lower building or leaf-hall. One dwelling without soiling the lodging should indeed be given a fine bed. One using oil drinks, purgatives, or any medicinal treatment is also sick; a suitable lodging should be considered and given to him too.

Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, giving a suitable bed to a sick person,” (Cūḷava. 316) whoever (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 316) is sick with cough, asthma, fistula, diarrhea, etc., needs to have spitoons, chamber pots, etc., placed, or is a leper, defiles the lodging, to such a one, a lodging in a secluded place, one of the lower mansions, leaf huts, etc., should be given. For one in whose residence the lodging is not defiled, even the best bed should indeed be given. And whoever takes any medicine, such as oily drinks, purgatives, nasal treatments, etc., all that is indeed a sick person. Considering him too, a suitable lodging should be given.

“I allow, monks, to give a suitable bed to a sick monk” (Cūḷavagga 316). Thus, a monk who is sick with dysentery, diarrhea, or the like should have spittoons, urine pots, and the like placed for him. If he is a leper and soils the lodging, a separate lodging should be given to him in the lower mansion, leaf hall, or the like. If the lodging is not soiled by his staying, even a superior bed may be given. Whoever prepares any medicine for oil drinks, purgatives, or the like, all that is for the sick monk. Considering this, a suitable lodging should be given to him.

“Na, bhikkhave, ekena dve paṭibāhetabbā, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 319) vacanato ekena dve senāsanāni na gahetabbāni. Sacepi gaṇheyya, pacchimena gahaṇena purimaggahaṇaṃ paṭippassambhati. Gahaṇena hi gahaṇaṃ paṭippassambhati, gahaṇena ālayo paṭippassambhati, ālayena gahaṇaṃ paṭippassambhati, ālayena ālayo paṭippassambhati. Kathaṃ? Idhekacco (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 319) vassūpanāyikadivase ekasmiṃ vihāre senāsanaṃ gahetvā sāmantavihāraṃ gantvā tatrāpi gaṇhāti, tassa iminā gahaṇena purimaggahaṇaṃ paṭippassambhati. Aparo “idha vasissāmī”ti ālayamattaṃ katvā sāmantavihāraṃ gantvā tattha senāsanaṃ gaṇhāti, tassa iminā gahaṇeneva purimo ālayo paṭippassambhati. Eko “idha vasissāmī”ti senāsanaṃ vā gahetvā ālayaṃ vā katvā sāmantavihāraṃ gantvā “idheva dāni vasissāmī”ti ālayaṃ karoti, iccassa ālayena vā gahaṇaṃ, ālayena vā ālayo paṭippassambhati, sabbattha pacchime gahaṇe vā ālaye vā tiṭṭhati. Yo pana ekasmiṃ vihāre senāsanaṃ gahetvā “aññasmiṃ vihāre vasissāmī”ti gacchati, tassa upacārasīmātikkame senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati. Yadi pana “tattha phāsu bhavissati, vasissāmi, no ce, āgamissāmī”ti gantvā aphāsukabhāvaṃ ñatvā pacchā vā gacchati, vaṭṭati.

From the statement, “Monks, one should not reserve two lodgings; whoever reserves them commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 319), one should not take two lodgings. If he does, the earlier taking ceases with the later one. For taking ceases taking, taking ceases attachment, attachment ceases taking, attachment ceases attachment. How? Someone (cūḥava. aṭṭha. 319) takes a lodging in one monastery on the rains-entry day, goes to a neighboring monastery, and takes there too—the earlier taking ceases with this taking. Another makes a mere attachment, “I will dwell here,” goes to a neighboring monastery, and takes a lodging there—his earlier attachment ceases with this taking. One takes a lodging or makes an attachment, “I will dwell here,” goes to a neighboring monastery, and makes an attachment, “Now I will dwell here”—thus, his taking or attachment ceases with attachment, and all stand with the last taking or attachment. One who takes a lodging in one monastery and goes, thinking, “I will dwell in another monastery,” his lodging assignment ceases when he crosses the precinct boundary. But if he goes, thinking, “If it’s comfortable there, I’ll dwell; if not, I’ll return,” and finding it uncomfortable goes later or returns, it is permissible.

Because of the statement, “Monks, one should not obstruct two, whoever should obstruct, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” (Cūḷava. 319) two lodgings should not be taken by one. Even if one should take, the former taking is relinquished by the latter taking. For taking is relinquished by taking, attachment is relinquished by taking, taking is relinquished by attachment, attachment is relinquished by attachment. How? Herein, someone (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 319) on the day of entering the rains, having taken a lodging in one dwelling, goes to a neighboring dwelling and takes there also, for him, by this taking, the former taking is relinquished. Another, having made mere attachment, thinking, “I will reside here,” goes to a neighboring dwelling and takes a lodging there, for him, by this very taking, the former attachment is relinquished. One, having either taken a lodging or made attachment, thinking, “I will reside here,” goes to a neighboring dwelling and makes attachment, thinking, “Now I will reside here,” for him, either the taking or the attachment is relinquished by the attachment, in all cases, it remains with the latter taking or attachment. But whoever, having taken a lodging in one dwelling, goes, thinking, “I will reside in another dwelling,” for him, upon crossing the boundary of the surrounding area, the taking of the lodging is relinquished. But if, thinking, “If it will be comfortable there, I will reside, if not, I will come back,” having gone and knowing it to be uncomfortable, he goes later, it is appropriate.

“Monks, one should not block two with one. If one does so, it is an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷavagga 319). Thus, one should not take two lodgings. If one does take them, the earlier taking is annulled by the later taking. For taking annuls taking, taking annuls reservation, reservation annuls taking, and reservation annuls reservation. How? Here, a monk on the day of entering the rains residence takes a lodging in one monastery, goes to a neighboring monastery, and takes one there. His earlier taking is annulled by this taking. Another, thinking, “I will stay here,” makes a reservation and goes to a neighboring monastery and takes a lodging there. His earlier reservation is annulled by this taking. One, thinking, “I will stay here,” takes a lodging or makes a reservation, goes to a neighboring monastery, and thinks, “Now I will stay here,” and makes a reservation. Thus, his taking or reservation is annulled by the later reservation. In all cases, the later taking or reservation stands. If one takes a lodging in one monastery and goes to another monastery thinking, “I will stay there,” the allocation of the lodging is annulled when he crosses the proximity boundary. But if he goes thinking, “If it is comfortable there, I will stay; if not, I will return,” and later goes knowing it is uncomfortable, it is permissible.

Senāsanaggāhakena ca senāsanaṃ gāhetvā vassāvāsikaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. Gāhentena sace saṅghiko ca saddhādeyyo cāti dve cīvarapaccayā honti, tesu yaṃ bhikkhū paṭhamaṃ gahituṃ icchanti, taṃ gahetvā tassa ṭhitikato paṭṭhāya itaro gāhetabbo. “Sace bhikkhūnaṃ appatāya pariveṇaggena senāsane gāhiyamāne ekaṃ pariveṇaṃ mahālābhaṃ hoti, dasa vā dvādasa vā cīvarāni labhanti, taṃ vijaṭetvā aññesu alābhakesu āvāsesu pakkhipitvā aññesampi bhikkhūnaṃ gāhetabba”nti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero panāha “na evaṃ kātabbaṃ. Manussā hi attano āvāsapaṭijagganatthāya paccayaṃ denti, tasmā aññehi bhikkhūhi tattha pavisitabba”nti.

The lodging-assigner, having taken lodgings, should take rains requisites. If there are two robe requisites—Sangha-related and faith-given—he should take what the monks wish to take first, then the other by its fixed order. Elder Suma said, “If, when lodgings are taken by cell due to monks’ scarcity, one cell gains much—ten or twelve robes—it should be separated and distributed to other residences with little gain, taken for other monks too.” Elder Paduma said, “It should not be done thus. People give requisites to tend their own residence, so other monks should enter there.”

And the lodging assigner, having assigned the lodging, should assign the rains-residence cloth. When assigning, if there are two robe requisites, namely, what belongs to the Sangha and what is given by the faithful, whichever the monks wish to take first, having taken that, from the time of its being established, the other should be assigned. The elder Mahāsuma said, “If, when lodging is being assigned by precinct due to the scarcity for the monks, one precinct becomes very profitable, ten or twelve robes are obtained, untangling that, putting it in other unprofitable dwellings, it should be assigned to other monks as well.” But the elder Mahāpaduma said, “It should not be done thus. For people give requisites for the sake of looking after their own dwelling, therefore, other monks should enter there.”

The allocator of lodgings, having allocated a lodging, should receive the vassa offering. When receiving, if there are two robe requisites, one belonging to the Sangha and the other a faithful offering, whichever the monks wish to receive first should be taken, and from the time of its allocation, the other should be received. “If, when allocating lodgings by residence, one residence is highly profitable, yielding ten or twelve robes, it should be divided and distributed among other unprofitable residences, and other monks should also receive,” said the Elder Mahāsumedha. The Elder Mahāpaduma, however, said, “This should not be done. People give requisites for the maintenance of their own residence, so other monks should enter there.”

221. Sace panettha mahāthero paṭikkosati “mā, āvuso, evaṃ gāhetha, bhagavato anusiṭṭhiṃ karotha. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pariveṇaggena gāhetu”nti (cūḷava. 318). Tassa paṭikkosanāya aṭṭhatvā “bhante, bhikkhū bahū, paccayo mando, saṅgahaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti saññāpetvā gāhetabbameva. Gāhentena ca sammatena bhikkhunā mahātherassa santikaṃ gantvā evaṃ vattabbaṃ “bhante, tumhākaṃ senāsanaṃ pāpuṇāti, paccayaṃ dhārethā”ti. Asukakulassa paccayo asukasenāsanañca mayhaṃ pāpuṇāti, āvusoti. Pāpuṇāti bhante, gaṇhatha nanti. Gaṇhāmi, āvusoti. Gahitaṃ hoti. “Sace pana ’gahitaṃ vo, bhante’ti vutte ’gahitaṃ me’ti vā, ’gaṇhissatha, bhante’ti vutte ’gaṇhissāmī’ti vā vadati, aggahitaṃ hotī”ti mahāsumatthero āha. Mahāpadumatthero panāha “atītānāgatavacanaṃ vā hotu vattamānavacanaṃ vā, satuppādamattaṃ ālayakaraṇamattameva cettha pamāṇaṃ, tasmā gahitameva hotī”ti.

221. If a great elder objects, “Friends, don’t take it thus; follow the Blessed One’s instruction. It is said by the Blessed One, ‘I allow, monks, to take by cell’” (cūḷava. 318), despite his objection, saying, “Venerable sir, monks are many, requisites are few; it is proper to distribute,” he should be convinced and taken. The appointed monk should go to the great elder and say, “Venerable sir, a lodging reaches you; hold the requisite.” “The requisite of such-and-such a family and such-and-such a lodging reach me, friend.” “It reaches you, venerable sir; take it.” “I take it, friend.” It is taken. Elder Suma said, “If, when told, ‘It is taken, venerable sirs,’ he says, ‘It is taken by me,’ or when told, ‘Will you take it, venerable sir?’ he says, ‘I will take it,’ it is not taken.” Elder Paduma said, “Whether past, future, or present tense, the mere arising of intention or attachment is the measure here; thus, it is indeed taken.”

221. But if a senior monk objects, “Friend, do not assign thus, follow the Blessed One’s instruction. It has been said by the Blessed One, ‘I allow, monks, to assign by precinct’ (Cūḷava. 318). Not standing by his objection, saying, ‘Venerable sir, the monks are many, the requisites are meager, it is appropriate to make a collection,’ having made him understand, it should indeed be assigned.” And when assigning, the appointed monk should go to the senior monk and say thus, “Venerable sir, the lodging has fallen to you, hold the requisites.” “The requisites of such and such a family and such and such a lodging have fallen to me, friend.” “They have fallen to you, venerable sir, take them.” “I take them, friend.” It is taken. The elder Mahāsuma said, “But if, when it is said, ‘It has been taken by you, venerable sir,’ he says, ‘It has been taken by me,’ or, when it is said, ‘Will you take it, venerable sir?’ he says, ‘I will take it,’ it is not taken.” But the elder Mahāpaduma said, “Whether it is a past or future statement, or a present statement, only the mere arising of consciousness, the mere making of attachment is the measure here, therefore, it is indeed taken.”

221. If a senior monk objects, saying, “Do not, friends, allocate in this way, follow the Buddha’s instruction. For the Blessed One has said, ‘I allow, monks, to allocate by residence’” (Cūḷavagga 318). Despite his objection, if it is agreed, “Venerable sir, there are many monks, the requisites are scarce, it is permissible to distribute,” it should be allocated. When allocating, the appointed monk should go to the senior monk and say, “Venerable sir, your lodging is eligible, please bear with the requisites. Such and such family’s requisites and such and such lodging are eligible for me, friend.” If he says, “It is eligible, Venerable sir, receive it,” and he says, “I will receive, friend,” it is received. “But if, when told, ‘It is received, Venerable sir,’ he says, ‘It is received by me,’ or when told, ‘Receive it, Venerable sir,’ he says, ‘I will receive,’ it is not received,” said the Elder Mahāsumedha. The Elder Mahāpaduma, however, said, “Whether it is past, future, or present speech, the mere arising of intention to reserve is the measure here. Thus, it is received.”

Yopi paṃsukūliko bhikkhu senāsanaṃ gahetvā paccayaṃ vissajjeti, ayampi na aññasmiṃ āvāse pakkhipitabbo, tasmiṃyeva pariveṇe aggisālāya vā dīghasālāya vā rukkhamūle vā aññassa gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati. Paṃsukūliko “vasāmī”ti senāsanaṃ jaggissati, itaro “paccayaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti evaṃ dvīhi kāraṇehi senāsanaṃ sujaggitataraṃ bhavissati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “paṃsukūlike vāsatthāya senāsanaṃ gaṇhante senāsanaggāhakena vattabbaṃ, ’bhante idha paccayo atthi, so kiṃ kātabbo’ti. Tena ’heṭṭhā aññaṃ gāhāpehī’ti vattabbo. Sace pana kiñci avatvāva vasati, vuṭṭhavassassa ca pādamūle ṭhapetvā sāṭakaṃ denti, vaṭṭati. Atha ’vassāvāsikaṃ demā’ti vadanti, tasmiṃ senāsane vassaṃvuṭṭhabhikkhūnaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti. Yesaṃ pana senāsanaṃ natthi, kevalaṃ paccayameva denti, tesaṃ paccayaṃ avassāvāsikasenāsane gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati. Manussā thūpaṃ katvā vassāvāsikaṃ gāhāpenti. Thūpo nāma asenāsanaṃ, tassa samīpe rukkhe vā maṇḍape vā upanibandhitvā gāhetabbaṃ. Tena bhikkhunā cetiyaṃ jaggitabbaṃ. Bodhirukkhabodhigharaāsanagharasammuñjaniaṭṭadāruaṭṭavaccakuṭidvārakoṭṭhakapānīyakuṭipānīyamāḷakadantakaṭṭhamāḷakesupi eseva nayo. Bhojanasālā pana senāsanameva, tasmā taṃ ekassa vā bahūnaṃ vā paricchinditvā gāhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti sabbamidaṃ vitthārena mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ.

A rag-robe monk who takes a lodging and relinquishes the requisite should not be placed in another residence; in that same cell—fire hall, long hall, or tree-root—it is permissible to take for another. The rag-robe monk will tend the lodging, saying, “I dwell”; the other will take the requisite, saying, “I take”—thus, for two reasons, the lodging will be better tended. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “When a rag-robe monk takes a lodging to dwell, the lodging-assigner should say, ‘Venerable sir, there is a requisite here; what should be done?’ He should say, ‘Have another take it below.’ If he dwells without saying anything and, after dwelling the rains, they place a cloth at his feet, it is permissible. If they say, ‘We give rains requisites,’ it reaches the monks who dwelt the rains in that lodging.” For those with no lodging who give only requisites, it is permissible to take them in a non-rains lodging. People build a stupa and have rains requisites taken; a stupa is not a lodging, so it should be taken tied to a nearby tree or pavilion. That monk must tend the shrine. The same applies to Bodhi tree, Bodhi-house, seat-house, sweeping-post, wood-post, latrine, gatehouse, water-hut, water-shed, and toothpick-shed. The dining hall, however, is a lodging, so it is permissible to assign and take it for one or many—all this is elaborated in the Mahāpaccariya.

And if a refuse-rag wearing monk, having taken a lodging, gives up the requisites, he should not be placed in another dwelling, in that very precinct, in the fire hall, or in the long hall, or at the root of a tree, it is appropriate to assign to another. The refuse-rag wearer will look after the lodging, thinking, “I will reside,” the other, thinking, “I will take the requisites,” thus, by two reasons, the lodging will be much better looked after. In Mahāpaccari, however, it is said, “When a refuse-rag wearer takes a lodging for the sake of residing, the lodging assigner should say, ‘Venerable sir, there are requisites here, what should be done with them?’ He should be told, ‘Assign to another below.’ But if he resides without saying anything, and at the end of the rains, they give a cloth, placing it at his feet, it is appropriate. If they say, ‘We give the rains-residence cloth,’ it falls to the monks who have completed the rains in that lodging.” But for those who do not have a lodging, who give only requisites, it is appropriate to assign their requisites in a lodging that is not for the rains-residence. People, having made a thūpa, assign the rains-residence cloth. A thūpa is not a lodging, having attached it nearby, to a tree or a pavilion, it should be assigned. That monk should look after the shrine. The same method applies to the Bodhi tree, the Bodhi tree room, the seat room, the place for sweeping, the place for firewood, the toilet, the gatehouse, the drinking water hut, the drinking water hall, and the tooth-cleaning stick hall. But the dining hall is indeed a lodging, therefore, it is appropriate to assign it, having determined it for one or many, all this is said in detail in Mahāpaccari.

A rag-robed monk who, having taken a lodging, gives away the requisites, should not be placed in another residence. In that same residence, in the fire hall, long hall, or at the root of a tree, another may take it. The rag-robed monk will guard the lodging thinking, “I will stay,” and the other will guard it thinking, “I will take the requisites.” Thus, for these two reasons, the lodging will be well-guarded. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, “When a rag-robed monk takes a lodging for staying, the allocator of lodgings should say, ‘Venerable sir, there are requisites here, what should be done?’ He should be told, ‘Allocate another below.’ But if he stays without saying anything, and after the rains, they give a robe at his feet, it is permissible. If they say, ‘We give the vassa offering,’ it is eligible for the monks who have completed the rains residence in that lodging.” For those who have no lodging but only give requisites, the requisites may be received without a vassa residence lodging. People build a stupa and request the vassa offering. A stupa is not a lodging, but nearby trees or pavilions may be tied to it and allocated. That monk should tend to the shrine. The same applies to the bodhi tree, bodhi tree house, assembly hall, storeroom, wood shed, restroom, gatehouse, drinking water hall, drinking water pavilion, toothwood hall, and the like. The meal hall, however, is a lodging, so it may be allocated to one or many after demarcating it. All this is explained in detail in the Mahāpaccariya.

Senāsanaggāhakena pana pāṭipadaaruṇato paṭṭhāya yāva puna aruṇaṃ na bhijjati, tāva gāhetabbaṃ. Idañhi senāsanaggāhassa khettaṃ. Sace pātova gābhite senāsane añño vitakkacāriko bhikkhu āgantvā senāsanaṃ yācati, “gahitaṃ, bhante, senāsanaṃ, vassūpagato saṅgho, ramaṇīyo vihāro, rukkhamūlādīsu yattha icchatha, tattha vasathā”ti vattabbo. Pacchimavassūpanāyikadivase pana sace kālaṃ ghosetvā sannipatite saṅghe koci dasahatthaṃ vatthaṃ āharitvā vassāvāsikaṃ deti, āgantuko ce bhikkhu saṅghatthero hoti, tassa dātabbaṃ. Navako ce hoti, sammatena bhikkhunā saṅghatthero vattabbo “sace, bhante, icchatha, paṭhamabhāgaṃ muñcitvā idaṃ vatthaṃ gaṇhathā”ti, amuñcantassa na dātabbaṃ. Sace pana pubbe gāhitaṃ muñcitvā gaṇhāti, dātabbaṃ. Eteneva upāyena dutiyattherato paṭṭhāya parivattetvā pattaṭṭhāneva āgantukassa dātabbaṃ. Sace pana paṭhamavassūpagatā dve tīṇi cattāri pañca vā vatthāni alatthuṃ, laddhaṃ laddhaṃ eteneva upāyena vissajjāpetvā yāva āgantukassa samakaṃ hoti, tāva dātabbaṃ. Tena samake laddhe avasiṭṭho anubhāgo therāsane dātabbo. Paccuppanne lābhe sati ṭhitikāya gāhetuṃ katikaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

The lodging-assigner should take from the dawn of the first day until the next dawn does not break; this is the field of lodging assignment. If a wandering monk arrives early and requests a lodging already taken, he should be told, “Venerable sir, the lodging is taken; the Sangha has entered the rains; the monastery is pleasant; dwell where you wish—tree-root or the like.” On the last rains-entry day, if someone announces the time, the Sangha gathers, and one brings a ten-hand cloth as rains requisites, if the visiting monk is the Sangha elder, it should be given to him. If he is a novice, the appointed monk should tell the Sangha elder, “Venerable sir, if you wish, relinquish the first portion and take this cloth”; if he does not relinquish, it should not be given. If he relinquishes what was taken earlier and takes it, it should be given. By this method, rotating from the second elder onward, it should be given to the visitor at the appropriate point. If those entering the rains first received two, three, four, or five cloths, each received portion should be relinquished by this method until the visitor’s share equals theirs. When he equals them, the remaining portion should be given at the elder’s seat. When present gains arise, it is permissible to make an agreement to take by fixed order.

But the lodging assigner should assign from the dawn of the first day until the dawn does not break again. For this is the field of lodging assignment. If, in the lodging assigned early in the morning, another monk, wandering in thought, comes and asks for a lodging, he should be told, “The lodging has been assigned, venerable sir, the Sangha has entered the rains, the dwelling is delightful, reside wherever you wish, at the root of a tree, etc.” But on the day of entering the latter rains, if, when the time is announced and the Sangha has convened, someone brings a ten-cubit cloth and gives the rains-residence cloth, and if the visiting monk is the Sangha elder, it should be given to him. If he is a new monk, the appointed monk should say to the Sangha elder, “If, venerable sir, you wish, giving up the first portion, take this cloth,” it should not be given to one who does not give up. But if he takes it, giving up what was previously assigned, it should be given. By this very method, changing from the second elder onwards, in the very place where it has reached, it should be given to the visitor. But if, on entering the first rains, two, three, four, or five cloths were obtained, what was obtained, by this very method, having caused it to be given up, as much as is equal for the visitor, that much should be given. When he has obtained an equal amount, the remaining portion should be given in the elder’s seat. When there is a present gain, it is appropriate to make an agreement to assign according to seniority.

The allocator of lodgings should allocate from dawn until dawn does not break again. This is the field for allocating lodgings. If in the morning, after allocating a lodging, another wandering monk arrives and requests a lodging, he should be told, “Venerable sir, the lodging is allocated, the Sangha has entered the rains residence, the monastery is pleasant, stay at the root of a tree or wherever you wish.” On the last day of entering the rains residence, if after the time is announced and the Sangha has assembled, someone brings a ten-cubit cloth and gives the vassa offering, if the incoming monk is a senior monk of the Sangha, it should be given to him. If he is a junior monk, the appointed monk should tell the senior monk of the Sangha, “If you wish, Venerable sir, release the first portion and take this cloth.” If he does not release it, it should not be given. If he releases what was previously allocated and takes it, it should be given. In this way, from the second senior onwards, it should be rotated and given to the incoming monk in turn. If, after entering the rains residence, two, three, four, or five cloths are not obtained, what is obtained should be distributed in this way until it is equal to the incoming monk. When it is equal, the remaining portion should be given to the senior seat. If there is a present gain, it is permissible to allocate according to the standing.

Sace dubbhikkhaṃ hoti, dvīsupi vassūpanāyikāsu vassūpagatā bhikkhū bhikkhāya kilamantā “āvuso, idha vasantā sabbeva kilamāma, sādhu vata dve bhāgā homa, yesaṃ ñātipavāritaṭṭhānāni atthi, te tattha vasitvā pavāraṇāya āgantvā attano pattaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ gaṇhantū”ti vadanti, tesu ye tattha vasitvā pavāraṇāya āgacchanti, tesaṃ apaloketvā vassāvāsikaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sādiyantāpi hi teneva vassāvāsikassa sāmino, khīyantāpi ca āvāsikā neva adātuṃ labhanti. Kurundiyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “katikavattaṃ kātabbaṃ ’sabbesaṃ no idha yāgubhattaṃ nappahoti, sabhāgaṭṭhāne vasitvā āgacchatha, tumhākaṃ pattaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ labhissathā’ti. Tañce eko paṭibāhati, supaṭibāhitaṃ. No ce paṭibāhati, katikā sukatā. Pacchā tesaṃ tattha vasitvā āgatānaṃ apaloketvā dātabbaṃ, apalokanakāle paṭibāhituṃ na labbhatī”ti. Punapi vuttaṃ “sace vassūpagatesu ekaccānaṃ vassāvāsike apāpuṇante bhikkhū katikaṃ karonti ’chinnavassānaṃ vassāvāsikañca idāni uppajjanakavassāvāsikañca imesaṃ dātuṃ ruccatī’ti, evaṃ katikāya katāya gāhitasadisameva hoti, uppannuppannaṃ tesameva dātabba”nti. Temāsaṃ pānīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā vihāramaggacetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇāni jaggitvā bodhirukkhe udakaṃ siñcitvā pakkantopi vibbhantopi vassāvāsikaṃ labhatiyeva. Bhatiniviṭṭhañhi tena kataṃ, saṅghikaṃ pana apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhitaṃ antovasse vibbhantopi labhateva, paccayavasena gāhitaṃ pana na labhatīti vadanti.

If there is famine and monks entering both rains periods tire from alms-round, saying, “Friends, dwelling here we all tire; it would be good to split in two—those with relatives’ invited places should dwell there and return for Pavāraṇā to take their rains requisites,” those who dwell there and return for Pavāraṇā should be given rains requisites without consent. For those accepting are indeed owners of those requisites; even if criticized, residents cannot refuse to give. In the Kurundiya, it is said, “An agreement should be made: ‘Gruel and meals here do not suffice for all; dwell in a common place and return; you will get your rains requisites.’ If one objects, it is well-objected. If not, the agreement is well-made. Later, those dwelling there and returning should be given without consent; they cannot be objected at consent time.” It is further said, “If, when rains requisites do not reach some who entered the rains, monks agree, ‘It suits us to give both past rains requisites and those arising now to these,’ what is taken by this agreement is like what was taken; whatever arises should be given to them.” One who provides drinking water for three months, tends the monastery path, shrine and Bodhi courtyards, waters the Bodhi tree, and then departs or disrobes still receives rains requisites. For the labor was done by him. What is taken by Sangha consent action, even if he disrobes during the rains, he receives; but what is taken for requisites, he does not receive, they say.

If there is a famine, and the monks who have entered the rains on both entry days, being troubled by begging for alms, say, “Friends, residing here, we are all troubled, it would be good if we were two groups, those who have relatives or places where they are invited, let them reside there and, having come for the pavāraṇā, take the rains-residence cloth that has fallen to them,” among them, those who, having resided there and come for the pavāraṇā, after informing, the rains-residence cloth should be given to them. For even those who accept are indeed owners of that rains-residence, and even those who object, being residents, are not able to not give. In Kurundi, however, it is said, “An agreement should be made, ‘Gruel and rice do not suffice for all of us here, reside in a compatible place and come, you will receive the rains-residence cloth that has fallen to you.’ If one objects to that, it is well objected to. If he does not object, the agreement is well made. Later, for those who have resided there and come, after informing, it should be given, at the time of informing, it is not permissible to object.” Again it is said, “If, when some have entered the rains, and the rains-residence cloth does not fall to them, the monks make an agreement, ‘It is agreeable to give to those whose rains have been interrupted, both the rains-residence cloth and the now arising rains-residence cloth,’ thus, when an agreement has been made, it is just as if it had been assigned, what arises should be given to those very ones.” Even one who has gone away, having provided drinking water for three months, having looked after the monastery path, the courtyards of the shrine and the Bodhi tree, having poured water on the Bodhi tree, or even one who has broken the rains, indeed receives the rains-residence cloth. For he has performed what was undertaken as payment, but what is assigned after performing the act of informing the Sangha, even one who has broken the rains within indeed receives, but what is assigned by way of requisites, he does not receive, it is said.

If it is a time of famine, and the monks who have entered the rains residence in both periods are weary from alms gathering, they may say, “Friends, staying here, we all grow weary. It is good if we divide into two groups. Those who have relatives or invited places should stay there and return for the pavāraṇā to receive their own bowl and vassa offering.” Those who stay there and return for the pavāraṇā should be informed and given the vassa offering. For whether they accept or decline, they are still the owners of that vassa offering, and the resident monks cannot refuse to give. In Kurundiya, it is said, “A resolution should be made: ‘All of us here do not have enough gruel and food. Stay in an equal place and return. You will receive your bowl and vassa offering.’ If one objects, it is well objected. If no one objects, the resolution is well made. Later, when those who stayed there return, they should be informed and given. At the time of informing, it is not permissible to object.” It is also said, “If, after entering the rains residence, some monks do not receive the vassa offering, and the monks make a resolution, ‘It is agreed to give the vassa offering to those who have broken the rains and to those who have just entered the rains,’ then after making such a resolution, it is as if it is allocated, and whatever arises should be given to them.” After providing drinking water for three months, tending to the monastery path, shrine grounds, and bodhi tree grounds, and watering the bodhi tree, even if one departs or disrobes, the vassa offering is still received. For what is done by the donor is done, but what is allocated by the Sangha after a formal announcement is received even if one disrobes during the rains. However, what is allocated by requisites is not received, they say.

Sace vuṭṭhavasso disaṃgamiko bhikkhu āvāsikassa hatthato kiñcideva kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gahetvā “asukakule mayhaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ pattaṃ, taṃ gaṇhathā”ti vatvā gataṭṭhāne vibbhamati, vassāvāsikaṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti. Sace pana manusse sammukhā sampaṭicchāpetvā gacchati, labhati. “Idaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ amhākaṃ senāsane vutthabhikkhuno demā”ti vutte yassa gāhitaṃ, tasseva hoti. Sace pana senāsanasāmikassa piyakamyatāya puttadhītādayo bahūni vatthāni āharitvā “amhākaṃ senāsane demā”ti denti, tattha vassūpagatassa ekameva vatthaṃ dātabbaṃ, sesāni saṅghikāni honti. Vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya gāhetabbāni, ṭhitikāya asati therāsanato paṭṭhāya gāhetabbāni. Senāsane vassūpagataṃ bhikkhuṃ nissāya uppannena cittappasādena bahūni vatthāni āharitvā “senāsanassa demā”ti dinnesupi eseva nayo. Sace pana pādamūle ṭhapetvā “etassa bhikkhuno demā”ti vadanti, tasseva honti.

If a monk dwelling the rains, intending to travel, takes some lawful item from a resident’s hand, saying, “Take my rains requisite from such-and-such a family,” and disrobes where he goes, the rains requisite becomes Sangha property. If he has the people accept it in person and goes, he receives it. If they say, “We give this rains requisite to the monk who dwelt in our lodging,” it belongs to the one it was taken for. If, out of affection for the lodging owner, his sons, daughters, or the like bring many cloths, saying, “We give to our lodging,” only one cloth should be given to the one entering the rains there; the rest are Sangha property. They should be taken by the rains requisite fixed order; without a fixed order, from the elder’s seat. If, due to faith inspired by the monk entering the rains in the lodging, they bring many cloths, saying, “We give to the lodging,” the same applies. If they place it at his feet, saying, “We give to this monk,” it belongs to him.

If a monk who has completed the rains, a traveler to another region, having taken some allowable requisite from the hand of a resident, saying, “The rains-residence cloth has fallen to me in such and such a family, take it,” breaks the rains in the place where he has gone, the rains-residence cloth belongs to the Sangha. But if he goes after having caused the people to accept in person, he receives it. When it is said, “We will give this rains-residence cloth to the monk who has completed the rains in our dwelling,” it belongs to the one to whom it was assigned. But if, due to the fondness of the owner of the lodging, sons, daughters, etc., bring many cloths and give, saying, “We give to our lodging,” only one cloth should be given to the one who has entered the rains there, the rest belong to the Sangha. They should be assigned according to the rains-residence seniority, if there is no seniority, they should be assigned starting from the elder’s seat. The same method applies even when many cloths are brought due to the arising of confidence in mind on account of the monk who has entered the rains in the lodging, and given, saying, “We give to the lodging.” But if, placing it at his feet, they say, “We give to this monk,” they belong to him.

If a monk who has completed the rains residence and is going to another region takes some allowable goods from a resident monk and says, “I have received the vassa offering in such and such family, take it,” and then disrobes in that place, the vassa offering belongs to the Sangha. But if he informs the people and departs, he receives it. If people say, “We give this vassa offering to the monk who stayed in our lodging,” it belongs to the one who allocated it. If, out of affection for the owner of the lodging, his sons, daughters, or others bring many cloths and say, “We give to our lodging,” only one cloth should be given to the monk who entered the rains residence there, the rest belong to the Sangha. The vassa offering should be allocated according to the standing. If there is no standing, it should be allocated from the senior seat onwards. If many cloths are brought out of faith inspired by a monk who entered the rains residence in a lodging, and they say, “We give to the lodging,” the same applies. If they place them at his feet and say, “We give to this monk,” they belong to him.

Ekassa gehe dve vassāvāsikāni, paṭhamabhāgo sāmaṇerassa gāhito hoti, dutiyo therāsane. So ekaṃ dasahatthaṃ, ekaṃ aṭṭhahatthaṃ sāṭakaṃ peseti “vassāvāsikaṃ pattabhikkhūnaṃ dethā”ti, vicinitvā varabhāgaṃ sāmaṇerassa datvā anubhāgo therāsane dātabbo . Sace pana ubhopi gharaṃ netvā bhojetvā sayameva pādamūle ṭhapeti, yaṃ yassa dinnaṃ, tadeva tassa hoti. Ito paraṃ mahāpaccariyaṃ āgatanayo hoti – ekassa ghare daharasāmaṇerassa vassāvāsikaṃ pāpuṇāti, so ce pucchati “amhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ kassa patta”nti, “sāmaṇerassā”ti avatvā “dānakāle jānissasī”ti vatvā dānadivase ekaṃ mahātheraṃ pesetvā nīharāpetabbaṃ. Sace yassa vassāvāsikaṃ pattaṃ, so vibbhamati vā kālaṃ vā karoti, manussā ce pucchanti “kassa amhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ patta”nti, tesaṃ yathābhūtaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace te vadanti “tumhākaṃ demā”ti, tassa bhikkhuno pāpuṇāti. Atha saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā denti, saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā pāpuṇāti. Sace vassūpagatā suddhapaṃsukūlikāyeva honti, ānetvā dinnaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ senāsanaparikkhāraṃ vā katvā ṭhapetabbaṃ, bimbohanādīni vā kātabbānīti.

In one house, there are two rains requisites; the first portion was taken for a novice, the second for the elder’s seat. He sends one ten-hand and one eight-hand cloth, saying, “Give to the monks who received the rains requisites.” Examining, the finer portion should be given to the novice, the lesser to the elder’s seat. If he brings both to the house, feeds them, and places them at their feet himself, what is given to each belongs to him. From here, the method from the Mahāpaccariya applies: If a young novice’s rains requisite reaches one house, and he asks, “Who received our rains requisite?” instead of saying, “The novice,” say, “You’ll know on giving day,” and on giving day, send a great elder to fetch it. If the one who received the rains requisite disrobes or dies, and people ask, “Who received our rains requisite?” tell them the truth. If they say, “We give to you,” it reaches that monk. If they give to the Sangha or group, it reaches the Sangha or group. If those entering the rains are all pure rag-robe wearers, the given rains requisites should be brought, made into lodging equipment, or used for seats and the like.

In one house there are two rains-residence cloths, the first portion is assigned to a novice, the second in the elder’s seat. He sends one ten-cubit cloth and one eight-cubit cloth, saying, “Give to the monks to whom the rains-residence cloth has fallen,” having examined, giving the better portion to the novice, the lesser portion should be given in the elder’s seat. But if, having taken both to the house, having fed them, he himself places them at their feet, what was given to whom, that indeed belongs to him. From here onwards is the method that has come in Mahāpaccari – in one house, the rains-residence cloth falls to a young novice, if he asks, “To whom has our rains-residence cloth fallen?” not saying, “To the novice,” saying, “You will know at the time of giving,” on the day of giving, having sent a senior monk, it should be removed. If the one to whom the rains-residence cloth has fallen breaks the rains or dies, and if the people ask, “To whom has our rains-residence cloth fallen?” the truth should be told to them. If they say, “We give to you,” it falls to that monk. If they give to the Sangha or to a group, it falls to the Sangha or to a group. If those who have entered the rains are purely refuse-rag wearers, having brought and given the rains-residence cloth, it should be made into a lodging requisite, or cushions, etc., should be made.

In one house, there are two vassa offerings. The first portion is allocated to a novice, the second to the senior seat. He sends one ten-cubit robe and one eight-cubit robe, saying, “Give the vassa offering to the eligible monks.” After searching, the better portion should be given to the novice, and the remainder to the senior seat. If both are taken to the house, fed, and placed at the feet, whatever is given to whom belongs to him. Beyond this, the method from the Mahāpaccariya is as follows: In one house, a young novice is eligible for the vassa offering. If he asks, “To whom is our vassa offering eligible?” without saying, “To the novice,” one should say, “You will know at the time of giving,” and on the day of giving, a senior monk should be sent to take it. If the one eligible for the vassa offering disrobes or dies, and people ask, “To whom is our vassa offering eligible?” they should be told the truth. If they say, “We give to you,” it is eligible for that monk. If they give to the Sangha or a group, it is eligible for the Sangha or the group. If those who entered the rains residence are pure rag-robed monks, the brought vassa offering should be made into lodging requisites or used for making Buddha images and the like.

222. Ayamaparopi utukāle antarāmuttako nāma senāsanaggāho veditabbo. Divasavasena hi tividho senāsanaggāho purimako pacchimako antarāmuttakoti. Vuttañhetaṃ –

222. Another seasonal interim-free (antarāmuttaka) lodging assignment should be understood. By day, lodging assignment is threefold: prior, later, and interim-free. It is said:

222. This is another lodging assignment to be known as antarāmuttaka (freed in between) at the time of the season. For by way of days, there are three kinds of lodging assignment: the former, the latter, and the freed in between. It has been said –

222. Another type of lodging allocation to be known in due season is called antarāmuttaka. By day, there are three types of lodging allocation: early, late, and antarāmuttaka. For it is said –

“Tayome, bhikkhave, senāsanaggāhā, purimako pacchimako antarāmuttako. Aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimako gāhetabbo, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimako gāhetabbo, aparajjugatāya pavāraṇāya āyatiṃ vassāvāsatthāya antarāmuttako gāhetabbo”ti (mahāva. 318).

“Monks, there are these three types of residence allocations: the earlier, the later, and the intermediate free one. The earlier one should be taken on the full-moon day of Āsāḷhī in the earlier era, the later one should be taken on the new-moon day of Āsāḷhī, and the intermediate free one should be taken on the full-moon day of Pavāraṇā for the purpose of residing during the next rains retreat,” (mahāva. 318).

“There are, monks, these three ways of taking up residences: the earlier, the later, and the intermediate. The earlier should be taken on the day after the (full moon) of Āsāḷha, the later should be taken a month after the (full moon) of Āsāḷha, and the intermediate should be taken on the day after the Pavāraṇā (which is) after the (first) day, for the purpose of dwelling in the rains retreat in the future” (Mahāva. 318).

“Monks, there are three types of lodging allocations: the early, the late, and the interim. The early allocation should be made on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī in the first month; the late allocation should be made on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī in the second month; and the interim allocation should be made on the day after the Pavāraṇā for the purpose of the upcoming rainy season residence” (Mahāva. 318).

Etesu (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) tīsu senāsanaggāhesu purimako pacchimako cāti ime dve gāhā thāvarā, antarāmuttako pana senāsanapaṭijagganatthaṃ bhagavatā anuññāto. Tathā hi ekasmiṃ vihāre mahālābhaṃ senāsanaṃ hoti, senāsanasāmikā vassūpagataṃ bhikkhuṃ sabbapaccayehi sakkaccaṃ upaṭṭhahitvā pavāretvā gamanakāle bahuṃ samaṇaparikkhāraṃ denti, mahātherā dūratova āgantvā vassūpanāyikadivase taṃ gahetvā phāsuṃ vasitvā vuṭṭhavassā lābhaṃ gaṇhitvā pakkamanti. Āvāsikā “mayaṃ etthuppannaṃ lābhaṃ na labhāma, niccaṃ āgantukamahātherāva labhanti, teyeva naṃ āgantvā paṭijaggissantī”ti palujjantampi na olokenti. Bhagavā tassa paṭijagganatthaṃ “aparajjugatāya pavāraṇāya āyatiṃ vassāvāsatthāya antarāmuttako gāhetabbo”ti āha.

Among these three residence allocations (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), the earlier and the later are fixed allocations, while the intermediate free one was permitted by the Blessed One for the purpose of maintaining residences. Indeed, in a certain monastery where the residences yield great gains, the owners of the residences respectfully attend to a monk who has entered the rains retreat with all necessities, invite him ceremonially, and at the time of his departure, they offer him abundant monastic requisites. Senior monks come from afar, take possession of it on the day of entering the rains retreat, dwell comfortably, and after completing the rains retreat, they take the gains and depart. The resident monks say, “We do not receive the gains arising here; only the visiting senior monks always receive them, and they alone will come and maintain it.” Even when the place deteriorates, they do not pay attention. The Blessed One, for the sake of its maintenance, said, “The intermediate free one should be taken on the full-moon day of Pavāraṇā for the purpose of residing during the next rains retreat.”

Among these (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318) three ways of taking up residences, the earlier and the later, these two intakes, are fixed. But the intermediate was permitted by the Blessed One for the purpose of looking after the residence. For in one monastery, there is a residence of great gain. The owners of the residence, having respectfully attended with all requisites to the monk who has entered the rains, and having invited him, at the time of his departure, give many monastic requisites. The elder monks, having come from afar and having taken it on the day of entering the rains, having dwelt comfortably, having completed the rains, take the gains and depart. The resident monks, (thinking) “We do not receive the gains that arise here; only the elder monks who are constant visitors receive (them). They themselves will come and look after it,” do not even look at it even if it is collapsing. For the purpose of looking after it, the Blessed One said, “On the day after the Pavāraṇā (which is) after the (first) day, the intermediate should be taken for the purpose of dwelling in the rains retreat in the future.”

Among these three lodging allocations, the early and late allocations are fixed, while the interim allocation was permitted by the Blessed One for the purpose of maintaining the lodging. For instance, in a monastery where there is a highly profitable lodging, the owners of the lodging, after respectfully attending to a monk who has entered the rainy season with all necessities and having performed the Pavāraṇā, give much monastic equipment at the time of his departure. Senior monks, coming from afar, take that lodging on the day of entering the rainy season, dwell comfortably, complete the rainy season, gain the benefits, and then depart. The resident monks, thinking, “We do not obtain the benefits that arise here; only the visiting senior monks obtain them, and they will come and maintain it,” neglect even what is falling apart. For the purpose of maintaining it, the Blessed One said, “The interim allocation should be made on the day after the Pavāraṇā for the purpose of the upcoming rainy season residence.”

Taṃ gāhentena saṅghatthero vattabbo “bhante, antarāmuttakasenāsanaṃ gaṇhathā”ti. Sace gaṇhāti , dātabbaṃ. No ce, eteneva upāyena anutheraṃ ādiṃ katvā yo gaṇhāti, tassa antamaso sāmaṇerassapi dātabbaṃ. Tena taṃ senāsanaṃ aṭṭha māse paṭijaggitabbaṃ, chadanabhittibhūmīsu yaṃ kiñci khaṇḍaṃ vā phullaṃ vā hoti, taṃ sabbaṃ paṭisaṅkharitabbaṃ. Uddesaparipucchādīhi divasaṃ khepetvā rattiṃ tattha vasituṃ vaṭṭati, rattiṃ pariveṇe vasitvā tattha divasaṃ khepetumpi vaṭṭati, rattindivaṃ tattheva vasitumpi vaṭṭati, utukāle āgatānaṃ vuḍḍhānaṃ na paṭibāhitabbaṃ. Vassūpanāyikadivase pana sampatte sace saṅghatthero “mayhaṃ idaṃ pana senāsanaṃ dethā”ti vadati, na labhati. “Bhante, idaṃ antarāmuttakaṃ gahetvā ekena bhikkhunā paṭijaggita”nti vatvā na dātabbaṃ, aṭṭha māse paṭijaggitabhikkhusseva gāhitaṃ hoti. Yasmiṃ pana senāsane ekasaṃvacchare dvikkhattuṃ paccaye denti chamāsaccayena chamāsaccayena, taṃ antarāmuttakaṃ na gāhetabbaṃ. Yasmiṃ vā tikkhattuṃ denti catumāsaccayena catumāsaccayena, yasmiṃ vā catukkhattuṃ denti temāsaccayena temāsaccayena, taṃ antarāmuttakaṃ na gāhetabbaṃ. Paccayeneva hi taṃ paṭijagganaṃ labhissati. Yasmiṃ pana ekasaṃvacchare sakideva bahū paccaye denti, etaṃ antarāmuttakaṃ gāhetabbanti.

When taking it, the senior monk of the Sangha should be told, “Venerable sir, please take the intermediate free residence.” If he accepts, it should be given to him. If not, using the same method, starting with another elder, it should be given to whoever accepts it, even down to a novice. That person must maintain the residence for eight months, repairing anything broken or damaged in the roofing, walls, or floors—everything must be restored. It is permissible to spend the day there with recitation or inquiry and reside there at night; it is also permissible to reside in the monastic quarters at night and spend the day there; or to reside there both day and night. During the cold season, senior monks who arrive must not be refused. However, if on the day of entering the rains retreat the senior monk of the Sangha says, “Give me this residence,” he does not receive it. It should be said, “Venerable sir, this intermediate free residence has been taken and maintained by one monk,” and it should not be given. It belongs only to the monk who maintained it for eight months. However, in a residence where requisites are given twice within one year—after six months and again after six months—the intermediate free one should not be taken. Or where they are given three times—every four months—or four times—every three months—the intermediate free one should not be taken. For it is through those requisites that its maintenance will be secured. But in a residence where abundant requisites are given only once within a year, that intermediate free one should be taken.

When taking it, the Saṅgha elder should be told, “Venerable sir, take the intermediate residence.” If he takes it, it should be given. If not, in this very way, starting with the second elder, and so on, whoever takes it, it should be given to him, even to a novice in the end. That residence should be looked after by him for eight months. Whatever is broken or cracked in the roof, walls, or floor, all that should be repaired. Having spent the day in recitation, questioning, etc., it is proper to dwell there at night. Having dwelt in the surrounding area at night, it is also proper to spend the day there. It is also proper to dwell there both day and night. Senior monks who arrive during the season should not be prevented. But when the day of entering the rains has arrived, if the Saṅgha elder says, “Give me this residence,” he does not get it. Saying, “Venerable sir, this intermediate (residence) has been taken and looked after by a certain monk,” it should not be given. It is taken only by the monk who has looked after it for eight months. But in a residence where requisites are given twice a year, every six months, that intermediate should not be taken. Or in one where they are given three times, every four months, or in one where they are given four times, every three months, that intermediate should not be taken. For the looking after of it will be obtained through the requisites. But in one where many requisites are given only once a year, this intermediate should be taken.

When taking it, the senior monk of the Sangha should be addressed, “Venerable, take the interim lodging.” If he takes it, it should be given. If not, then by this method, starting with the next senior monk, whoever takes it, even if it is a novice, it should be given to him. That lodging should be maintained for eight months. Any broken or cracked parts in the roof, walls, or floor should all be repaired. After spending the day with recitation and questioning, it is permissible to stay there at night. It is also permissible to stay in the surrounding area at night and spend the day there, or to stay there day and night. During the seasonal period, arriving elders should not be hindered. However, when the day of entering the rainy season arrives, if the senior monk of the Sangha says, “Now give this lodging to me,” he does not obtain it. “Venerable, this interim lodging has been taken and maintained by a monk,” and it should not be given. It remains in the possession of the monk who has maintained it for eight months. However, if in a lodging, offerings are given twice a year every six months, that should not be taken as an interim allocation. If offerings are given three times a year every four months, or four times a year every three months, that should not be taken as an interim allocation. For it will receive maintenance through the offerings. But if in a lodging, many offerings are given only once a year, that should be taken as an interim allocation.

223. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, akataṃ vā vihāraṃ vippakataṃ vā navakammaṃ dātuṃ, khuddake vihāre kammaṃ oloketvā chappañcavassikaṃ navakammaṃ dātuṃ, aḍḍhayoge kammaṃ oloketvā sattaṭṭhavassikaṃ navakammaṃ dātuṃ, mahallake vihāre pāsāde vā kammaṃ oloketvā dasadvādasavassikaṃ navakammaṃ dātu”nti (cūḷava. 323) vacanato akataṃ vippakataṃ vā senāsanaṃ ekassa bhikkhuno apalokanena vā kammavācāya vā sāvetvā navakammaṃ katvā vasituṃ yathāvuttakālaparicchedavasena dātabbaṃ. Navakammiko bhikkhu antovasse taṃ āvāsaṃ labhati, utukāle paṭibāhituṃ na labhati. Laddhanavakammena pana bhikkhunā vāsipharasunikhādanādīni gahetvā sayaṃ na kātabbaṃ, katākataṃ jānitabbaṃ. Sace so āvāso jīrati, āvāsasāmikassa vā tassa vaṃse uppannassa vā kassaci kathetabbaṃ “āvāso te nassati, jaggatha etaṃ āvāsa”nti. Sace so na sakkoti, bhikkhūhi ñātīhi vā upaṭṭhākehi vā samādāpetvā jaggitabbo. Sace tepi na sakkonti, saṅghikena paccayena jaggitabbo, tasmimpi asati ekaṃ āvāsaṃ vissajjetvā avasesā jaggitabbā, bahū vissajjetvā ekaṃ saṇṭhapetumpi vaṭṭatiyeva.

223. “I allow you, monks, to give an unfinished or incomplete monastery as a new construction project, to give a new construction project of five or six years in a small monastery after inspecting the work, to give a new construction project of seven or eight years in a semi-attached building after inspecting the work, and to give a new construction project of ten or twelve years in a large monastery or a mansion after inspecting the work,” (cūḷava. 323). Based on this statement, an unfinished or incomplete residence may be given to a single monk, either by informal agreement or by formal announcement with a motion, to be used as a new construction project and dwelt in for the specified periods as stated. The monk undertaking the new construction receives that dwelling during the rains retreat and cannot be refused it during the cold season. However, a monk who has received a new construction project must not personally take up an axe, adze, or shovel to do the work himself; he should ascertain what has been done or not done. If that dwelling deteriorates, it should be reported to the owner of the dwelling, or to someone born in his lineage, or to anyone, saying, “Your dwelling is deteriorating; maintain this dwelling.” If he is unable, it should be maintained by monks, relatives, or supporters after being encouraged to do so. If they too are unable, it should be maintained with Sangha resources; if that is unavailable, one dwelling may be relinquished to maintain the rest, or even many may be relinquished to preserve one, and this is indeed permissible.

223. “I allow, monks, giving new work (allowance) for an unfinished or incomplete monastery, giving new work (allowance) for five or six years after looking at the work in a small monastery, giving new work (allowance) for seven or eight years after looking at the work in a half-roofed building, giving new work (allowance) for ten or twelve years after looking at the work in a large monastery or mansion” (Cūḷava. 323). According to this statement, an unfinished or incomplete residence should be given, by means of the specified period of time as mentioned, to a single monk, after announcing it either by informal consent or by a formal act, having made it new work, to dwell in. The monk doing the new work obtains that dwelling during the rains; he does not get to prevent (others) during the season. But the monk with the received new work, taking up a knife, axe, hoe, etc., should not do (the work) himself; he should know what has been done and what has not been done. If that dwelling deteriorates, the owner of the dwelling, or someone born in his lineage, should be told, “Your dwelling is deteriorating; look after this dwelling.” If he is unable, it should be looked after by having the monks, relatives, or supporters undertake it. If even they are unable, it should be looked after with Saṅgha requisites. Even if that is not possible, having given up one dwelling, the rest should be looked after. It is even proper to give up many to establish one.

223. “I allow, monks, to give new work to an unbuilt or incomplete dwelling, to give new work to a small dwelling after inspecting the work for five or six years, to give new work to a medium dwelling after inspecting the work for seven or eight years, and to give new work to a large dwelling or mansion after inspecting the work for ten or twelve years” (Cūḷava. 323). According to this statement, an unbuilt or incomplete lodging should be given to a monk after informing him either by announcement or by formal motion, and new work should be done according to the specified time limits. The monk who undertakes the new work obtains that residence during the rainy season and cannot be hindered during the seasonal period. However, the monk who has obtained the new work should not take the materials for the work, such as wood, tools, or nails, and do it himself; he should know what has been done and what has not. If that residence deteriorates, it should be reported to the owner of the residence or to anyone born in his lineage, saying, “Your residence is being destroyed, take care of it.” If he is unable, it should be maintained by urging the monks, relatives, or supporters. If they are also unable, it should be maintained with the resources of the Sangha. If even that is not available, after relinquishing one residence, the remaining ones should be maintained. It is also permissible to relinquish many and establish one.

Dubbhikkhe bhikkhūsu pakkantesu sabbe āvāsā nassanti, tasmā ekaṃ vā dve vā tayo vā āvāse vissajjetvā tato yāgubhattacīvarādīni paribhuñjantehi sesāvāsā jaggitabbāyeva.

In times of famine, when monks depart and all the dwellings deteriorate, therefore, one, two, or three dwellings should be relinquished, and the remaining dwellings should be maintained by those who use the porridge, food, robes, and other items obtained from them.

In a famine, when the monks have departed, all the dwellings deteriorate. Therefore, having given up one, two, or three dwellings, the remaining dwellings should be looked after while consuming gruel, staple food, robes, etc., from those (given up dwellings).

In times of famine, when monks depart, all residences are destroyed. Therefore, after relinquishing one, two, or three residences, the remaining residences should be maintained by those who consume the alms food, robes, etc.

Kurundiyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “saṅghike paccaye asati eko bhikkhu ’tuyhaṃ ekamañcaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvā jaggāhī’ti vattabbo. Sace bahutaraṃ icchati, tibhāgaṃ vā upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ vā datvāpi jaggāpetabbaṃ. Atha thambhamattamevettha avasiṭṭhaṃ, bahukammaṃ kātabbanti na icchati, ’tuyhaṃ puggalikameva katvā jaggāhī’ti dātabbaṃ. Evampi hi ’saṅghassa bhaṇḍakaṭhapanaṭṭhānañca navakānañca vasanaṭṭhānaṃ labhissatī’ti jaggāpetabbo. Evaṃ jaggito pana tasmiṃ jīvante puggaliko hoti, mate saṅghikova. Sace saddhivihārikānaṃ dātukāmo hoti, kammaṃ oloketvā tibhāgaṃ vā upaḍḍhaṃ vā puggalikaṃ katvā jaggāpetabbo. Evañhi saddhivihārikānaṃ dātuṃ labhati. Evaṃ jagganake pana asati ekaṃ āvāsaṃ vissajjetvātiādinā nayena jaggāpetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Idampi ca aññaṃ tattheva vuttaṃ.

In the Kurundī, it is said, “When there are no Sangha resources, one monk should be told, ‘Take one bed-place and maintain it.’ If he desires more, even a third or half may be given for maintenance. If only a pillar remains here and much work needs to be done, and he does not wish to do it, he should be told, ‘Make it your personal property and maintain it.’ For in this way, it should be maintained so that ‘the Sangha will have a place to store goods and a residence for newcomers.’ When maintained in this way, it remains personal property while he lives, but becomes Sangha property after his death. If he wishes to give it to his co-residents, after inspecting the work, a third or half may be made personal property and maintained. In this way, he can give it to his co-residents. If there is no one to maintain it in this manner, it should be maintained by the method of relinquishing one dwelling and so forth,” as stated there. This and other details are also stated there.

But in the Kurundi, it is said, “If there are no Saṅgha requisites, a single monk should be told, ‘Take a place for one bed and look after it.’ If he desires more, he should be made to look after it even by giving a third part or a half part. But if only a pillar remains here, and there is much work to be done, and he does not desire (it), it should be given (saying), ‘Look after it, having made it your own personal (property).’ Even in this way, he should be made to look after it (thinking), ‘There will be a place for keeping the Saṅgha’s goods and a place for the new monks to dwell.’ But having looked after it in this way, it is his personal (property) while he is alive; when he dies, it becomes Saṅgha property. If he wishes to give it to his co-residents, after looking at the work, he should be made to look after it, having made a third part or a half part personal. For in this way, he gets to give it to his co-residents. But if there is no one looking after it in this way, it should be made to be looked after in the manner beginning with, ‘Having given up one dwelling,’ etc.” And this and other things are said there.

In Kurundiya, it is said, “When there are no Sangha resources, one monk should be told, ‘Take one bed and maintain it.’ If he desires more, after giving a third or half, he should be urged to maintain it. If even a pillar remains, and he does not wish to do much work, he should be told, ‘Take it as personal property and maintain it.’ For in this way, the Sangha will obtain a place for storing goods and a place for new construction. When maintained in this way, it remains personal property during his lifetime, but after his death, it becomes Sangha property. If he wishes to give it to his co-residents, after inspecting the work, a third or half should be made personal property and he should be urged to maintain it. For in this way, it can be given to his co-residents. When there is no one to maintain it, it should be urged to be maintained by relinquishing one residence, etc.” This is also stated elsewhere in the same place.

Dve bhikkhū saṅghikabhūmiṃ gahetvā sodhetvā saṅghikasenāsanaṃ karonti, yena sā bhūmi paṭhamaṃ gahitā, so sāmī. Ubhopi puggalikaṃ karonti, soyeva sāmī. So saṅghikaṃ karoti, itaro puggalikaṃ karoti, aññaṃ ce bahu senāsanaṭṭhānaṃ atthi, puggalikaṃ karontopi na vāretabbo. Aññasmiṃ pana tādise patirūpe ṭhāne asati taṃ paṭibāhitvā saṅghikaṃ karonteneva kātabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana tassa tattha vayakammaṃ kataṃ, taṃ dātabbaṃ. Sace pana katāvāse vā āvāsakaraṇaṭṭhāne vā chāyūpagaphalūpagā rukkhā honti, apaloketvā hāretabbā. Puggalikā ce honti, sāmikā āpucchitabbā. No ce denti, yāvatatiyakaṃ āpucchitvā “rukkhaagghanakamūlaṃ dassāmā”ti hāretabbā.

Two monks take and clear Sangha land to build a Sangha residence; the one who first took the land is the owner. If both make it personal property, he alone is the owner. If he makes it Sangha property and the other makes it personal property, and if there is plenty of other space for residences, the one making it personal property should not be prevented. But if there is no other suitable place like it, he should be prevented, and it must be made Sangha property by the one doing so. Whatever effort he put into it there should be compensated. If there are shade-giving or fruit-bearing trees at the site of an existing or planned dwelling, they may be removed with agreement. If they are personal property, the owners must be consulted. If they do not give permission, they should be asked up to three times, saying, “We will give the value of the trees,” and then they may be removed.

Two monks, having taken Saṅgha land and cleaned it, make a Saṅgha residence. The one by whom that land was first taken is the owner. Both make it personal; he is still the owner. He makes it Saṅgha (property), the other makes it personal. If there is another large place for a residence, even the one making it personal should not be prevented. But if there is no other such suitable place, having prevented him, only the one making it Saṅgha (property) should do it. But whatever expense he has incurred there, that should be given. But if in a finished dwelling or in a place for making a dwelling, there are trees with shade and fruit, they should be removed after announcing it. If they are personal, the owners should be asked. If they do not give (permission), having asked up to three times, they should be removed (saying), “We will give the price of the trees and the cost of the wood.”

Two monks take Sangha land, clear it, and make a Sangha lodging. The one who first took the land is the owner. If both make it personal property, he is still the owner. If one makes it Sangha property and the other makes it personal property, and there is much other lodging space, the one making it personal property should not be prevented. However, if there is no other suitable place, it should be made Sangha property by preventing that. Whatever work has been done there should be given. If, in the place where the residence is built or in the place where the residence is being constructed, there are trees providing shade or fruit, they should be removed after informing. If they are personal property, the owner should be asked. If they do not give, after asking up to three times, saying, “We will give the value of the tree,” they should be removed.

224. Yo pana saṅghikaṃ vallimattampi aggahetvā āharimena upakaraṇena saṅghikāya bhūmiyā puggalikavihāraṃ kāreti, upaḍḍhaṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti, upaḍḍhaṃ puggalikaṃ. Pāsādo ce hoti, heṭṭhāpāsādo saṅghiko, upari puggaliko. Sace yo heṭṭhāpāsādaṃ icchati, heṭṭhāpāsādaṃ tassa hoti. Atha heṭṭhā ca upari ca icchati, ubhayattha upaḍḍhaṃ labhati. Dve senāsanāni kāreti, ekaṃ saṅghikaṃ, ekaṃ puggalikaṃ. Sace vihāre uṭṭhitena dabbasambhārena kāreti, tibhāgaṃ labhati. Sace akataṭṭhāne cayaṃ vā pamukhaṃ vā karoti bahikuṭṭe, upaḍḍhaṃ saṅghassa, upaḍḍhaṃ tassa. Atha mahantaṃ visamaṃ pūretvā apade padaṃ dassetvā kataṃ hoti, anissaro tattha saṅgho.

224. If someone builds a personal monastery on Sangha land using materials brought from elsewhere without taking even a single Sangha creeper, half becomes Sangha property and half personal property. If it is a mansion, the lower part is Sangha property, and the upper part is personal property. If someone desires the lower mansion, it belongs to him. If he desires both the lower and upper parts, he receives half of each. If he builds two residences—one Sangha and one personal—and uses materials arising in the monastery, he receives a third. If he builds a pile or platform in an undeveloped area with many walls, half belongs to the Sangha and half to him. However, if a large uneven area is filled and leveled to create a foundation, the Sangha has no authority over it.

224. But if someone, without taking even a creeper belonging to the Saṅgha, builds a personal monastery on Saṅgha land with brought materials, half becomes Saṅgha (property), half is personal. If it is a mansion, the lower mansion is Saṅgha (property), the upper is personal. If someone desires the lower mansion, the lower mansion belongs to him. But if he desires both the lower and the upper, he obtains half in both. He makes two residences, one Saṅgha (property), one personal. If he builds with materials that have arisen in the monastery, he obtains a third part. If on an unfinished site, he makes a foundation or a frontage or an outer wall, half belongs to the Saṅgha, half to him. But if it has been made having filled a large uneven (area) and having shown a place where there was no place, the Saṅgha has no ownership there.

224. If someone, without taking even a vine’s length of Sangha property, constructs a personal residence using Sangha land, half becomes Sangha property and half becomes personal property. If it is a mansion, the lower part is Sangha property, and the upper part is personal property. If someone desires the lower part, the lower part becomes his. If he desires both the lower and upper parts, he obtains half in both places. If he constructs two lodgings, one Sangha and one personal, it is permissible. If he constructs it with materials collected while staying in the residence, he obtains a third. If he constructs a foundation or a front wall in an unbuilt place with much wall, half belongs to the Sangha and half to him. However, if he fills a large uneven area and shows a path where there was none, the Sangha has no authority there.

Sace bhikkhu saṅghikavihārato gopānasiādīni gahetvā aññasmiṃ saṅghikāvāse yojeti, suyojitāni. Puggalikāvāse yojentehi pana mūlaṃ vā dātabbaṃ, paṭipākatikaṃ vā kātabbaṃ. Chaḍḍitavihārato mañcapīṭhādīni theyyacittena gaṇhanto uddhāreyeva bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. “Puna āvāsikakāle dassāmī”ti gahetvā saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjantassa naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhaṃ, jiṇṇaṃ sujiṇṇaṃ. Arogaṃ ce, pākatikaṃ kātabbaṃ, puggalikaparibhogena paribhuñjantassa naṭṭhaṃ vā jiṇṇaṃ vā gīvā hoti. Tato dvāravātapānādīni saṅghikāvāse vā puggalikāvāse vā yojitāni, paṭidātabbāniyeva. Sace koci saṅghiko vihāro undriyati, yaṃ tattha mañcapīṭhādikaṃ, taṃ guttatthāya aññatra harituṃ vaṭṭati. Tasmā aññatra haritvā saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjantassa naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhaṃ, jiṇṇaṃ sujiṇṇaṃ. Sace arogaṃ, tasmiṃ vihāre paṭisaṅkhate puna pākatikaṃ kātabbaṃ. Puggalikaparibhogena paribhuñjato naṭṭhaṃ vā jiṇṇaṃ vā gīvā hoti, tasmiṃ paṭisaṅkhate dātabbameva. Ayaṃ senāsanaggāhakathā.

If a monk takes beams or similar items from a Sangha monastery and uses them in another Sangha dwelling, they are properly used. But if used in a personal dwelling, either their value must be paid or a replacement provided. One who takes a bed or chair from an abandoned monastery with a thieving mind must compensate with the value of the goods upon discovery. If he takes them saying, “I will give them back when there are residents again,” and uses them for Sangha purposes, what is lost is truly lost, what is worn out is truly worn out. If they remain intact, they must be restored to their original state. If he uses them for personal purposes and they are lost or worn out, they become his responsibility. If doors, windows, or similar items are used in a Sangha or personal dwelling, they must be returned. If a Sangha monastery is deteriorating, beds, chairs, and similar items may be taken elsewhere for safekeeping. Thus, if taken elsewhere and used for Sangha purposes, what is lost is truly lost, what is worn out is truly worn out. If intact, they must be restored to the monastery once it is repaired. If used for personal purposes and lost or worn out, they become his responsibility and must be given back once the monastery is repaired. This is the discussion on residence allocation.

If a monk, having taken rafters, etc., from a Saṅgha monastery, uses them in another Saṅgha dwelling, they are well used. But when using them in a personal dwelling, either the cost should be given, or an equivalent should be made. One taking a bed, stool, etc., from an abandoned monastery with the intention of stealing should be made to pay the price of the goods by estimation. Having taken (them saying), “I will give (them) back when it is again a dwelling,” what is lost while being used for Saṅgha use is well lost, what is worn out is well worn out. If it is undamaged, it should be made as it was. What is lost or worn out while being used for personal use is a debt. Doors, windows, etc., from that, used in a Saṅgha dwelling or a personal dwelling, should indeed be given back. If any Saṅgha monastery is infested with termites, whatever bed, stool, etc., is there, it is proper to remove it elsewhere for protection. Having removed it from there, what is lost while being used for Saṅgha use is well lost, what is worn out is well worn out. If it is undamaged, when that monastery is repaired, it should be made as it was. What is lost or worn out while being used for personal use is a debt; when that (monastery) is repaired, it must indeed be given. This is the discussion on taking up residences.

If a monk takes materials such as tiles from a Sangha residence and uses them in another Sangha residence, it is well done. However, if he uses them in a personal residence, he should either give the value or replace them. If he takes beds or chairs from an abandoned residence with a thieving mind, he should be made to pay the value. If he takes them saying, “I will return them during the resident period,” and uses them with Sangha resources, whether they are damaged or worn out, if they are in good condition, they should be made common property. If he uses them with personal resources, the damaged or worn-out ones become his responsibility. Doors, windows, etc., fitted in a Sangha or personal residence, should be returned. If a Sangha residence deteriorates, any beds or chairs there may be taken elsewhere for safekeeping. Therefore, after taking them elsewhere, if they are used with Sangha resources, whether they are damaged or worn out, if they are in good condition, they should be made common property again in that residence. If they are used with personal resources, the damaged or worn-out ones must be given. This is the discussion on lodging allocation.

225. Ayaṃ panettha catupaccayasādhāraṇakathā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325 pakkhikabhattādikathā) – sammatena appamattakavissajjakena bhikkhunā cīvarakammaṃ karontassa “sūciṃ dehī”ti vadato ekā dīghā, ekā rassāti dve sūciyo dātabbā. “Avibhattaṃ saṅghikabhaṇḍa”nti pucchitabbakiccaṃ natthi. Pipphalatthikassa eko pipphalako, kantāraṃ paṭipajjitukāmassa upāhanayugaḷaṃ, kāyabandhanatthikassa kāyabandhanaṃ, “aṃsabaddhako me jiṇṇo”ti āgatassa aṃsabaddhako, parissāvanatthikassa parissāvanaṃ dātabbaṃ, dhammakaraṇatthikassa dhammakaraṇo. Sace paṭṭako na hoti, dhammakaraṇo paṭṭakena saddhiṃ dātabbo. “Āgantukapattaṃ āropessāmī”ti yācantassa kusiyā ca aḍḍhakusiyā ca pahonakaṃ dātabbaṃ. “Maṇḍalaṃ nappahotī”ti āgatassa maṇḍalaṃ ekaṃ dātabbaṃ, aḍḍhamaṇḍalāni dve dātabbāni, dve maṇḍalāni yācantassa na dātabbāni. Anuvātaparibhaṇḍatthikassa ekassa cīvarassa pahonakaṃ dātabbaṃ, sappinavanītādiatthikassa gilānassa ekaṃ bhesajjaṃ nāḷimattaṃ katvā tato tatiyakoṭṭhāso dātabbo. Evaṃ tīṇi divasāni datvā nāḷiyā paripuṇṇāya catutthadivasato paṭṭhāya saṅghaṃ āpucchitvā dātabbaṃ, guḷapiṇḍepi ekadivasaṃ tatiyabhāgo dātabbo. Evaṃ tīhi divasehi niṭṭhite piṇḍe tato paraṃ saṅghaṃ āpucchitvā dātabbaṃ. Sammannitvā ṭhapitayāgubhājakādīhi ca bhājanīyaṭṭhānaṃ āgatamanussānaṃ anāpucchitvāva upaḍḍhabhāgo dātabbo. Asammatehi pana apaloketvā dātabboti.

225. This is the discourse on the common requisites (Cūḷavagga Commentary 325, discussion on fortnightly meals and so forth) – For a monk, duly appointed with a modest allocation, who is engaged in robe-making and says, “Give me a needle,” two needles should be given: one long and one short. There is no need to ask about duties regarding “undivided Saṅgha property.” For one in need of a sewing awl, one awl should be given; for one wishing to travel through a wilderness, a pair of sandals; for one needing a waistband, a waistband; for one who comes saying, “My shoulder strap is worn out,” a shoulder strap; for one needing a water strainer, a water strainer should be given; for one needing a water jar, a water jar. If there is no lid, the water jar should be given together with a lid. For one requesting, “I will place a guest bowl,” an amount sufficient for a bowl and half a bowl should be given. For one who comes saying, “A single bowl is not enough,” one bowl should be given; two half-bowls should be given, but two full bowls should not be given to one requesting them. For one needing cloth to reinforce against the wind, an amount sufficient for one robe should be given; for a sick monk needing ghee, butter, or the like, one medicinal dose, measured as a nāḷi, should be prepared and a third portion given from it. After giving it thus for three days, once the nāḷi is full, from the fourth day onward it should be given after informing the Saṅgha. With a lump of sugar, a third portion should be given for one day. After the lump is finished in three days, from then on it should be given after informing the Saṅgha. From vessels such as rice-porridge distributors, duly appointed and placed, half a portion may be given to people arriving at the designated place without asking permission. However, from those not appointed, it should be given after consultation.

225. Here, this is the discussion on the common use of the four requisites (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325, discussion on offering to those who come for the fortnightly meal, etc.) – to a monk doing robe-work, by an authorized distributor of small things, when he says, “Give (me) a needle,” two needles should be given, one long and one short. There is no need to ask about “undistributed Saṅgha goods.” For one needing asafoetida, one piece of asafoetida; for one wishing to go on a journey, a pair of sandals; for one needing a waist-band, a waist-band; for one who has come saying, “My shoulder-strap is worn out,” a shoulder-strap; for one needing a water-strainer, a water-strainer should be given; for one needing a water-pot, a water-pot. If there is no cloth, a water-pot should be given along with a cloth. For one requesting, “I will place a visitor’s bowl,” a sufficient amount of a stand and a half-stand should be given. For one who has come saying, “A circular stand is not enough,” one circular stand should be given; two half-circular stands should be given. For one requesting two circular stands, they should not be given. For one needing lining and border material, enough for one robe should be given. For a sick person needing ghee, fresh butter, etc., one medicine, having made it the amount of a nāḷi measure, a third portion from that should be given. Having given (it) for three days in this way, starting from the fourth day when the nāḷi is full, it should be given after asking the Saṅgha. Even for a lump of molasses, a third part should be given for one day. When the lump is finished in three days in this way, after that, it should be given after asking the Saṅgha. And by those appointed to distribute gruel, etc., a half portion should be given without asking to people who have come to the place of distribution. But by those not appointed, it should be given after announcing it.

225. Here is the discussion on the sharing of the four requisites (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325, including the discussion on fortnightly meals, etc.). A monk appointed as a distributor of minor items, when doing robe work, should be given two needles, one long and one short, if he says, “Give me a needle.” There is no need to ask, “Is this Sangha property undivided?” For one desiring a fruit stone, one fruit stone; for one wishing to cross a wilderness, a pair of sandals; for one needing a belt, a belt; for one whose shoulder strap is worn out, a shoulder strap; for one needing a water strainer, a water strainer; for one needing a Dhamma text, a Dhamma text. If there is no cloth, the Dhamma text should be given with the cloth. For one wishing to prepare a guest bowl, a full and half measure of husked rice should be given. For one saying, “The circle is insufficient,” one circle should be given; for one asking for half circles, two half circles should be given; for one asking for two circles, they should not be given. For one needing a windbreak, a full measure of cloth for one robe should be given. For one needing ghee, oil, etc., for a sick monk, one medicine the size of a nāḷi should be given, and then a third portion of that. After giving in this way for three days, from the fourth day onwards, it should be given after informing the Sangha. For a lump of sugar, a third portion should be given for one day. After completing the three days, from then on, it should be given after informing the Sangha. For those who come to the place of alms distribution appointed by the Sangha, half a portion should be given without informing. For those not appointed, it should be given after informing.

Saṅghassa santakaṃ sammatena vā āṇattehi vā ārāmikādīhi dīyamānaṃ, gihīnañca santakaṃ sāmikena vā āṇattena vā dīyamānaṃ “aparassa bhāgaṃ dehī”ti asantaṃ puggalaṃ vatvā gaṇhato bhaṇḍādeyyaṃ. Aññena dīyamānaṃ gaṇhanto bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Asammatena vā anāṇattena vā dīyamāne “aparampi bhāgaṃ dehī”ti vatvā vā kūṭavassāni gaṇetvā vā gaṇhanto uddhāreyeva bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Itarehi dīyamānaṃ evaṃ gaṇhato bhaṇḍādeyyaṃ sāmikena pana “imassa dehī”ti dāpitaṃ vā sayaṃ dinnaṃ vā sudinnanti ayaṃ sabbaṭṭhakathāvinicchayato sāro.

That which belongs to the Saṅgha, given by one duly appointed or by those instructed, such as monastery attendants, and that which belongs to laypeople, given by the owner or one instructed by them—if one takes it saying, “Give a share to another,” referring to a nonexistent person, it incurs a penalty related to goods. If one takes what is given by another, it must be compensated according to the value of the goods. If it is given by one not appointed or not instructed, and one takes it either by saying, “Give another share too,” or by counting falsely, it must be compensated according to the value at the time of taking. When taken in this way from others, it incurs a penalty related to goods; however, if the owner has it given saying, “Give it to this one,” or gives it himself, it is well-given. This is the essence drawn from all commentary decisions.

What belongs to the Saṅgha, being given by gardeners, etc., authorized or ordered, and what belongs to laypeople, being given by the owner or by order, taking it saying, “Give a portion to another,” to a non-existent person, is taking goods by theft. One taking what is being given by another should be made to pay the price of the goods. When being given by one not appointed or not ordered, taking it saying, “Give another portion,” or counting false rains, should be made to pay the price of the goods by estimation. Taking what is being given by others in this way is taking goods by theft. But what is caused to be given by the owner saying, “Give to this one,” or what is given by himself, is well given. This is the essence from the determination of all the commentaries.

What belongs to the Sangha, given by appointed or authorized monastery workers, or what belongs to laypeople, given by the owner or authorized, should not be taken by saying, “Give a portion to another,” to a non-existent person. If taken from another, it should be made to pay the value. If given by an unappointed or unauthorized person, it should be taken by saying, “Give a portion to another,” or by counting false rains, and it should be made to pay the value. When taken from others in this way, it is well given. However, if given by the owner, saying, “Give to this one,” or given by oneself, it is well given. This is the essence of all commentary decisions.

Piṇḍāya paviṭṭhassapi odanapaṭivīso antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitasseva gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yadi pana dāyakā “bahiupacārasīmaṭṭhānampi, bhante, gaṇhatha, āgantvā paribhuñjissantī”ti vadanti, evaṃ antogāmaṭṭhānampi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

Even for one who has entered for alms, a portion of rice may be taken only while standing within the boundary of the monastery precinct. However, if the donors say, “Venerable sir, take it even from a place outside the precinct boundary; they will come and use it,” then it is permissible to take it even from a place within the village.

Even for one who has entered for alms, a portion of rice is proper to be taken only while standing within the boundary of the inner vicinity. But if the donors say, “Venerable sir, take even for those standing outside the boundary of the vicinity; they will come and consume it,” in this way, it is proper to take even for those standing within the village.

Even for one who has entered for alms, it is permissible to take a portion of rice while standing within the boundary of the monastery. However, if the donors say, “Venerable, take even outside the boundary, and come back to consume it,” then it is permissible to take even within the village boundary.

The discussion on the determination of the distribution of the four requisites is concluded.

29. Kathinatthāravinicchayakathā

29. Discourse on the Decision Regarding the Kathina Ceremony

29. Discussion on the Determination of the Spreading of the Kathina

29. Discussion on the Determination of Kathina

226. Kathinanti ettha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) pana kathinaṃ attharituṃ ke labhanti, ke na labhanti? Gaṇanavasena tāva pacchimakoṭiyā pañca janā labhanti, uddhaṃ satasahassampi, pañcannaṃ heṭṭhā na labhanti. Vuṭṭhavassavasena purimikāya vassaṃ upagantvā paṭhamapavāraṇāya pavāritā labhanti. Chinnavassā vā pacchimikāya upagatā vā na labhanti. “Aññasmiṃ vihāre vuṭṭhavassāpi na labhantī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Purimikāya upagatānaṃ pana sabbe gaṇapūrakā honti, ānisaṃsaṃ na labhanti, ānisaṃso itaresaṃyeva hoti. Sace purimikāya upagatā cattāro vā honti tayo vā dve vā eko vā, itare gaṇapūrake katvā kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ. Atha cattāro bhikkhū upagatā, eko paripuṇṇavasso sāmaṇero, so ce pacchimikāya upasampajjati, gaṇapūrako ceva hoti ānisaṃsañca labhati. Tayo bhikkhū dve sāmaṇerā, dve bhikkhū tayo sāmaṇerā, eko bhikkhu cattāro sāmaṇerāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Sace purimikāya upagatā kathinatthārakusalā na honti, atthārakusalā khandhakabhāṇakattherā pariyesitvā ānetabbā. Kammavācaṃ sāvetvā kathinaṃ attharāpetvā dānañca bhuñjitvā gamissanti, ānisaṃso pana itaresaṃyeva hoti.

226. Regarding the Kathina (Mahāvagga Commentary 306), who is eligible to spread the kathina robe, and who is not? By numerical reckoning, at the minimum, five persons are eligible on the final limit; upward of a hundred thousand may be eligible, but fewer than five are not. By the criterion of having completed the rains retreat, those who entered the rains retreat in the earlier period and were invited on the first Pavāraṇā day are eligible. Those whose rains retreat was interrupted or who entered in the later period are not eligible. It is said in the Mahāpaccarī that “even those who completed the rains retreat in another monastery are not eligible.” However, all those who entered in the earlier period can complete the quorum, though they do not receive the benefits; the benefits belong only to the others. If those who entered in the earlier period number four, three, two, or one, the others should be made to complete the quorum, and the kathina should be spread. If four monks entered, and one is a novice who has completed the full rains retreat and is ordained in the later period, he both completes the quorum and receives the benefits. Similarly, with three monks and two novices, two monks and three novices, or one monk and four novices, the same principle applies. If those who entered in the earlier period are not skilled in spreading the kathina, elder monks skilled in spreading it and reciters of the Khandhaka should be sought and brought. After having the formal motion recited and spreading the kathina, they may partake of the offering and depart, but the benefits belong only to the others.

226. Here, concerning kathina (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), who gets to spread the kathina, and who does not get to? In terms of number, at the very least, five people get to, and up to a hundred thousand and more. Below five do not get to. In terms of having completed the rains, those who entered the rains on the earlier (date) and made the first invitation get to. Those with a broken rains or those who entered on the later (date) do not get to. In the Mahāpaccari, it is said, “Even those who have completed the rains in another monastery do not get to.” But of those who entered on the earlier (date), all are completers of the number; they do not obtain the benefits; the benefits are only for the others. If four, three, two, or one entered on the earlier (date), having made the others completers of the number, the kathina should be spread. But if four monks entered, (and) one fully ordained novice, if he is ordained on the later (date), he is both a completer of the number and obtains the benefits. Three monks and two novices, two monks and three novices, one monk and four novices – here too, the same principle applies. If those who entered on the earlier (date) are not skilled in spreading the kathina, elder monks who are skilled in spreading and reciters of the Khandhaka should be sought and brought. Having recited the formal act, having had the kathina spread, and having consumed the gift, they will depart. But the benefits are only for the others.

226. Regarding Kathina, here (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), who are entitled to spread the Kathina, and who are not? First, in terms of numbers, five people at the end of the line are entitled, and beyond a hundred thousand, those below the five are not entitled. In terms of completing the rainy season, those who entered the first rainy season and completed the first Pavāraṇā are entitled. Those who broke the rainy season or entered the last rainy season are not entitled. “Even those who completed the rainy season in another monastery are not entitled,” as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. However, all those who entered the first rainy season complete the group, but they do not receive the benefits; the benefits belong only to the others. If those who entered the first rainy season are four, three, two, or one, the others should complete the group and spread the Kathina. If four monks entered, one fully ordained novice, and if he receives higher ordination in the last rainy season, he both completes the group and receives the benefits. Three monks and two novices, two monks and three novices, one monk and four novices—the same rule applies here. If those who entered the first rainy season are not skilled in spreading the Kathina, skilled elders who know the Khandhaka should be sought and brought. After announcing the formal motion, the Kathina should be spread, and after receiving the offering, they will depart, but the benefits belong only to the others.

Kathinaṃ kena dinnaṃ vaṭṭati? Yena kenaci devena vā manussena vā pañcannaṃ vā sahadhammikānaṃ aññatarena dinnaṃ vaṭṭati. Kathinadāyakassa vattaṃ atthi, sace so taṃ ajānanto pucchati – “bhante, kathaṃ kathinaṃ dātabba”nti, tassa evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ “tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññatarappahonakaṃ sūriyuggamanasamaye vatthaṃ ’kathinacīvaraṃ demā’ti dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tassa parikammatthaṃ ettakā nāma sūciyo, ettakaṃ suttaṃ, ettakaṃ rajanaṃ, parikammaṃ karontānaṃ ettakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yāgubhattañca dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti.

By whom may the kathina be given? It may be given by anyone—whether a deity, a human, or one of the five co-religionists. There is a duty for the kathina donor; if he, not knowing it, asks, “Venerable sirs, how should the kathina be given?” he should be instructed thus: “It is permissible to give cloth sufficient for one of the three robes at sunrise, saying, ‘We give this as the kathina robe.’ For its preparation, a certain number of needles, thread, dye, and rice-porridge or meals for a certain number of monks preparing it may also be given.”

By whom is it proper for the kathina to be given? It is proper for it to be given by any god or human, or by any of the five co-religionists. There is a duty for the giver of the kathina. If he, not knowing that, asks, “Venerable sir, how should the kathina be given?” he should be told thus: “At the time of sunrise, it is proper to give a cloth sufficient for any of the three robes, saying, ‘We give the kathina robe.’ For the preparation of that, such and such needles, such and such thread, such and such dye, and for the monks doing the preparation, gruel and staple food for such and such monks are proper to be given.”

To whom is it permissible to give the Kathina? It is permissible to give it to any deva or human, or to any of the five kinds of fellow Dhamma practitioners. There is a duty for the Kathina donor; if he, not knowing, asks, “Venerable, how should the Kathina be given?” he should be instructed thus: “At sunrise, a piece of cloth sufficient for one of the three robes should be given, saying, ‘We give the Kathina robe.’ For its preparation, so many needles, so much thread, so much dye, and so many monks preparing it should be given alms food.”

Kathinatthārakenapi dhammena samena uppannaṃ kathinaṃ attharantena vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tantavāyagehato hi ābhatasantāneneva khalimakkhitasāṭako na vaṭṭati, malīnasāṭakopi na vaṭṭati, tasmā kathinatthārasāṭakaṃ labhitvā suṭṭhu dhovitvā sūciādīni cīvarakammūpakaraṇāni sajjetvā bahūhi bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ tadaheva sibbitvā niṭṭhitasūcikammaṃ rajitvā kappabinduṃ datvā kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ. Sace tasmiṃ anatthateyeva aññaṃ kathinasāṭakaṃ āharati, aññāni ca bahūni kathinānisaṃsavatthāni deti, yo ānisaṃsaṃ bahuṃ deti, tassa santakena attharitabbaṃ. Itaro tathā tathā ovaditvā saññāpetabbo.

The one spreading the kathina should also know the duty regarding the kathina that arises lawfully and evenly. A patched cloth brought from a weaver’s house or a soiled cloth is not permissible. Therefore, having obtained a kathina robe cloth, it should be well-washed, the needles and other robe-making implements prepared, and on that very day, sewn together with many monks, the needlework completed, dyed, marked with a permissible dot, and the kathina spread. If, before it is spread, another brings a different kathina cloth and offers many other cloths for the kathina benefits, it should be spread with that which belongs to the one offering the greater benefit. The other should be advised and persuaded accordingly.

Even by the spreader of the kathina, the duty should be known when spreading the kathina that has arisen rightfully and properly. For a cloth soiled with dirt from the loom, along with its threads, is not proper; even a dirty cloth is not proper. Therefore, having obtained the kathina spreading cloth, having washed it well, having prepared the robe-making requisites such as needles, etc., with many monks, having sewn it on that very day, having finished the needle-work, having dyed it, having applied the marking dot, the kathina should be spread. If while that is not spread, another kathina cloth is brought, and many other items for the benefits of the kathina are given, it should be spread with that belonging to the one who gives many benefits. The other should be instructed and informed accordingly.

The one who spreads the Kathina should also know the proper way to spread the Kathina that has arisen righteously and justly. For a cloth brought from the weaver’s house, smeared with bran, is not permissible, nor is a dirty cloth. Therefore, having obtained the Kathina cloth, it should be well washed, the needle and other robe-making tools prepared, and on that very day, it should be sewn by many monks together, the needlework completed, dyed, the border marked, and the Kathina spread. If, while it is not yet spread, another Kathina cloth is brought, and many other Kathina benefit items are given, the one who gives the most benefits should have it spread with his resources. The others should be advised and persuaded in various ways.

Kathinaṃ pana kena attharitabbaṃ? Yassa saṅgho kathinacīvaraṃ deti. Saṅghena pana kassa dātabbaṃ? Yo jiṇṇacīvaro hoti. Sace bahū jiṇṇacīvarā, vuḍḍhassa dātabbaṃ. Vuḍḍhesupi yo mahāpariso tadaheva cīvaraṃ katvā attharituṃ sakkoti, tassa dātabbaṃ. Sace vuḍḍho na sakkoti, navakataro sakkoti, tassa dātabbaṃ. Apica saṅghena mahātherassa saṅgahaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā “tumhe, bhante, gaṇhatha, mayaṃ katvā dassāmā”ti vattabbaṃ. Tīsu cīvaresu yaṃ jiṇṇaṃ hoti, tadatthāya dātabbaṃ. Pakatiyā dupaṭṭacīvarassa dupaṭṭatthāyeva dātabbaṃ. Sacepissa ekapaṭṭacīvaraṃ ghanaṃ hoti, kathinasāṭakā ca pelavā, sāruppatthāya dupaṭṭappahonakameva dātabbaṃ, “ahaṃ alabhanto ekapaṭṭaṃ pārupāmī”ti vadantassapi dupaṭṭaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yo pana lobhapakatiko hoti, tassa na dātabbaṃ. Tenapi “kathinaṃ attharitvā pacchā visibbitvā dve cīvarāni karissāmī”ti na gahetabbaṃ. Yassa pana dīyati, tassa –

By whom should the kathina be spread? By the one to whom the Saṅgha gives the kathina cloth. To whom should the Saṅgha give it? To one whose robe is worn out. If there are many with worn-out robes, it should be given to the most senior. Among the seniors, it should be given to one with a large following who can make and spread the robe on that very day. If the senior cannot, and a junior can, it should be given to him. Moreover, it is proper for the Saṅgha to honor a great elder, so it should be said, “Venerable sir, take it; we will make it and give it to you.” Of the three robes, it should be given for whichever is worn out. For one who naturally has a double-layered robe, it should be given only for a double-layered one. However, if his single-layered robe is thick and the kathina cloth is delicate, it should be given sufficient for a double-layered robe for suitability. Even if he says, “If I don’t get it, I’ll wear a single-layered robe,” it is permissible to give him a double-layered one. But to one who is naturally greedy, it should not be given. Nor should he take it thinking, “I’ll spread the kathina and later unsew it to make two robes.” For the one to whom it is given—

But by whom should the kathina be spread? By the one to whom the Saṅgha gives the kathina robe. But to whom should the Saṅgha give it? To the one whose robe is worn out. If there are many with worn-out robes, it should be given to the elder. Even among the elders, it should be given to the one with a large following who can make the robe and spread it on that very day. If the elder is unable, and a newer (monk) is able, it should be given to him. Moreover, it is proper for the Saṅgha to support the elder monk. Therefore, it should be said, “Venerable sir, you take it; we will make it and give it.” Of the three robes, whichever is worn out, it should be given for that. For one with a double-layered robe by nature, it should be given for a double layer. Even if his single-layered robe is thick, and the kathina cloths are thin, for suitability, enough for a double layer should be given. Even to one saying, “I, not getting (enough), wear a single layer,” it is proper to give a double layer. But to one who is of a greedy nature, it should not be given. Even by him, it should not be taken (thinking), “Having spread the kathina, I will later unsew it and make two robes.” To the one to whom it is being given,

To whom should the Kathina be spread? To whom the Sangha gives the Kathina robe. To whom should the Sangha give it? To one who has worn-out robes. If there are many with worn-out robes, it should be given to the elder. Among the elders, if one with a large following can prepare the robe and spread it on that very day, it should be given to him. If the elder is unable, but a younger one is able, it should be given to him. Moreover, it is permissible for the Sangha to honor the senior monk, so it should be said, “Venerable, you take it, we will prepare it and give it.” Among the three robes, whichever is worn out should be given for that purpose. Normally, for one with two robes, it should be given for the purpose of the two robes. Even if one has one thick robe and the Kathina cloth is thin, it is appropriate to give sufficient for two robes, even if he says, “If I do not obtain it, I will wear one robe.” However, it should not be given to one who is greedy. He should not take it, thinking, “After spreading the Kathina, I will later unsew it and make two robes.” To whom it is given, to him—

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharituṃ, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha give this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. This is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. This kathina cloth of the Saṅgha has arisen. If it is proper for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. This is the announcement.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha. If it is the right time for the Sangha, the Sangha should give this Kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the Kathina. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno deti kathinaṃ attharituṃ, yassāyasmato khamati imassa kathinadussassa itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dānaṃ kathinaṃ attharituṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha gives this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. Let any venerable one who approves of giving this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina remain silent. Let any who does not approve speak.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. This kathina cloth of the Saṅgha has arisen. The Saṅgha gives this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. To whatever venerable one the giving of this kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina is pleasing, let him be silent. Whoever it is not pleasing to, let him speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha hear me. This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha. The Sangha gives this Kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the Kathina. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to give this Kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the Kathina, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, let them speak.

“Dinnaṃ idaṃ saṅghena kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno kathinaṃ attharituṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 307) –

“This kathina cloth has been given by the Saṅgha to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand it.” (Mahāvagga 307)

“This kathina cloth has been given by the Saṅgha to the monk named so-and-so to spread the kathina. It is pleasing to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. Thus, I understand this” (Mahāva. 307) –

“The Sangha has given this Kathina cloth to the monk named so-and-so to spread the Kathina. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it” (Mahāva. 307)—

Evaṃ dinne pana kathine sace taṃ kathinadussaṃ niṭṭhitaparikammameva hoti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce niṭṭhitaparikammaṃ hoti, “ahaṃ thero”ti vā “bahussuto”ti vā ekenapi akātuṃ na labbhati , sabbeheva sannipatitvā dhovanasibbanarajanāni niṭṭhāpetabbāni. Idañhi kathinavattaṃ nāma buddhappasatthaṃ. Atīte padumuttaropi bhagavā kathinavattaṃ akāsi. Tassa kira aggasāvako sujātatthero nāma kathinaṃ gaṇhi. Taṃ satthā aṭṭhasaṭṭhiyā bhikkhusatasahassehi saddhiṃ nisīditvā akāsi.

When the kathina has been given in this way, if that kathina cloth is already fully prepared, that is well. If it is not fully prepared, it cannot be left undone by even one monk thinking, “I am an elder” or “I am well-learned”; all must gather together to complete the washing, sewing, and dyeing. For this kathina procedure is praised by the Buddha. In the past, the Blessed One Padumuttara also performed the kathina procedure. It is said that his chief disciple, the elder Sujāta, took up the kathina, and the Teacher performed it while seated with sixty-eight hundred monks.

When the kathina is offered in this way, if that kathina cloth is fully prepared, that is good. If it is not fully prepared, one cannot refuse to do it, thinking, “I am a senior monk” or “I am very learned.” All should assemble and complete the washing, sewing, and dyeing. This duty concerning the kathina, indeed, is praised by the Buddhas. In the past, the Blessed One Padumuttara also performed the kathina duty. His chief disciple, the elder named Sujāta, took the kathina. The Teacher, sitting together with sixty-eight thousand bhikkhus, performed it.

When the kathina cloth has been given in this manner, if it has already been fully prepared, that is good. If it has not been fully prepared, and even one person cannot do it by saying, “I am a senior monk” or “I am learned,” then all the monks should gather together and complete the tasks of washing, dyeing, and beating the cloth. This is called the kathina observance, which is praised by the Buddha. In the past, even the Blessed One Padumuttara performed the kathina observance. It is said that his chief disciple, the Elder Sujāta, received the kathina cloth. The Teacher, along with sixty-eight hundred thousand monks, sat down and performed it.

Katapariyositaṃ pana kathinaṃ gahetvā atthārakena bhikkhunā sace saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇikā saṅghāṭi paccuddharitabbā, navā saṅghāṭi adhiṭṭhātabbā, “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Sace uttarāsaṅgena kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇako uttarāsaṅgo paccuddharitabbo, navo uttarāsaṅgo adhiṭṭhātabbo, “iminā uttarāsaṅgena kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Sace antaravāsakena kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇako antaravāsako paccuddharitabbo, navo antaravāsako adhiṭṭhātabbo, “iminā antaravāsakena kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā.

Having taken the completed kathina, if the monk who spreads it wishes to spread the kathina with the outer robe, the old outer robe must be relinquished, the new outer robe resolved upon, and the words “With this outer robe I spread the kathina” must be uttered. If he wishes to spread the kathina with the upper robe, the old upper robe must be relinquished, the new upper robe resolved upon, and the words “With this upper robe I spread the kathina” must be uttered. If he wishes to spread the kathina with the inner robe, the old inner robe must be relinquished, the new inner robe resolved upon, and the words “With this inner robe I spread the kathina” must be uttered.

Once the kathina is completed and received, if the bhikkhu who is spreading the kathina wishes to spread the kathina with the outer robe (saṅghāṭī), the old outer robe should be removed, the new outer robe should be determined, and the resolution should be declared: “With this outer robe, I spread the kathina.” If he wishes to spread the kathina with the upper robe (uttarāsaṅga), the old upper robe should be removed, the new upper robe should be determined, and the resolution should be declared: “With this upper robe, I spread the kathina.” If he wishes to spread the kathina with the lower robe (antaravāsaka), the old lower robe should be removed, the new lower robe should be determined, and the resolution should be declared: “With this lower robe, I spread the kathina.”

After receiving the kathina cloth, if a monk who is spreading the kathina wishes to spread it with the saṅghāṭi robe, he should remove the old saṅghāṭi and determine a new one, declaring, “I spread the kathina with this saṅghāṭi robe.” If he wishes to spread it with the upper robe, he should remove the old upper robe and determine a new one, declaring, “I spread the kathina with this upper robe.” If he wishes to spread it with the lower robe, he should remove the old lower robe and determine a new one, declaring, “I spread the kathina with this lower robe.”

Tena (pari. 413) kathinatthārakena bhikkhunā saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, bhante, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodathā”ti. Tehi anumodakehi bhikkhūhi ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodāmā”ti. Tena kathinatthārakena bhikkhunā sambahule bhikkhū upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, bhante, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodathā”ti. Tehi anumodakehi bhikkhūhi ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodāmā”ti. Tena kathinatthārakena bhikkhunā ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodāhī”ti. Tena anumodakena bhikkhunā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “atthataṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodāmī”ti. Evaṃ sabbesaṃ atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre “dvinnaṃ puggalānaṃ atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ atthārakassa ca anumodakassa cā”ti (pari. 403). Punapi vuttaṃ “na saṅgho kathinaṃ attharati, na gaṇo kathinaṃ attharati, puggalo kathinaṃ attharati, saṅghassa anumodanāya gaṇassa anumodanāya puggalassa attharāya saṅghassa atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ, gaṇassa atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ, puggalassa atthataṃ hoti kathina”nti (pari. 414).

That monk (pari. 413) who spreads the kathina, having approached the Sangha, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising his hands in añjali, should say, “Venerable sirs, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; please rejoice.” Those monks who rejoice, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising their hands in añjali, should say to him, “Friend, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; we rejoice.” That monk who spreads the kathina, having approached several monks, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising his hands in añjali, should say, “Venerable sirs, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; please rejoice.” Those monks who rejoice, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising their hands in añjali, should say to him, “Friend, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; we rejoice.” That monk who spreads the kathina, having approached a single monk, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising his hands in añjali, should say, “Friend, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; please rejoice.” That monk who rejoices, placing the upper robe over one shoulder and raising his hands in añjali, should say to him, “Friend, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; I rejoice.” Thus, the kathina is spread for all. It is said in the Parivāra, “The kathina is spread for two persons: the one who spreads it and the one who rejoices” (pari. 403). It is further said, “The Sangha does not spread the kathina, nor does a group spread the kathina; an individual spreads the kathina. For the Sangha’s rejoicing, for the group’s rejoicing, for the individual’s spreading, the kathina is spread for the Sangha, spread for the group, spread for the individual” (pari. 414).

That (pari. 413) bhikkhu spreading the kathina, having approached the Saṅgha, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Venerable sirs, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, please acknowledge it.” Those bhikkhus who are acknowledging, having arranged their upper robes over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Reverend sir, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, we acknowledge it.” That bhikkhu spreading the kathina, having approached a group of bhikkhus, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Venerable sirs, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, please acknowledge it.” Those bhikkhus who are acknowledging, having arranged their upper robes over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Reverend sir, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, we acknowledge it.” That bhikkhu spreading the kathina, having approached one bhikkhu, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Reverend sir, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, please acknowledge it.” That bhikkhu who is acknowledging, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted with joined palms, should say this: “Reverend sir, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, the spreading of the kathina is rightful, I acknowledge it.” Thus, the kathina is spread for all. It is said in the Parivāra: “The kathina is spread for two individuals: the one who spreads it and the one who acknowledges it” (pari. 403). Again it is said: “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, a group does not spread the kathina, an individual spreads the kathina; by the Saṅgha’s acknowledgment, by the group’s acknowledgment, by the individual’s spreading, the kathina is spread for the Saṅgha, the kathina is spread for the group, the kathina is spread for the individual” (pari. 414).

Then, the monk who is spreading the kathina should approach the Saṅgha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Venerable sirs, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. Please rejoice.” The rejoicing monks should arrange their upper robes over one shoulder, raise their hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. We rejoice.” The monk who is spreading the kathina should then approach several monks, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Venerable sirs, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. Please rejoice.” The rejoicing monks should arrange their upper robes over one shoulder, raise their hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. We rejoice.” The monk who is spreading the kathina should then approach one monk, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. Please rejoice.” The rejoicing monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Friend, the kathina has been spread for the Saṅgha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. I rejoice.” Thus, the kathina is spread for all. It is said in the Parivāra, “The kathina is spread for two individuals: the one who spreads it and the one who rejoices.” It is also said, “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, nor does a group. An individual spreads the kathina. The kathina is spread for the Saṅgha through their rejoicing, for the group through their rejoicing, and for the individual through their spreading.”

Evaṃ atthate pana kathine sace kathinacīvarena saddhiṃ ābhataṃ ānisaṃsaṃ dāyakā “yena amhākaṃ kathinaṃ gahitaṃ, tasseva demā”ti denti, bhikkhusaṅgho anissaro. Atha avicāretvāva datvā gacchanti, bhikkhusaṅgho issaro. Tasmā sace kathinatthārakassa sesacīvarānipi dubbalāni honti, saṅghena apaloketvā tesampi atthāya vatthāni dātabbāni, kammavācā pana ekāyeva vaṭṭati. Avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbāni, ṭhitikāya abhāve therāsanato paṭṭhāya dātabbāni, garubhaṇḍaṃ na bhājetabbaṃ. Sace pana ekasīmāya bahū vihārā honti, sabbehi bhikkhūhi sannipātāpetvā ekattha kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ, visuṃ visuṃ attharituṃ na vaṭṭati.

When the kathina has been spread in this way, if the donors give the benefits brought with the kathina robe, saying, “We give it to the one by whom our kathina was taken,” the Sangha has no authority over it. But if they give it without consideration and depart, the Sangha has authority. Therefore, if the remaining robes of the monk who spread the kathina are worn out, the Sangha, having consulted, should give cloth for those as well, though a single formal recitation suffices. The remaining benefits of the kathina—strong cloth—should be given to those established in the rains retreat; in the absence of such, they should be given starting from the elders’ seats. Heavy items should not be distributed. However, if there are many monasteries within one boundary, all monks must be gathered and the kathina spread in one place; it is not permissible to spread it separately.

When the kathina has been spread in this way, if donors offer the privileges that have come along with the kathina cloth, saying, “We give these to the one by whom our kathina was taken,” the Saṅgha of bhikkhus has no authority. But if they give without specifying and depart, the Saṅgha of bhikkhus has authority. Therefore, if the remaining robes of the kathina-spreading bhikkhu are also worn out, the Saṅgha, having announced it, should give cloths for those as well, but only one formal act of the Saṅgha (kammavācā) is appropriate. Cloths for the remaining kathina privileges that are strong should be given according to the vassāvāsa residence, or in the absence of a residence, they should be given starting from the seat of the senior elder; heavy goods (garubhaṇḍa) should not be divided. If, however, there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the bhikkhus should be assembled, and the kathina should be spread in one place; it is not appropriate to spread it separately.

When the kathina has been spread in this manner, if the donors bring the benefits along with the kathina cloth and say, “We give this to the one who received our kathina,” the Saṅgha has no authority over it. If they give it without consulting, the Saṅgha has authority. Therefore, if the remaining robes of the one who spread the kathina are also worn out, the Saṅgha should, after informing them, give cloth for their use as well. However, only one formal act is required. The remaining benefits of the kathina should be given as strong cloth for the duration of the rains residence. If there is no such duration, they should be given starting from the senior monks’ seats. Heavy goods should not be distributed. If there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the monks should gather in one place to spread the kathina. It is not permissible to spread it separately.

“Atthatakathinānaṃ vo, bhikkhave, pañca kappissanti, anāmantacāro asamādānacāro gaṇabhojanaṃ yāvadatthacīvaraṃ yo ca tattha cīvaruppādo. So nesaṃ bhavissatī”ti (mahāva. 306) vacanato atthatakathinānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anāmantacārādayo pana pañcānisaṃsā labbhanti. Tattha anāmantacāroti anāmantetvā caraṇaṃ, yāva kathinaṃ na uddharīyati, tāva cārittasikkhāpadena anāpattīti vuttaṃ hoti. Asamādānacāroti cīvaraṃ asamādāya caraṇaṃ, cīvaravippavāsoti attho. Gaṇabhojananti gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadena anāpatti vuttā. Yāvadatthacīvaranti yāvatā cīvarena attho, tāvatakaṃ anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitaṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Yo ca tattha cīvaruppādoti tattha kathinatthatasīmāya matakacīvaraṃ vā hotu saṅghaṃ uddissa dinnaṃ vā saṅghikena tatruppādena ābhataṃ vā, yena kenaci ākārena yaṃ saṅghikaṃ cīvaraṃ uppajjati, taṃ tesaṃ bhavissatīti attho.

“For you, monks, whose kathina has been spread, five things will be allowable: going without invitation, going without taking up [robes], group meals, as much robe cloth as needed, and whatever robe material arises there will be for them” (mahāva. 306). Thus, monks whose kathina has been spread gain these five benefits, such as going without invitation. Therein, going without invitation means traveling without informing; as long as the kathina is not relinquished, there is no offense under the training rule on traveling, it is said. Going without taking up means traveling without taking up the robe, meaning separation from the robe. Group meals means there is no offense under the training rule on group meals. As much robe cloth as needed means that as much robe cloth as is needed, uncommitted and unallocated, is permissible. Whatever robe material arises there means that whatever Sangha robe material arises in that boundary where the kathina was spread—whether from a deceased person, given with the Sangha in mind, or brought by Sangha means—by whatever means, it will be for them.

Because of the statement, “Monks, for those who have spread the kathina, five things will be allowable: going without informing, going without taking [the three robes], group meals, keeping robes as long as needed, and whatever robe-material arises there. That will be theirs” (mahāva. 306), the bhikkhus who have spread the kathina obtain the five privileges, such as going without informing. Here, going without informing (anāmantacāro) means going without informing; as long as the kathina is not withdrawn, it is said that there is no offense through the training rule concerning going on almsround. Going without taking [the three robes] (asamādānacāro) means going without taking a robe; it means being away from a robe. Group meals (gaṇabhojana) means no offense is declared regarding the group meal training rule. Keeping robes as long as needed (yāvadatthacīvara) means that as many robes as are needed may be kept undetermined and un-relinquished. Whatever robe-material arises there (yo ca tattha cīvaruppādo) means: whatever robe-material belonging to the Saṅgha arises in that boundary where the kathina has been spread, whether it is robe-material from a deceased person, or given with the intention for the Saṅgha, or brought by means of Saṅgha property arising there, or by whatever means, that will belong to them.

“Monks, five things are allowable for those who have spread the kathina: going without informing, going without taking a formal leave, eating in a group, using robes as needed, and any robe material that arises there.” (Mahāvagga 306) Thus, for monks who have spread the kathina, these five benefits are obtained. Here, going without informing means going without informing, and until the kathina is taken down, there is no offense for breaking the training rule on going. Going without taking a formal leave means going without taking a robe, which means being without a robe. Eating in a group means there is no offense for breaking the training rule on eating in a group. Using robes as needed means using as much robe material as needed, without determining or altering it. Any robe material that arises there means any robe material that arises within the boundary where the kathina has been spread, whether it is a deceased monk’s robe, given to the Saṅgha, or brought by any means. Whatever robe material arises for the Saṅgha, it will belong to them.

30. Garubhaṇḍavinicchayakathā

30. Discussion on the Determination of Heavy Items

30. The Discussion on the Analysis of Heavy Goods

30. Discussion on the Determination of Heavy Goods

227. Garubhaṇḍānīti ettha “pañcimāni, bhikkhave, avissajjiyāni na vissajjetabbāni saṅghena vā gaṇena vā puggalena vā, vissajjitānipi avissajjitāni honti, yo vissajjeyya, āpatti thullaccayassā”tiādinā (cūḷava. 321) nayena dassitāni ārāmo ārāmavatthu, vihāro vihāravatthu, mañco pīṭhaṃ bhisi bimbohanaṃ, lohakumbhī lohabhāṇakaṃ lohavārako lohakaṭāhaṃ vāsi pharasu kuṭhārī kudālo nikhādanaṃ, valli veḷu muñjaṃ pabbajaṃ tiṇaṃ mattikā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍanti imāni pañca garubhaṇḍāni nāma.

227. Heavy items—here, as shown by the method beginning, “Monks, these five things are not to be relinquished; they should not be relinquished by the Sangha, a group, or an individual. Even if relinquished, they remain unrelinquished, and one who relinquishes them commits an offense of grave nature” (cūḷava. 321), these five heavy items are: a garden and garden land, a monastery and monastery land, a bed, a chair, a mattress, a pillow, a bronze pot, a bronze vessel, a bronze jar, a bronze cauldron, an axe, a hatchet, an adze, a hoe, a spade, creepers, bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, other grass, clay, wooden items, and clay items.

227. Here, regarding heavy goods (garubhaṇḍāni): “Monks, these five are not to be disposed of, they should not be disposed of by the Saṅgha, or by a group, or by an individual; even if disposed of, they are as if not disposed of; whoever should dispose of them, there is an offense of wrong-doing (thullaccaya)” (cūḷava. 321). The five heavy goods (garubhaṇḍāni) are shown in this way: a monastery (ārāma), the site for a monastery (ārāmavatthu), a dwelling (vihāra), the site for a dwelling (vihāravatthu), a bed (mañca), a chair (pīṭha), a bolster (bhisi), a cushion (bimbohana), a copper pot (lohakumbhī), a copper vessel (lohabhāṇaka), a copper basin (lohavārako), a copper cauldron (lohakaṭāha), a knife (vāsi), an axe (pharasu), a hatchet (kuṭhārī), a hoe (kudālo), a digging tool (nikhādanaṃ), a creeper (valli), bamboo (veḷu), muñja grass (muñjaṃ), pabbaja grass (pabbajaṃ), grass (tiṇaṃ), clay (mattikā), wooden goods (dārubhaṇḍaṃ), and clay goods (mattikābhaṇḍaṃ).

227. Heavy goods here refer to the five things that should not be given away by the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual. Even if given away, they are not considered given away. If one gives them away, there is an offense of grave misconduct. These are shown in the Cūḷavagga (321) as follows: a monastery, monastery land, a dwelling, dwelling land, a bed, a chair, a mattress, a pillow, an iron pot, an iron vessel, an iron bowl, an iron pan, an axe, a hatchet, a spade, a hoe, a chisel, a rope, bamboo, reeds, grass, clay, wooden goods, and earthenware goods. These are the five heavy goods.

Tattha (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) ārāmo nāma pupphārāmo vā phalārāmo vā. Ārāmavatthu nāma tesaṃyeva ārāmānaṃ atthāya paricchinditvā ṭhapitokāso, tesu vā ārāmesu vinaṭṭhesu tesaṃ porāṇakabhūmibhāgo. Vihāro nāma yaṃ kiñci pāsādādi senāsanaṃ. Vihāravatthu nāma tassa patiṭṭhānokāso. Mañco nāma masārako bundikābaddho kuḷīrapādako āhaccapādakoti imesaṃ catunnaṃ mañcānaṃ aññataro. Pīṭhaṃ nāma masārakādīnaṃyeva catunnaṃ pīṭhānaṃ aññataraṃ. Bhisi nāma uṇṇabhisiādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ aññatarā. Bimbohanaṃ nāma rukkhatūlalatātūlapoṭakītūlānaṃ aññataraṃ. Lohakumbhī nāma kāḷalohena vā tambalohena vā yena kenaci lohena katakumbhī. Lohabhāṇakādīsupi eseva nayo. Ettha pana bhāṇakanti arañjaro vuccati. Vārakoti ghaṭo. Kaṭāhaṃ kaṭāhameva. Vāsiādīsu valliādīsu ca duviññeyyaṃ nāma natthi. Pañcāti ca rāsivasena vuttaṃ, sarūpavasena panetāni pañcavīsatividhāni honti. Vuttañhetaṃ –

Therein (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), garden means a flower garden or a fruit garden. Garden land means the space set aside for those very gardens, or, if those gardens are destroyed, their ancient land portion. Monastery means any dwelling such as a mansion. Monastery land means the site where it stands. Bed means any one of the four types: one with a frame, one bound with straps, one with crab-like legs, or one with detachable legs. Chair means any one of the four types like the bed. Mattress means any one of the five types, such as a woolen mattress. Pillow means any one of those made of wood cotton, vine cotton, grass cotton, or cloth cotton. Bronze pot means a pot made of black bronze, red bronze, or any kind of bronze. The same applies to bronze vessel and so forth. Here, vessel refers to a cooking pot. Jar means a pitcher. Cauldron is just a cauldron. In axe and the rest, and in creepers and the rest, there is nothing difficult to understand. Five is said as a category; in their specific forms, these are twenty-fivefold. It is said—

Therein (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), a monastery (ārāma) is either a flower monastery or a fruit monastery. The site for a monastery (ārāmavatthu) is the area set aside for those very monasteries, or the original ground of those monasteries if they are destroyed. A dwelling (vihāra) is any kind of residence, such as a palace. The site for a dwelling (vihāravatthu) is the place where it is established. A bed (mañca) is one of these four kinds of beds: one with legs made of solid wood (masārako), one with legs joined by a frame (bundikābaddho), one with curved legs (kuḷīrapādako), and one with detachable legs (āhaccapādako). A chair (pīṭhaṃ) is one of the same four kinds of chairs: masāraka, etc. A bolster (bhisi) is one of five kinds, such as a wool bolster. A cushion (bimbohanaṃ) is one of the following: a tree-cotton cushion, a cotton-bush-cotton cushion, a vine-cotton cushion, or a poṭakī-cotton cushion. A copper pot (lohakumbhī) is a pot made of black copper, red copper, or any kind of copper. The same method applies to copper vessels (lohabhāṇakā), etc. Here, vessel (bhāṇaka) is called a large jar. Basin (vārako) is a pot. Cauldron (kaṭāhaṃ) is just a cauldron. In the case of knife (vāsi), etc., and creeper (valli), etc., there is nothing difficult to understand. “Five” is said in terms of categories; in terms of their specific forms, however, they are of twenty-five kinds. It is said:

Here (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 321), a monastery means a flower garden or a fruit garden. Monastery land means the area designated for those monasteries, or the old land of those monasteries if they are destroyed. A dwelling means any residence, such as a building. Dwelling land means the site where it is established. A bed means any of the four types of beds: a masāraka bed, a bundikābaddha bed, a kuḷīrapādaka bed, or an āhaccapādaka bed. A chair means any of the four types of chairs, such as a masāraka chair. A mattress means any of the five types, such as a woolen mattress. A pillow means any of the materials like tree cotton, plant cotton, or cotton cloth. An iron pot means a pot made of any iron, whether black or red. An iron vessel and so on follow the same pattern. Here, a vessel means a cauldron. A bowl means a pot. A pan means a pan. An axe, etc., and a rope, etc., are easy to understand. Five is said in terms of categories, but in terms of similarity, there are twenty-five types. It is said:

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayakathā – idañhi sabbampi garubhaṇḍaṃ senāsanakkhandhake “avissajjiya”nti vuttaṃ, kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ “avebhaṅgiya”nti dassitaṃ, parivāre pana –

Here is the discussion of determination: All these heavy items are called “not to be relinquished” in the Senāsanakkhandhaka, shown as “not to be divided” in the Kīṭāgiri case, but in the Parivāra—

Herein is the discussion of the analysis: all these heavy goods are said to be “not to be disposed of” in the Senāsanakkhandhaka, and they are shown to be “not to be divided” in the Kīṭāgiri case; but in the Parivāra –

Here is the discussion on the determination: All heavy goods are said to be “not to be given away” in the Senāsana Khandhaka, and “not to be broken” in the Kīṭāgiri case. In the Parivāra, it is said:

Āgataṃ. Tasmā mūlacchejjavasena avissajjiyañca avebhaṅgiyañca, parivattanavasena pana vissajjentassa paribhuñjantassa ca anāpattīti evamettha adhippāyo veditabbo.

It is recorded. Thus, they are not to be relinquished or divided by cutting at the root, but there is no offense in relinquishing or using them by way of exchange; this intention should be understood here.

It has come. Therefore, they are not to be disposed of and not to be divided in the sense of cutting off the root; however, in the sense of exchange, there is no offense for one who disposes of them or uses them. This is the meaning to be understood here.

Thus, in terms of cutting off the root, they are not to be given away and not to be broken, but in terms of exchange, there is no offense for one who gives them away or uses them. This is the meaning to be understood here.

228. Tatrāyaṃ anupubbikathā – idaṃ tāva pañcavidhampi cīvarapiṇḍapātabhesajjatthāya upanetuṃ na vaṭṭati, thāvarena ca thāvaraṃ, garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍaṃ parivattetuṃ vaṭṭati. Thāvare pana khettaṃ vatthu taḷākaṃ mātikāti evarūpaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa vicāretuṃ vā sampaṭicchituṃ vā adhivāsetuṃ vā na vaṭṭati, kappiyakārakeheva vicāritato kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ vaṭṭati. Ārāmena pana ārāmaṃ ārāmavatthuṃ vihāraṃ vihāravatthunti imāni cattāripi parivattetuṃ vaṭṭati.

228. Here is the sequential discussion: These five types must not be offered for robes, almsfood, or medicine, but it is permissible to exchange one fixed item for another fixed item, or one heavy item for another heavy item. However, fixed items like fields, land, ponds, or channels must not be considered, accepted, or agreed to by the Sangha; only permissible items considered by stewards are allowable. But it is permissible to exchange a garden for a garden, garden land, monastery, or monastery land—these four.

228. Herein is the sequential discussion: none of these five kinds [of heavy goods] can be used for the sake of robes, almsfood, or medicine; but permanent property (thāvara) can be exchanged for permanent property, and heavy goods (garubhaṇḍa) can be exchanged for heavy goods. However, regarding permanent property, it is not appropriate for the Saṅgha of bhikkhus to evaluate, accept, or authorize land, fields, reservoirs, or irrigation channels; what is evaluated by allowable attendants (kappiyakāraka) as allowable goods is appropriate. But a monastery (ārāma) can be exchanged for a monastery, a monastery site, a dwelling, or a dwelling site – these four.

228. Here is the sequential discussion: First, these five types of heavy goods cannot be used for robes, almsfood, or medicine. However, immovable property can be exchanged with immovable property, and heavy goods can be exchanged with heavy goods. But immovable property such as fields, land, ponds, or boundaries cannot be considered, accepted, or agreed upon by the Saṅgha. Only allowable goods can be considered. However, a monastery can be exchanged with a monastery, monastery land with a dwelling, or dwelling land. These four can be exchanged.

Tatrāyaṃ parivattananayo – saṅghassa nāḷikerārāmo dūre hoti, kappiyakārakā bahutaraṃ khādanti, yampi na khādanti, tato sakaṭavetanaṃ datvā appameva āharanti, aññesaṃ pana tassa ārāmassa avidūre gāmavāsīnaṃ manussānaṃ vihārassa samīpe ārāmo hoti, te saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā sakena ārāmena taṃ ārāmaṃ yācanti, saṅghena “ruccati saṅghassā”ti apaloketvā sampaṭicchitabbo. Sacepi bhikkhūnaṃ rukkhasahassaṃ hoti, manussānaṃ pañca satāni, “tumhākaṃ ārāmo khuddako”ti na vattabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi hi ayaṃ khuddako, atha kho itarato bahutaraṃ āyaṃ deti. Sacepi samakameva deti, evampi icchiticchitakkhaṇe paribhuñjituṃ sakkāti gahetabbameva. Sace pana manussānaṃ bahutarā rukkhā honti, “nanu tumhākaṃ bahutarā rukkhā”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace “atirekaṃ amhākaṃ puññaṃ hotu, saṅghassa demā”ti vadanti, jānāpetvā sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhūnaṃ rukkhā phaladhārino, manussānaṃ rukkhā na tāva phalaṃ gaṇhanti, kiñcāpi na gaṇhanti, “na cirena gaṇhissantī”ti sampaṭicchitabbameva. Manussānaṃ rukkhā phaladhārino, bhikkhūnaṃ rukkhā na tāva phalaṃ gaṇhanti, “nanu tumhākaṃ rukkhā phaladhārino”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace “gaṇhatha, bhante, amhākaṃ puññaṃ bhavissatī”ti denti, jānāpetvā sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ ārāmena ārāmo parivattetabbo. Eteneva nayena ārāmavatthupi vihāropi vihāravatthupi ārāmena parivattetabbaṃ, ārāmavatthunā ca mahantena vā khuddakena vā ārāmaārāmavatthuvihāravihāravatthūni.

Here is the method of exchange: If the Sangha has a coconut garden far away, the stewards consume much of it, and even what they do not consume, they bring little after paying cart fees; whereas near another monastery, villagers have a garden close by and approach the Sangha, requesting that garden with their own garden, the Sangha should consult, “Is it agreeable to the Sangha?” and accept it. Even if the monks have a thousand trees and the people five hundred, it should not be said, “Your garden is small.” For though it is small, it yields more than the other. Even if it yields the same, it can be used at the desired time, so it should be taken. But if the people have more trees, it should be said, “Do you not have more trees?” If they say, “Let the excess be our merit; we give it to the Sangha,” it is permissible to accept after informing them. If the monks’ trees bear fruit and the people’s do not yet, though they do not, it should still be accepted with, “They will bear soon.” If the people’s trees bear fruit and the monks’ do not yet, it should be said, “Do your trees not bear fruit?” If they say, “Take it, venerables, it will be our merit,” it is permissible to accept after informing them. Thus, a garden is exchanged for a garden. By this same method, garden land, a monastery, and monastery land should be exchanged with a garden, and with garden land—whether large or small—for a garden, garden land, monastery, or monastery land.

Herein is the method of exchange: the Saṅgha’s coconut monastery is far away, the allowable attendants (kappiyakāraka) consume a great deal, and even what they do not consume, they bring only a little after paying for cart hire; but other people living in a village not far from that monastery have a monastery near the dwelling; they approach the Saṅgha and ask for that monastery in exchange for their monastery; the Saṅgha, having announced, “Does the Saṅgha agree?” should accept. Even if the bhikkhus have a thousand trees and the people have five hundred, it should not be said, “Your monastery is smaller.” Even though it is smaller, it nevertheless yields much more income than the other. Even if it yields the same, it can still be used at any desired time, so it should be taken. If, however, the people have many more trees, it should be said, “Indeed, you have many more trees.” If they say, “Let the excess be our merit, we give it to the Saṅgha,” it is appropriate to accept after making it known. The bhikkhus’ trees are bearing fruit; the people’s trees are not yet bearing fruit; even though they are not yet bearing, it should be accepted, [thinking,] “Before long, they will bear.” The people’s trees are bearing fruit; the bhikkhus’ trees are not yet bearing fruit; it should be said, “Indeed, your trees are bearing fruit.” If they say, “Take them, venerable sirs, it will be our merit,” it is appropriate to accept after making it known. In this way, a monastery should be exchanged for a monastery. By this same method, a monastery site, a dwelling, and a dwelling site should also be exchanged for a monastery, and with a large or small monastery site, a monastery, a monastery site, a dwelling, and a dwelling site [can be exchanged].

Here is the method of exchange: If the Saṅgha has a coconut grove far away, and the attendants eat most of it, and even what they do not eat is brought with great effort, while nearby villagers have a monastery close to their village, they may approach the Saṅgha and request to exchange their monastery for the coconut grove. The Saṅgha should consider it and, if agreeable, accept it. Even if the monks have a thousand trees and the villagers have five hundred, it should not be said, “Your monastery is small.” For even if it is small, it may bring greater benefit. Even if it brings equal benefit, it should still be accepted, as it can be used when desired. If the villagers have more trees, it should be said, “You have more trees.” If they say, “Let it be our merit, we give it to the Saṅgha,” it can be accepted after informing them. If the monks’ trees bear fruit and the villagers’ trees do not yet bear fruit, it should still be accepted, thinking, “They will bear fruit soon.” If the villagers’ trees bear fruit and the monks’ trees do not yet bear fruit, it should be said, “Your trees bear fruit.” If they say, “Take it, Venerable, it will be our merit,” it can be accepted after informing them. Thus, a monastery can be exchanged with a monastery. In the same way, monastery land, a dwelling, or dwelling land can be exchanged with a monastery, whether large or small.

Kathaṃ vihārena vihāro parivattetabbo? Saṅghassa antogāme gehaṃ hoti, manussānaṃ vihāramajjhe pāsādo hoti, ubhopi agghena samakā, sace manussā tena pāsādena taṃ gehaṃ yācanti, sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhūnaṃ ce mahagghataraṃ gehaṃ hoti, “mahagghataraṃ amhākaṃ geha”nti vutte ca “kiñcāpi mahagghataraṃ pabbajitānaṃ asāruppaṃ, na sakkā tattha pabbajitehi vasituṃ, idaṃ pana sāruppaṃ, gaṇhathā”ti vadanti, evampi sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana manussānaṃ mahagghaṃ hoti, “nanu tumhākaṃ gehaṃ mahaggha”nti vattabbaṃ. “Hotu, bhante, amhākaṃ puññaṃ bhavissati, gaṇhathā”ti vutte pana sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Evampi vihārena vihāro parivattetabbo. Eteneva nayena vihāravatthupi ārāmopi ārāmavatthupi vihārena parivattetabbaṃ, vihāravatthunā ca mahagghena vā appagghena vā vihāravihāravatthuārāmaārāmavatthūni. Evaṃ thāvarena thāvaraparivattanaṃ veditabbaṃ.

How is a monastery exchanged for a monastery? If the Sangha has a house in a village and people have a mansion in the middle of a monastery, both of equal value, and the people request that house with their mansion, it is permissible to accept. If the monks’ house is of greater value and they say, “Our house is more valuable,” and the people say, “Though it is more valuable, it is unsuitable for renunciants; it cannot be lived in by renunciants, but this is suitable, take it,” it is permissible to accept. But if the people’s is more valuable, it should be said, “Is your house not more valuable?” If they say, “Let it be, venerables, it will be our merit; take it,” it is permissible to accept. Thus, a monastery is exchanged for a monastery. By this same method, monastery land, a garden, and garden land should be exchanged with a monastery, and with monastery land—whether of great or little value—for a monastery, monastery land, garden, or garden land. Thus, exchange of fixed for fixed should be understood.

How should a dwelling be exchanged for a dwelling? The Saṅgha has a house within the village; the people have a palace in the middle of the dwelling; both are of equal value; if the people ask for that house in exchange for that palace, it is appropriate to accept. If the bhikkhus’ house is of greater value, and when it is said, “Our house is of greater value,” they say, “Even though it is of greater value, it is unsuitable for renunciants; renunciants cannot live there; but this is suitable, take it,” even then it is appropriate to accept. If, however, the people’s [house] is of greater value, it should be said, “Indeed, your house is of greater value.” But if they say, “Let it be, venerable sirs, it will be our merit, take it,” then it is appropriate to accept. In this way, a dwelling should be exchanged for a dwelling. By this same method, a dwelling site, a monastery, and a monastery site should also be exchanged for a dwelling, and with a valuable or inexpensive dwelling site, a dwelling, a dwelling site, a monastery, and a monastery site [can be exchanged]. Thus, the exchange of permanent property for permanent property should be understood.

How should a dwelling be exchanged with a dwelling? If the Saṅgha has a house within a village, and the villagers have a mansion in the middle of the monastery, and both are of equal value, if the villagers request to exchange their mansion for the house, it can be accepted. If the monks’ house is more valuable, and it is said, “Our house is more valuable,” but they say, “Even though it is more valuable, it is not suitable for ascetics to live there, but this is suitable, please take it,” it can still be accepted. If the villagers’ house is more valuable, it should be said, “Your house is more valuable.” If they say, “Let it be our merit, please take it,” it can be accepted. Thus, a dwelling can be exchanged with a dwelling. In the same way, dwelling land, a monastery, or monastery land can be exchanged with a dwelling, whether of great or small value. Thus, immovable property can be exchanged with immovable property.

Garubhaṇḍena garubhaṇḍaparivattane pana mañcapīṭhaṃ mahantaṃ vā hotu khuddakaṃ vā, antamaso caturaṅgulapādakaṃ gāmadārakehi paṃsvāgārakesu kīḷantehi katampi saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti. Sacepi rājarājamahāmattādayo ekappahāreneva mañcasataṃ vā mañcasahassaṃ vā denti, sabbe kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā, sampaṭicchitvā “vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjathā”ti dātabbā, puggalikavasena na dātabbā. Atirekamañce bhaṇḍāgārādīsu paññapetvā pattacīvaraṃ nikkhipitumpi vaṭṭati. Bahisīmāya “saṅghassa demā”ti dinnamañco saṅghattherassa vasanaṭṭhāne dātabbo. Tattha ce bahū mañcā honti, mañcena kammaṃ natthi. Yassa vasanaṭṭhāne kammaṃ atthi, tattha “saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjathā”ti dātabbo. Mahagghena satagghanakena vā sahassagghanakena vā mañcena aññaṃ mañcasataṃ labhati, parivattetvā gahetabbaṃ. Na kevalaṃ mañcena mañcoyeva, ārāmaārāmavatthuvihāravihāravatthupīṭhabhisibimbohanānipi parivattetuṃ vaṭṭanti. Esa nayo pīṭhabhisibimbohanesupi. Etesu pana akappiyaṃ na paribhuñjitabbaṃ, kappiyaṃ saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Akappiyaṃ vā mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vā parivattetvā vuttavatthūni gahetabbāni. Agarubhaṇḍupagaṃ pana bhisibimbohanaṃ nāma natthi.

In exchange of heavy items for heavy items, whether a bed or chair is large or small, even one with four-inch legs made by village children playing in mud huts, from the time it is given to the Sangha, it is a heavy item. Even if kings or ministers give a hundred or a thousand beds in one stroke, all permissible beds should be accepted, and after accepting, they should be given with, “Use them in Sangha order by seniority,” not for individual use. Extra beds may be placed in storehouses for keeping bowls and robes. A bed given outside the boundary with “We give it to the Sangha” should be given to the Sangha elder’s dwelling place. If there are many beds there, there is no need to act with a bed. Where there is need in a dwelling place, it should be given with, “Use it for Sangha benefit.” If a valuable bed worth a hundred or a thousand is obtained for another hundred beds, it should be taken by exchange. Not only a bed for a bed, but also a garden, garden land, monastery, monastery land, chair, mattress, or pillow may be exchanged. The same applies to chairs, mattresses, and pillows. Among these, the impermissible must not be used; the permissible should be used for Sangha benefit. Whether impermissible or valuable, or permissible, they should be exchanged for the stated items. There is no mattress or pillow among non-heavy items.

Regarding the exchange of heavy goods for heavy goods, whether a bed or a chair is large or small, even if it is only four fingerbreadths in height and made by village children playing in sand houses, from the time it is given to the Saṅgha, it is heavy goods. Even if kings, great ministers, and others give a hundred beds or a thousand beds in one offering, all allowable beds should be accepted; having accepted them, they should be given, [saying,] “Use them according to seniority, as Saṅgha property”; they should not be given as individual property. Excess beds should be placed in storehouses and the like, and it is even appropriate to store bowls and robes [on them]. A bed given outside the boundary, [saying,] “We give it to the Saṅgha,” should be given at the residence of the senior elder of the Saṅgha. If there are many beds there, and there is no need for a bed, it should be given at the residence where there is a need, [saying,] “Use it as Saṅgha property.” If another hundred beds are obtained with a valuable bed worth a hundred or a thousand, it should be exchanged and taken. Not only a bed for a bed, but a monastery, a monastery site, a dwelling, a dwelling site, a chair, a bolster, and a cushion can also be exchanged. The same method applies to chairs, bolsters, and cushions. Herein, however, what is unallowable should not be used; what is allowable should be used as Saṅgha property. What is unallowable or valuable should be exchanged, and the mentioned items should be taken. But there is no such thing as a bolster or a cushion that is classified as non-heavy goods.

Heavy goods can be exchanged with heavy goods: A bed or chair, whether large or small, even if made by village children playing in the sand, becomes heavy goods for the Saṅgha from the time it is given. Even if kings or ministers give a hundred or a thousand beds at once, all should be accepted as allowable beds. After accepting, they should be given for use by the Saṅgha in order of seniority, not for personal use. Excess beds can be stored in the storeroom, and robes and bowls can also be placed there. Outside the boundary, a bed given to the Saṅgha should be given to the senior monk’s residence. If there are many beds, and no work is needed for the bed, but work is needed for the residence, it should be given there, saying, “Use it for the Saṅgha’s benefit.” If a bed worth a hundred or a thousand is obtained, it can be exchanged for another hundred beds. Not only beds, but also monasteries, monastery land, dwellings, dwelling land, chairs, mattresses, and pillows can be exchanged. The same applies to chairs, mattresses, and pillows. However, unallowable items should not be used, but allowable items should be used for the Saṅgha’s benefit. Unallowable or valuable items should be exchanged, and the mentioned items should be taken. There is no such thing as a mattress or pillow that is not heavy goods.

229. Lohakumbhī lohabhāṇakaṃ lohakaṭāhanti imāni tīṇi mahantāni vā hontu khuddakāni vā, antamaso pasatamattaudakagaṇhanakānipi garubhaṇḍāniyeva. Lohavārako pana kāḷalohatambalohavaṭṭalohakaṃsalohānaṃ yena kenaci kato sīhaḷadīpe pādagaṇhanako bhājetabbo. Pādo ca nāma magadhanāḷiyā pañcanāḷimattaṃ gaṇhāti , tato atirekagaṇhanako garubhaṇḍaṃ. Imāni tāva pāḷiyaṃ āgatāni lohabhājanāni. Pāḷiyaṃ pana anāgatāni bhiṅgārapaṭiggahauḷauṅkadabbikaṭacchupātitaṭṭakasarakasamuggaaṅgārakapalladhūmakaṭacchuādīni khuddakāni vā mahantāni vā sabbāni garubhaṇḍāni. Patto ayathālakaṃ tambalohathālakanti imāni pana bhājanīyāni. Kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohabhājanavikati saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭā vā vaṭṭati, puggalikaparibhogena na vaṭṭati. Kaṃsalohādibhājanaṃ saṅghassa dinnampi hi pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭati, gihivikaṭanīhāreneva paribhuñjitabbanti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ.

229. Bronze pot, bronze vessel, bronze cauldron—whether large or small, even those holding a mere handful of water—are indeed heavy items. Bronze jar, whether made of black bronze, red bronze, refined bronze, or bell-metal, in Sri Lanka, one holding a foot’s measure should be distributed. A foot’s measure, by Magadhan standard, holds about five measures; anything holding more is a heavy item. These are the bronze vessels mentioned in the canon. Those not mentioned in the canon—such as water jars, containers, scoops, spoons, plates, trays, boxes, coal pans, incense holders, and so forth—whether small or large, are all heavy items. The bowl, iron tray, and red bronze tray are distributable vessels. Bell-metal or refined bronze vessels, whether for Sangha use or refashioned by laypeople, are permissible; for individual use, they are not permissible. Even if given to the Sangha, bell-metal vessels are not portable; they must be used as refashioned by laypeople, it is said in the Mahāpaccariya.

229. A copper pot, a copper vessel, and a copper cauldron – these three, whether they are large or small, even if they hold only a pasata measure of water, are indeed heavy goods. A copper basin (lohavārako), however, made of black copper, red copper, mixed metal, or bronze, holds a foot measure in Sri Lanka, should be divided. And a foot measure holds five nāḷi measures of Magadha; what holds more than that is heavy goods. These are the metal vessels that have come down in the Pāḷi. But those not mentioned in the Pāḷi – water dippers (bhiṅgāra), ladles (paṭiggaha), small ladles (uḷauṅka), large spoons (dabbī), small spoons (kaṭacchu), trays (pāti), plates (taṭṭaka), bowls (saraka), caskets (samugga), charcoal braziers (aṅgārakapalla), smoke spoons (dhūmakaṭacchu), and so on – whether small or large, are all heavy goods. A bowl, an iron bowl, and a red copper bowl are to be divided. The various forms of bronze, mixed metal, and metal vessels are allowable as Saṅgha property or as altered by householders; they are not allowable as individual property. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that even though bronze and other metal vessels are given to the Saṅgha, they are not appropriate for personal use; they should be used only by way of alteration by householders.

229. An iron pot, an iron vessel, an iron pan: These three, whether large or small, even if only capable of holding a handful of water, are heavy goods. An iron bowl made of any iron, whether black, red, or round, in Sri Lanka, is a footed vessel that should be divided. A foot is five nāḷis in Magadha, and anything larger than that is heavy goods. These are the iron vessels mentioned in the texts. Those not mentioned in the texts, such as bhiṅgāra, paṭiggaha, uḷauṅka, dabbika, kaṭacchu, pātita, ṭṭaka, saraka, samugga, aṅgāraka, pallaka, dhūmaka, kaṭacchu, etc., whether small or large, are all heavy goods. A bowl, whether of inferior or superior iron, is a vessel. Bronze, round iron, and other vessels can be used for the Saṅgha’s benefit or for lay purposes, but not for personal use. Even if a bronze vessel is given to the Saṅgha, it cannot be used for personal purposes; it should be used only for lay purposes, as stated in the Mahāpaccariya.

Ṭhapetvā pana bhājanavikatiṃ aññasmimpi kappiyalohabhaṇḍe añjanī añjanisalākā kaṇṇamalaharaṇī sūci paṇṇasūci khuddako pipphalako khuddakaṃ ārakaṇṭakaṃ kuñcikā tāḷaṃ kattarayaṭṭhi vedhako natthudānaṃ bhiṇḍivālo lohakūṭo lohakutti lohaguḷo lohapiṇḍi lohacakkalikaṃ aññampi vippakatalohabhaṇḍaṃ bhājanīyaṃ. Dhūmanettaphāladīparukkhadīpakapallakaolambakadīpaitthipurisatiracchānagatarūpakāni pana aññāni vā bhitticchadanakavāṭādīsu upanetabbāni antamaso lohakhilakaṃ upādāya sabbāni lohabhaṇḍāni garubhaṇḍāniyeva honti, attanā laddhānipi pariharitvā puggalikaparibhogena na paribhuñjitabbāni, saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭāni vā vaṭṭanti. Tipubhaṇḍepi eseva nayo. Khīrapāsāṇamayāni taṭṭakasarakādīni garubhaṇḍāniyeva.

Except for refashioned vessels, in other permissible bronze items—eye-salve box, eye-salve rod, ear-cleaner, needle, leaf-needle, small awl, small thorn-extractor, key, lock, staff, borer, nose-spoon, hair-splitter, bronze hammer, bronze chisel, bronze ball, bronze lump, bronze ring, and other unfinished bronze items—are distributable vessels. Those shaped as pipes, fruit, lamp-trees, lamp-pans, hanging lamps, or images of women, men, or animals, or used for wall coverings, doors, and so forth—even a bronze peg—all bronze items are heavy items. Even if obtained personally, they must not be used individually after being kept; they are permissible for Sangha use or as refashioned by laypeople. The same applies to tin items. Soapstone trays and vessels are also heavy items.

Setting aside the various forms of vessels, regarding other allowable metal goods, however, an eye-paint container (añjanī), an eye-paint stick (añjanisalākā), an ear-wax remover (kaṇṇamalaharaṇī), a needle (sūci), a leaf-needle (paṇṇasūci), a small peppercorn-shaped object (khuddako pipphalako), a small awl (khuddakaṃ ārakaṇṭakaṃ), a key (kuñcikā), a lock (tāḷaṃ), a knife-handle (kattarayaṭṭhi), a piercer (vedhako), a nose-treatment tool (natthudānaṃ), a club (bhiṇḍivālo), a metal hammer (lohakūṭo), a metal anvil (lohakutti), a metal ball (lohaguḷo), a metal lump (lohapiṇḍi), a metal wheel (lohacakkalikaṃ), and other unfinished metal goods are to be divided. Smoke-pipe blades, lamp stands, lamp brackets, hanging lamps, images of men, women, and animals, however, and other [metal goods] to be used on walls, ceilings, doors, and so on, even down to a metal nail – all metal goods are indeed heavy goods; even those obtained personally should not be used as individual property after keeping them; they are allowable as Saṅgha property or as altered by householders. The same method applies to tin goods. Plates, bowls, and other items made of crystal are indeed heavy goods.

Except for vessels, other allowable iron goods include an ointment box, an ointment stick, an ear cleaner, a needle, a leaf needle, a small fruit knife, a small thorn remover, a key, a lock, a key stick, a poker, a snuffer, a fire poker, an iron hammer, an iron chisel, an iron ball, an iron lump, an iron wheel, and other broken iron goods. Smoke outlets, lamp holders, lamp stands, lamp shades, hanging lamps, images of men and animals, etc., should be used for walls, roofs, doors, etc., or even an iron peg. All iron goods are heavy goods. Even if obtained personally, they should not be used for personal purposes but for the Saṅgha’s benefit or for lay purposes. The same applies to the three types of goods. Milkstone-made items like ṭṭaka and saraka are also heavy goods.

Ghaṭako pana telabhājanaṃ vā pādagaṇhanakato atirekameva garubhaṇḍaṃ. Suvaṇṇarajatahārakūṭajātiphalikabhājanāni gihivikaṭānipi na vaṭṭanti, pageva saṅghikaparibhogena vā puggalikaparibhogena vā. Senāsanaparibhoge pana āmāsampi anāmāsampi sabbaṃ vaṭṭati.

Pitcher, even an oil vessel, if it holds more than a foot’s measure, is a heavy item. Gold, silver, pearl, crystal, and gem vessels are not permissible even if refashioned by laypeople, let alone for Sangha or individual use. But in monastery use, everything—touched or untouched—is permissible.

A small pot (ghaṭako), whether an oil container or one that holds more than a foot measure, is indeed heavy goods. Vessels of gold, silver, mother-of-pearl, and ivory are not allowable even if altered by householders, let alone as Saṅgha property or individual property. In the use of dwellings, however, everything, whether raw or not raw, is allowable.

A pot for oil or a footed vessel larger than a foot is also heavy goods. Gold, silver, jeweled, or crystal vessels are not allowable for lay purposes, let alone for the Saṅgha’s or personal use. However, for residence purposes, everything, whether allowable or not, is permissible.

Vāsiādīsu yāya vāsiyā ṭhapetvā dantakaṭṭhacchedanaṃ vā ucchutacchanaṃ vā aññaṃ mahākammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā, ayaṃ bhājanīyā. Tato mahantatarā yena kenaci ākārena katā vāsi garubhaṇḍameva. Pharasu pana antamaso vejjānaṃ sirāvedhanapharasupi garubhaṇḍameva. Kuṭhāriyaṃ pharasusadisoyeva vinicchayo. Yā pana āvudhasaṅkhepena katā, ayaṃ anāmāsā. Kudālo antamaso caturaṅgulamattopi garubhaṇḍameva. Nikhādanaṃ caturassamukhaṃ vā hotu doṇimukhaṃ vā vaṅkaṃ vā ujukaṃ vā, antamaso sammuñjanīdaṇḍakavedhanampi daṇḍabaddhaṃ ce, garubhaṇḍameva. Sammuñjanīdaṇḍakhaṇanakaṃ pana adaṇḍakaṃ phalamattameva. Yaṃ sakkā sipāṭikāya pakkhipitvā pariharituṃ, taṃ bhājanīyaṃ. Sikharampi nikhādaneneva saṅgahitaṃ. Yehi manussehi vihāre vāsiādīni dinnāni honti, te ce ghare daḍḍhe vā corehi vā vilutte “detha no, bhante, upakaraṇe, puna pākatike karissāmā”ti vadanti, dātabbā. Sace āharanti, na vāretabbā, anāharantāpi na codetabbā.

Among axe and the rest, an axe that cannot perform major tasks except cutting tooth-sticks or peeling sugarcane is distributable. Larger than that, made in any way, an axe is a heavy item. Hatchet, even a surgeon’s vein-cutting hatchet, is indeed a heavy item. The determination for adze is the same as for a hatchet. One made as a weapon is untouchable. Hoe, even one just four fingers long, is a heavy item. Spade, whether square-mouthed, trough-mouthed, curved, or straight—even one for piercing a sweeping stick’s handle, if attached to a handle—is a heavy item. A sweeping-stick digger without a handle is just a blade. What can be carried in a bag is distributable. The pick is included with the spade. If people whose houses have burned or been robbed by thieves say, “Give us tools, venerables; we will restore them,” they should be given. If they bring them back, they should not be prevented; if they do not, they should not be urged.

Among knives and similar tools, any knife with which, after setting it down, it is not possible to cut tooth-cleaning sticks, sugar cane, or do any other major work, this is shareable. But a larger knife, made in any way, is indeed a heavy item. As for the axe, even the smallest axe used by doctors for cutting veins is a heavy item. The determination for a hatchet is the same as for an axe. But one made as a weapon is not to be touched. Even the smallest spade, measuring four fingerbreadths, is a heavy item. As for a digging tool, whether it has a square mouth, a trough-shaped mouth, is curved, or straight, even if it is just for piercing the handle of a broom, if it is attached to a handle, it is a heavy item. But a tool for digging up the handle of a broom, without a handle, is just the blade itself. What can be carried by putting it in a bag is shareable. Even a spike is included under digging tools. If people have given knives and other tools to the vihāra, and if, when their houses are burnt or plundered by thieves, they say, “Give us, venerable sirs, the tools, we will restore things to normal,” they should be given. If they bring [the tools], they should not be prevented; even if they do not bring [them], they should not be pressed.

Kammāratacchakāracundakāranaḷakāramaṇikārapattabandhakānaṃ adhikaraṇimuṭṭhikasaṇḍāsatulādīni sabbāni lohamayaupakaraṇāni saṅghe dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍāni. Tipukoṭṭakasuvaṇṇakāracammakāraupakaraṇesupi eseva nayo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tipukoṭṭakaupakaraṇesupi tipucchedanakasatthakaṃ, suvaṇṇakāraupakaraṇesu suvaṇṇacchedanakasatthakaṃ, cammakāraupakaraṇesu kataparikammacammacchedanakakhuddakasatthakanti imāni bhājanīyabhaṇḍāni. Nahāpitatunnakāraupakaraṇesupi ṭhapetvā mahākattariṃ mahāsaṇḍāsaṃ mahāpipphalikañca sabbaṃ bhājanīyaṃ, mahākattariādīni garubhaṇḍāni.

All tools of blacksmiths, carpenters, turners, reed-workers, jewelers, and bowl-makers—such as tongs, forceps, scales, and so forth—all bronze tools, from the time given to the Sangha, are heavy items. The same applies to tools of tin-workers, goldsmiths, and leather-workers. The difference is: among tin-workers’ tools, a tin-cutting knife; among goldsmiths’ tools, a gold-cutting knife; among leather-workers’ tools, a small knife for cutting finished leather—these are distributable items. Among barbers’ and weavers’ tools, except for large scissors, large tongs, and large awls, all are distributable; large scissors and the rest are heavy items.

All the iron tools of blacksmiths, carpenters, turners, reed-workers, jewelers, and strap-makers, such as anvils, hammers, tongs, and scales, from the time they are given to the Sangha, are heavy items. The same principle applies to the tools of tin-smiths, goldsmiths, and leather-workers. But there is this distinction: among the tools of tin-smiths, the small knife for cutting tin; among the tools of goldsmiths, the small knife for cutting gold; and among the tools of leather-workers, the small knife for cutting processed leather – these are shareable items. Among the tools of barbers and tailors, except for large scissors, large tongs, and large pipphalika, everything is shareable; large scissors and the like are heavy items.

Valliādīsu vettavalliādikā yā kāci aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā valli saṅghassa dinnā vā tatthajātakā vā rakkhitagopitā garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti, sā saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate sace atirekā hoti, puggalikakammepi upanetuṃ vaṭṭati. Arakkhitā pana garubhaṇḍameva na hoti. Suttamakacivākanāḷikerahīracammamayā rajjukā vā yottāni vā vāke ca nāḷikerahīre ca vaṭṭetvā katā ekavaṭṭā vā dvivaṭṭā vā saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ. Suttaṃ pana avaṭṭetvā dinnaṃ makacivākanāḷikerahīrā ca bhājanīyā. Yehi panetāni rajjukayottādīni dinnāni honti, te attano karaṇīyena harantā na vāretabbā.

Among creepers and the rest, any creeper like vettavalli, half an arm’s length, given to the Sangha or grown there and protected, is a heavy item. If excess remains after Sangha or shrine work, it may be used for individual work. Unprotected ones are not heavy items. Ropes or cords of thread, spider silk, coconut fiber, or leather, or straps and bindings made of coconut fiber or leather, twisted once or twice, from the time given to the Sangha, are heavy items. Un-twisted thread, spider silk, or coconut fiber are distributable. Those who gave these ropes or cords must not be prevented from taking them for their own needs.

Regarding creepers and the like, any creeper, such as a cane creeper, that is half an arm’s length, whether given to the Sangha or grown there and protected, is a heavy item. If, after it has been used for Sangha work and work on the Cetiya, there is some left over, it is permissible to use it for individual work. But one that is not protected is not a heavy item. Thread, string, coconut fiber, leather straps, thongs, or those made of twisted bark and coconut fiber, whether single-ply or double-ply, are heavy items from the time they are given to the Sangha. But thread given untwisted, and string, coconut fiber, and leather are shareable. But if those who have given these ropes, thongs, and the like, take them for their own needs, they should not be prevented.

Yo koci antamaso aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍakamattopi veḷu saṅghassa dinno vā tatthajātako vā rakkhitagopito garubhaṇḍaṃ, sopi saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate atireko puggalikakamme ca dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Pādagaṇhanakatelanāḷi pana kattarayaṭṭhi upāhanadaṇḍako chattadaṇḍako chattasalākāti idamettha bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ. Daḍḍhagehamanussā gaṇhitvā gacchantā na vāretabbā. Rakkhitagopitaṃ veḷuṃ gaṇhantena samakaṃ vā atirekaṃ vā thāvaraṃ antamaso taṃagghanakavallikāyapi phātikammaṃ katvā gahetabbo, phātikammaṃ akatvā gaṇhantena tattheva vaḷañjetabbo. Gamanakāle saṅghike āvāse ṭhapetvā gantabbaṃ, asatiyā gahetvā gatena pahiṇitvā dātabbo. Desantaragatena sampattavihāro saṅghikāvāse ṭhapetabbo.

Any bamboo, even as small as an eight-finger needle handle, given to the Sangha or grown there and protected, is a heavy item. If excess remains after Sangha or shrine work, it may be given for individual work. An oil measure holding a foot, a staff, a sandal stick, an umbrella stick, and umbrella ribs are distributable items here. People from a burned house taking it must not be prevented. Taking protected bamboo requires exchanging it with an equal or greater fixed item, even a creeper worth its value, after making it permissible; taking it without making it permissible requires using it there. When leaving, it should be left in a Sangha residence; if taken forgetfully, it should be sent back. If going to another region, it should be placed in a Sangha residence at the destination.

Any bamboo, even as small as an eight-fingerbreadth needle-case, whether given to the Sangha, grown there, or protected, is a heavy item. If, after it has been used for Sangha work and work on the Cetiya, there is some left over, it is also permissible to give it for individual work. But a foot-scraper, an oil container, a walking stick, a shoe-stick, an umbrella handle, and umbrella ribs are shareable items here. Those whose houses have burned down, taking and going, should not be prevented. One who takes protected bamboo should make compensation with something of equal or greater value, even a creeper worth as much, and then take it; one who takes it without making compensation should use it there itself. At the time of departure, it should be left at a Sangha dwelling; if there is none, one should take it and send it back. One who has gone to another region, upon reaching the vihāra, should leave it at a Sangha dwelling.

Tiṇanti muñjañca pabbajañca ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ yaṃ kiñci tiṇaṃ. Yattha pana tiṇaṃ natthi, tattha paṇṇehi chādenti, tasmā paṇṇampi tiṇeneva saṅgahitaṃ. Iti muñjādīsu yaṃ kiñci muṭṭhippamāṇaṃ tiṇaṃ tālapaṇṇādīsu ca ekapaṇṇampi saṅghassa dinnaṃ vā tatthajātakaṃ vā bahārāme saṅghassa tiṇavatthuto jātatiṇaṃ vā rakkhitagopitaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti, tampi saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate atirekaṃ puggalikakamme dātuṃ vaṭṭati, daḍḍhagehamanussā gahetvā gacchantā na vāretabbā. Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇopi rittapotthako garubhaṇḍameva.

Grass, excluding muñja and pabbaja, means any other grass. Where there is no grass, they cover with leaves, so leaves are included with grass. Thus, among muñja and the rest, any handful-sized grass, or even a single palm leaf, given to the Sangha, grown there, or protected grass from a Sangha garden apart from grass land, is a heavy item. If excess remains after Sangha or shrine work, it may be given for individual work; people from a burned house taking it must not be prevented. Even an eight-finger empty book is a heavy item.

Grass means any kind of grass except muñja and pabbaja. Where there is no grass, they cover with leaves; therefore, leaves are also included under grass. Thus, any kind of muñja grass and the like, a handful in size, and even a single leaf among palm leaves and the like, whether given to the Sangha, grown there, or grown in a distant grove on the Sangha’s grass land, if protected, is a heavy item. If, after it has been used for Sangha work and work on the Cetiya, there is some left over, it is also permissible to give it for individual work. Those whose houses have burned down, taking and going, should not be prevented. Even an empty notebook eight fingerbreadths in size is a heavy item.

Mattikā pakatimattikā vā hotu pañcavaṇṇā vā sudhā vā sajjurasakaṅguṭṭhasilesādīsu vā yaṃ kiñci dullabhaṭṭhāne ānetvā dinnaṃ tatthajātakaṃ vā, rakkhitagopitaṃ tālaphalapakkamattaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti, tampi saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca niṭṭhite atirekaṃ puggalikakamme ca dātuṃ vaṭṭati, hiṅguhiṅgulakaharitālamanosilañjanāni pana bhājanīyabhaṇḍāni.

Clay, whether natural, five-colored, lime, or from sappan, lac, gum, or resin, brought from a rare place, given, grown there, or protected, even the size of a palm fruit, is a heavy item. If excess remains after Sangha or shrine work, it may be given for individual work. Asafoetida, vermilion, orpiment, realgar, and collyrium are distributable items.

Whether it is ordinary clay, five-colored clay, lime, resin, or anything like rock salt or gypsum, brought from a place where it is scarce and given, or grown there, and protected, the size of a palm fruit, is a heavy item. If, after it has been used for Sangha work and work on the Cetiya, there is some left over, it is also permissible to give it for individual work. But asafoetida, red arsenic, orpiment, realgar, and collyrium are shareable items.

Dārubhaṇḍe “yo koci aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattopi dārubhaṇḍako dārudullabhaṭṭhāne saṅghassa dinno vā tatthajātako vā rakkhitagopito, ayaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hotī”ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana sabbampi dāruveḷucammapāsāṇādivikatiṃ dārubhaṇḍena saṅgaṇhitvā āsandikato paṭṭhāya dārubhaṇḍe vinicchayo vutto. Tatrāyaṃ nayo – āsandiko sattaṅgo bhaddapīṭhaṃ pīṭhikā ekapādakapīṭhaṃ āmaṇḍakavaṇṭakapīṭhaṃ phalakaṃ kocchaṃ palālapīṭhanti imesu tāva yaṃ kiñci khuddakaṃ vā hotu mahantaṃ vā, saṅghassa dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti. Palālapīṭhena cettha kadalipattādipīṭhānipi saṅgahitāni. Byagghacammaonaddhampi vāḷarūpaparikkhittaṃ ratanaparisibbitaṃ kocchaṃ garubhaṇḍameva, vaṅkaphalakaṃ dīghaphalakaṃ cīvaradhovanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanamuggaro dantakaṭṭhacchedanagaṇṭhikā daṇḍamuggaro ambaṇaṃ rajanadoṇi udakapaṭicchako dārumayo vā dantamayo vā veḷumayo vā sapādakopi apādakopi samuggo mañjūsā pādagaṇhanakato atirekappamāṇo karaṇḍo udakadoṇi udakakaṭāhaṃ uḷuṅko kaṭacchu pānīyasarāvaṃ pānīyasaṅkhoti etesupi yaṃ kiñci saṅghe dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Saṅkhathālakaṃ pana bhājanīyaṃ, tathā dārumayo udakatumbo.

In wooden items, it is said in the Kurundī, “Any wooden item, even as small as an eight-finger needle handle, given to the Sangha or grown in a wood-scarce place and protected, is a heavy item.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, all items of wood, bamboo, leather, or stone are included under wooden items, and the determination is stated starting with a couch. Here is the method: Among couch, seven-limbed chair, fine chair, small chair, one-legged chair, carved-handled chair, plank, mat, straw chair—any of these, small or large, given to the Sangha, is a heavy item. Straw chairs include those of banana leaves and the like. Even a mat covered with tiger skin, surrounded by animal figures, or studded with gems is a heavy item. A curved plank, long plank, robe-washing plank, rubbing plank, rubbing mallet, tooth-stick cutting knot, stick mallet, board, dye vat, water container—whether of wood, ivory, or bamboo, with or without legs—box, chest, container exceeding a foot’s measure, water vat, water cauldron, scoop, spoon, drinking vessel, drinking horn—any of these given to the Sangha is a heavy item. A horn tray and wooden water gourd are distributable.

In the case of wooden items, it is said in the Kurundi that “any wooden item, even as small as an eight-fingerbreadth needle-case, in a place where wood is scarce, whether given to the Sangha or grown there, and protected, is a heavy item.” But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, having included all variations of wood, bamboo, leather, stone, and the like under wooden items, the determination of wooden items is given, starting from the stool. The principle here is this: among these – a seven-legged stool, a fine seat, a small stool, a stool with one leg, a stool with a rounded top, a board, a seat, a seat of straw – whatever, whether small or large, given to the Sangha, is a heavy item. Here, seats made of banana leaves and the like are also included with the straw seat. Even a seat covered with tiger skin, surrounded by animal figures, or sewn with jewels, is a heavy item. A curved board, a long board, a board for washing clothes, a rubbing board, a rubbing pestle, a peg for cutting tooth-cleaning sticks, a club with a handle, a trough, a dye pot, a water receptacle, whether made of wood, teeth, or bamboo, with or without feet, a box, a chest, a container larger than a foot-scraper, a basket, a water pot, a water basin, a ladle, a spoon, a drinking bowl, a drinking shell – any of these, given to the Sangha, is a heavy item. But a shell-cup is shareable, as is a wooden water gourd.

Pādakathalikamaṇḍalaṃ dārumayaṃ vā hotu coḷapaṇṇādimayaṃ vā, sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Ādhārako pattapidhānaṃ tālavaṇṭaṃ bījanī caṅkoṭakaṃ pacchi yaṭṭhisammuñjanī muṭṭhisammuñjanīti etesupi yaṃ kiñci khuddakaṃ vā hotu mahantaṃ vā, dāruveḷupaṇṇacammādīsu yena kenaci kataṃ garubhaṇḍameva. Thambhatulāsopānaphalakādīsu dārumayaṃ vā pāsāṇamayaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci gehasambhārarūpaṃ yo koci kaṭasārako yaṃ kiñci bhūmattharaṇaṃ yaṃ kiñci akappiyacammaṃ, sabbaṃ saṅghe dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Eḷakacammaṃ pana paccattharaṇagatikaṃ hoti, tampi garubhaṇḍameva. Kappiyacammāni bhājanīyāni. Kurundiyaṃ pana “sabbaṃ mañcappamāṇaṃ cammaṃ garubhaṇḍa”nti vuttaṃ.

A legged tray or basin, whether of wood or cloth-leaves, is all a heavy item. Stand, bowl lid, fan, fan handle, basket, broom handle, handful broom—any of these, small or large, made of wood, bamboo, leaves, leather, or the like, is a heavy item. Pillars, beams, stair planks, and the like, whether of wood or stone, any house component, any frame piece, any floor covering, any impermissible leather—all given to the Sangha is a heavy item; it is permissible to use as floor covering. Goat leather used as a mat is also a heavy item. Permissible leathers are distributable. In the Kurundī, it is said, “All leather the size of a bed is a heavy item.”

A foot-wiping mat, whether made of wood or of cloth, leaves, or the like, is all a heavy item. A stand, a lid for a bowl, a palm-leaf fan, a whisk, a small basket, a basket, a long broom, a short broom – any of these, whether small or large, made of any of wood, bamboo, leaves, leather, or the like, is a heavy item. Anything in the form of house furnishings made of wood or stone, such as pillars, beams, stair planks, and the like, any kind of mat, any kind of unsuitable leather, all given to the Sangha, is a heavy item; it is permissible to make a floor covering. But elk leather is considered a rug, and it is also a heavy item. Suitable leathers are shareable. But in the Kurundi, it is said, “All leather the size of a bed is a heavy item.”

Pādakathalikamaṇḍalaṃ dārumayaṃ vā hotu coḷapaṇṇādimayaṃ vā, sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Ādhārako pattpidhānaṃ tālavaṇṭaṃ bījanī caṅkoṭakaṃ pacchi yaṭṭhisammuñjanī muṭṭhisammuñjanīti etesupi yaṃ kiñci khuddakaṃ vā hotu mahantaṃ vā, dāruveḷupaṇṇacammādīsu yena kenaci kataṃ garubhaṇḍameva. Thambhatulāsopānaphalakādīsu dārumayaṃ vā pāsāṇamayaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci gehasambhārarūpaṃ yo koci kaṭasārako yaṃ kiñci bhūmattharaṇaṃ yaṃ kiñci akappiyacammaṃ, sabbaṃ saṅghe dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Eḷakacammaṃ pana paccattharaṇagatikaṃ hoti, tampi garubhaṇḍameva. Kappiyacammāni bhājanīyāni. Kurundiyaṃ pana “sabbaṃ mañcappamāṇaṃ cammaṃ garubhaṇḍa”nti vuttaṃ.

Udukkhalaṃ musalaṃ suppaṃ nisadaṃ nisadapoto pāsāṇadoṇi pāsāṇakaṭāhaṃ turivemabhastādi sabbaṃ pesakārādibhaṇḍaṃ sabbaṃ kasibhaṇḍaṃ sabbaṃ cakkayuttakaṃ yānaṃ garubhaṇḍameva. Mañcapādo mañcaaṭanī pīṭhapādo pīṭhaaṭanī vāsipharasuādīnaṃ daṇḍāti etesu yaṃ kiñci vippakatatacchanakammaṃ aniṭṭhitameva bhājanīyaṃ, tacchitamaṭṭhaṃ pana garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti. Anuññātavāsiyā pana daṇḍo chattamuṭṭhipaṇṇaṃ kattarayaṭṭhi upāhanā araṇisahitaṃ dhammakaraṇo pādagaṇhanakato anatirittaṃ āmalakatumbaṃ āmalakaghaṭo lābukatumbaṃ lābughaṭo visāṇakatumbanti sabbamevetaṃ bhājanīyaṃ, tato mahantataraṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Hatthidanto vā yaṃ kiñci visāṇaṃ vā atacchitaṃ yathāgatameva bhājanīyaṃ. Tehi katamañcapādādīsu purimasadisoyeva vinicchayo. Tacchitaniṭṭhitopi hiṅgukaraṇḍako gaṇṭhikā vidho añjanī añjanīsalākā udakapuñchanīti idaṃ sabbaṃ bhājanīyameva.

Mortar, pestle, winnowing basket, grindstone, grinding pot, stone vat, stone cauldron, bellows, weavers’ items, all farming tools, all wheeled vehicles—are heavy items. Bed leg, bed frame, chair leg, chair frame, axe or hatchet handle—any of these, if unfinished carpentry, is distributable; if carved and polished, it is a heavy item. The handle of an allowed axe, umbrella fist-leaf, staff, sandals, fire-sticks with kindling, water strainer, a gourd or pot not exceeding a foot’s measure, horn gourd—all these are distributable; larger than that is a heavy item. An elephant tusk or any horn, uncarved and as received, is distributable. For bed legs and the like made from them, the determination is as before. Even polished items like an asafoetida box, knot, borer, eye-salve box, eye-salve rod, water wiper—all these are distributable.

A mortar, a pestle, a winnowing basket, a seat, a small seat, a stone trough, a stone basin, all the equipment of a weaver such as the turi, vema, and bhastā, all the equipment of a farmer, all vehicles with wheels, are heavy items. A leg of a bed, a bed slat, a leg of a stool, a stool slat, the handle of a knife, axe, and the like – any of these, with unfinished carving work, is shareable; but what is finished and polished is a heavy item. But the handle of a permitted knife, an umbrella handle and leaf, a walking stick, shoes, a dhammakaraṇa with a strainer, a āmalaka gourd smaller than a foot-scraper, an āmalaka pot, a bottle gourd, a bottle gourd pot, a horn gourd – all these are shareable; anything larger than that is a heavy item. Elephant ivory, or any kind of horn, untrimmed, just as it came, is shareable. The determination for things made of them, such as bed legs and the like, is the same as before. Even a finished asafoetida container, a peg, a tube, an eye-salve applicator, an eye-salve stick, a water wiper – all these are shareable.

Mattikābhaṇḍe sabbaṃ manussānaṃ upabhogaparibhogaṃ ghaṭapīṭharādikulālabhājanaṃ pattakaṭāhaṃ aṅgārakaṭāhaṃ dhūmadānaṃ dīparukkhako dīpakapallikā cayaniṭṭhakā chadaniṭṭhakā thūpikāti saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ, pādagaṇhanakato anatirittappamāṇo pana ghaṭako pattaṃ thālakaṃ kañcanako kuṇḍikāti idamettha bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ. Yathā ca mattikābhaṇḍe, evaṃ lohabhaṇḍepi kuṇḍikā bhājanīyakoṭṭhāsameva bhajatīti ayamettha anupubbikathā.

In clay items, all vessels for human use—pots, chairs, jars, bowls, coal pans, incense holders, lamp-trees, lamp-pans, building bricks, roof tiles, stupa bricks—from the time given to the Sangha, are heavy items. A pitcher, bowl, tray, basin, or flask not exceeding a foot’s measure is distributable here. Just as in clay items, so in bronze items, a flask falls under the distributable category—this is the sequential discussion here.

Regarding clay items, all the utensils used by people, such as pots, stands, and potter’s vessels, bowls, basins, braziers, incense burners, lamp stands, lamp shades, building bricks, roofing tiles, and thūpikā, from the time they are given to the Sangha, are heavy items. But a small pot smaller than a foot-scraper, a bowl, a plate, a small cup, a water pot – these are shareable items here. And just as with clay items, so too with metal items, a water pot belongs to the shareable category. This is the progressive discussion here.

31. Codanādivinicchayakathā

31. Discussion on the Determination of Accusation and Related Matters

31. Discussion of the Determination of Accusations and the Like

31. Codanādivinicchayakathā

230. Codanādivinicchayoti ettha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-6) pana codetuṃ ko labhati, ko na labhati? Dubbalacodakavacanaṃ tāva gahetvā koci na labhati. Dubbalacodako nāma sambahulesu kathāsallāpena nisinnesu eko ekaṃ ārabbha anodissakaṃ katvā pārājikavatthuṃ katheti, añño taṃ sutvā itarassa gantvā āroceti, so taṃ upasaṅkamitvā “tvaṃ kira maṃ idañcidañca vadasī”ti bhaṇati, so “nāhaṃ evarūpaṃ jānāmi, kathāpavattiyaṃ pana mayā anodissakaṃ katvā vuttamatthi. Sace ahaṃ tava imaṃ dukkhuppattiṃ jāneyyaṃ, ettakampi na katheyya”nti. Ayaṃ dubbalacodako. Tassetaṃ kathāsallāpaṃ gahetvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ koci codetuṃ na labhati, etaṃ pana aggahetvā sīlasampanno bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ vā bhikkhuniṃ vā, sīlasampannā ca bhikkhunī bhikkhunīmeva codetuṃ labhatīti mahāpadumatthero āha. Mahāsumatthero pana “pañcapi sahadhammikā labhantī”ti āha. Godattatthero “na koci na labhatī”ti vatvā “bhikkhussa sutvā codeti, bhikkhuniyā sutvā…pe… titthiyasāvakānaṃ sutvā codetī”ti idaṃ suttaṃ āhari. Tiṇṇampi therānaṃ vāde cuditakasseva paṭiññāya kāretabbo.

230. Determination of accusation and related matters—here (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-6), who is entitled to accuse, and who is not? First, taking the words of a weak accuser, no one is entitled. A weak accuser is one who, when many are seated in conversation, speaks of a pārājika matter without specifying anyone, another hears it and informs someone else, and that person approaches him saying, “You said this and that about me.” He replies, “I don’t know such a thing, but in the conversation, I spoke without specifying; if I knew this caused you pain, I wouldn’t have said even that much.” This is a weak accuser. No one is entitled to accuse that monk based on this conversation, but without taking it, a virtuous monk may accuse a monk or nun, and a virtuous nun may accuse a nun, says the Elder Mahāpaduma. The Elder Mahāsuma says, “All five co-religionists are entitled.” The Elder Godatta says, “No one is not entitled,” and cites the text, “Having heard from a monk, he accuses; having heard from a nun… up to… having heard from sectarians, he accuses.” In the views of all three elders, the accused must be made to acknowledge.

230. In the Discussion of the Determination of Accusations and the Like (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-6), who is allowed to accuse, and who is not? Taking the statement of a weak accuser, no one is allowed. A weak accuser is one who, when many are sitting in conversation, speaks about a matter of defeat, referring to one person without specifying him; another, hearing this, goes and informs the other, who approaches him and says, “You are saying such and such about me.” He replies, “I do not know anything of the sort; but in the course of conversation, I did say something without specifying anyone. If I had known that this would cause you distress, I would not have said even that much.” This is a weak accuser. Taking this conversation, no one is allowed to accuse that bhikkhu. But not taking this, a bhikkhu who is accomplished in virtue, or a bhikkhunī, and a bhikkhunī who is accomplished in virtue is allowed to accuse only a bhikkhunī, said the Elder Mahāpaduma. But the Elder Mahāsuma said, “All five fellow practitioners are allowed.” The Elder Godatta, having said, “No one is not allowed,” cited this sutta: “Hearing from a bhikkhu, he accuses; hearing from a bhikkhunī… …hearing from followers of other sects, he accuses.” In the arguments of all three elders, the accused should be made to confess.

Ayaṃ pana codanā nāma diṭṭhacodanā sutacodanā parisaṅkitacodanāti tividhā hoti. Aparāpi catubbidhā hoti sīlavipatticodanā ācāravipatticodanā diṭṭhivipatticodanā ājīvavipatticodanāti. Tattha garukānaṃ dvinnaṃ āpattikkhandhānaṃ vasena sīlavipatticodanā veditabbā , avasesānaṃ vasena ācāravipatticodanā, micchādiṭṭhiantaggāhikadiṭṭhivasena diṭṭhivipatticodanā, ājīvahetu paññattānaṃ channaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ vasena ājīvavipatticodanā veditabbā.

This accusation is threefold: accusation by sight, accusation by hearing, accusation by suspicion. It is also fourfold: accusation of defective virtue, accusation of defective conduct, accusation of defective view, accusation of defective livelihood. Therein, accusation of defective virtue should be understood as pertaining to the two grave classes of offenses; accusation of defective conduct as pertaining to the remaining classes; accusation of defective view as pertaining to wrong view or extreme views; accusation of defective livelihood as pertaining to the six training rules established for livelihood.

But this accusation is of three kinds: accusation based on sight, accusation based on hearing, and accusation based on suspicion. It is also of four kinds: accusation of an offense against virtue, accusation of an offense against conduct, accusation of an offense against view, and accusation of an offense against livelihood. Here, accusation of an offense against virtue should be understood as based on the two sections of grave offenses; accusation of an offense against conduct as based on the remaining [sections]; accusation of an offense against view as based on wrong view and views that grasp at extremes; accusation of an offense against livelihood should be understood as based on the six training rules laid down for reasons of livelihood.

Aparāpi catubbidhā hoti vatthusandassanā āpattisandassanā saṃvāsapaṭikkhepo sāmīcipaṭikkhepoti. Tattha vatthusandassanā nāma “tvaṃ methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevi, adinnaṃ ādiyi, manussaṃ ghātayittha, abhūtaṃ ārocayitthā”ti evaṃ pavattā. Āpattisandassanā nāma “tvaṃ methunadhammapārājikāpattiṃ āpanno”tievamādinayappavattā. Saṃvāsapaṭikkhepo nāma “natthi tayā saddhiṃ uposatho vā pavāraṇā vā saṅghakammaṃ vā”ti evaṃ pavatto. Sāmīcipaṭikkhepo nāma abhivādanapaccuṭṭhānaañjalīkammabījanādikammānaṃ akaraṇaṃ. Taṃ paṭipāṭiyā vandanādīni karonto ekassa akatvā sesānaṃ karaṇakāle veditabbaṃ. Ettāvatāpi codanā nāma hoti. Yāgubhattādinā pana yaṃ icchati, taṃ āpucchati, na tāvatā codanā hoti.

It is also fourfold: showing the basis, showing the offense, denial of association, denial of duties. Therein, showing the basis is expressed as, “You practiced sexual intercourse, took what was not given, killed a human, declared what is not true.” Showing the offense is expressed as, “You have committed the pārājika offense of sexual intercourse,” and so forth. Denial of association is expressed as, “There is no Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, or Sangha act with you.” Denial of duties is the non-performance of acts like salutation, standing up, añjali, and fanning, understood when one performs these sequentially for others but not for one. Even this much constitutes an accusation. Asking about gruel or food as desired does not yet constitute an accusation.

It is also of four kinds: pointing out the basis, pointing out the offense, refusing association, and refusing proper conduct. Here, pointing out the basis is speaking thus: “You engaged in sexual intercourse, took what was not given, killed a human being, spoke what was untrue.” Pointing out the offense is speaking in this way: “You have committed the offense of defeat of engaging in sexual intercourse,” and so on. Refusing association is speaking thus: “There is no Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, or Sangha act with you.” Refusing proper conduct is not performing the acts of salutation, rising, respectful greeting, and whisking. It should be understood when, doing these in order, one does not do them for one person but does them for the others. Even with this much, there is an accusation. But as for gruel, food, and the like, one asks for what one wants; with that much, there is no accusation.

Aparā pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhake (cūḷava. 387) “ekaṃ, bhikkhave, adhammikaṃ pātimokkhaṭṭhapanaṃ, ekaṃ dhammika”ntiādiṃ katvā yāva dasa adhammikāni pātimokkhaṭṭhapanāni, dasa dhammikānīti evaṃ adhammikā pañcapaññāsa, dhammikā pañcapaññāsāti dasuttarasataṃ codanā vuttā. Tā diṭṭhena codentassa dasuttarasataṃ, sutena codentassa dasuttarasataṃ, parisaṅkāya codentassa dasuttarasatanti tiṃsādhikāni tīṇi satāni honti. Tāni kāyena codentassa, vācāya codentassa, kāyavācāya codentassāti tiguṇāni katāni navutādhikāni nava satāni honti. Tāni attanā codentassapi parena codāpentassapi tattakānevāti vīsatiūnāni dve sahassāni honti. Puna diṭṭhādibhede samūlikāmūlikavasena anekasahassā codanā hontīti veditabbā.

Further, in the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 387), beginning with, “Monks, there is one unlawful suspension of the Pātimokkha, one lawful,” up to ten unlawful and ten lawful suspensions, fifty-five unlawful and fifty-five lawful accusations are stated, making a hundred plus ten. For one accusing by sight, a hundred plus ten; by hearing, a hundred plus ten; by suspicion, a hundred plus ten—three hundred plus thirty. For one accusing by body, by speech, by body and speech, multiplied by three, nine hundred plus ninety. For one accusing himself or having another accuse, the same number—two thousand minus twenty. Further, with root and non-root distinctions in sight and so forth, there are many thousands of accusations, it should be understood.

Further, in the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 387), having stated, “Monks, there is one un-Dhamma-like suspension of the Pātimokkha, one Dhamma-like,” and so on, up to ten un-Dhamma-like suspensions of the Pātimokkha, and ten Dhamma-like, thus there are fifty-five un-Dhamma-like accusations, and fifty-five Dhamma-like, a total of one hundred and ten accusations mentioned. For one who accuses based on sight, there are one hundred and ten; for one who accuses based on hearing, there are one hundred and ten; for one who accuses based on suspicion, there are one hundred and ten – a total of three hundred and thirty. Multiplying these by three for accusing by body, by speech, and by body and speech, there are nine hundred and ninety. Since these are the same for one who accuses oneself and for one who has others accuse, there are one thousand nine hundred and eighty. Again, with the distinctions of sight and the like, and based on whether there is a basis or not, there are many thousands of accusations, it should be understood.

231. Vuttappabhedāsu pana imāsu codanāsu yāya kāyaci codanāya vasena saṅghamajjhe osaṭe vatthusmiṃ cuditakacodakā vattabbā “tumhe amhākaṃ vinicchayena tuṭṭhā bhavissathā”ti. Sace “bhavissāmā”ti vadanti, saṅghena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. Atha pana “vinicchinatha tāva, bhante, sace amhākaṃ khamissati, gaṇhissāmā”ti vadanti, “cetiyaṃ tāva vandathā”tiādīni vatvā dīghasuttaṃ katvā vissajjitabbaṃ. Te ce cirarattaṃ kilantā pakkantaparisā upacchinnapakkhā hutvā puna yācanti, yāvatatiyaṃ paṭikkhipitvā yadā nimmadā honti, tadā nesaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vinicchinitabbaṃ. Vinicchinantehi ca sace alajjussannā hoti parisā, ubbāhikāya taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vinicchinitabbaṃ. Sace bālussannā hoti parisā, “tumhākaṃ sabhāge vinayadhare pariyesathā”ti vinayadhare pariyesāpetvā yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati, tathā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabbaṃ.

231. Among these types of accusations, when any accusation arises and a matter is settled in the Sangha’s midst, the accused and accuser should be told, “Will you be satisfied with our judgment?” If they say, “We will,” the Sangha should accept that matter. But if they say, “Judge first, venerables; if it suits us, we will accept,” saying things like, “Pay homage to the shrine first,” prolonging with a long discourse, they should be dismissed. If, tired after a long time, with the assembly dispersed and their support broken, they request again, it should be refused up to three times; when they are subdued, then their matter should be judged. In judging, if the assembly is full of shameless ones, it should be judged by arbitration. If full of fools, saying, “Seek a Vinaya expert like yourselves,” making them seek a Vinaya expert, the matter should be settled by the Dhamma, Vinaya, and Teacher’s instruction that calms it.

231. But among these various accusations mentioned, when a matter has been brought before the Sangha by means of any accusation, the accused and the accuser should be told, “You will be satisfied with our decision.” If they say, “We will be,” the Sangha should accept that case. But if they say, “Decide first, venerable sirs; if it is agreeable to us, we will accept it,” having said, “First venerate the Cetiya,” and so on, drawing out the matter, it should be dismissed. If they, being tired after a long time, with the assembly dispersed and their support diminished, ask again, after refusing up to three times, when they are without pride, then their case should be decided. And if the assembly is shameless, that case should be decided by delegation. If the assembly is foolish, having them seek out Vinaya experts, saying, “Seek out Vinaya experts who are similar to you,” that case should be settled in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s Dispensation.

Tattha ca dhammoti bhūtaṃ vatthu. Vinayoti codanā ceva sāraṇā ca. Satthusāsananti ñattisampadā ca anussāvanasampadā ca. Tasmā codakena vatthusmiṃ ārocite cuditako pucchitabbo “santametaṃ, no”ti. Evaṃ vatthuṃ upaparikkhitvā bhūtena vatthunā codetvā sāretvā ñattisampadāya ca anussāvanasampadāya ca taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabbaṃ. Tatra ce alajjī lajjiṃ codeti, so ca alajjī bālo hoti abyatto, nāssa nayo dātabbo, evaṃ pana vattabbo “kimhi naṃ codesī”ti. Addhā so vakkhati “kimidaṃ, bhante, kimhi naṃ nāmā”ti. “Tvaṃ kimhi nampi na jānāsi, na yuttaṃ tayā evarūpena bālena paraṃ codetu”nti uyyojetabbo, nāssa anuyogo dātabbo. Sace pana so alajjī paṇḍito hoti byatto, diṭṭhena vā sutena vā ajjhottharitvā sampādetuṃ sakkoti, etassa anuyogaṃ datvā lajjisseva paṭiññāya kammaṃ kātabbaṃ.

Therein, Dhamma is the true basis. Vinaya is both accusation and reminder. Teacher’s instruction is the perfection of motion and proclamation. Thus, when the accuser states the basis, the accused should be asked, “Is this true or not?” Examining the basis thus, accusing and reminding with a true basis, the matter should be settled with the perfection of motion and proclamation. If a shameless one accuses a conscientious one, and that shameless one is a fool and unskilled, no method should be given to him; he should be told, “On what do you accuse him?” Surely he will say, “What is this, venerables, on what indeed?” “You don’t even know on what, it’s not fitting for a fool like you to accuse another,” and he should be dismissed, not given a procedure. But if that shameless one is wise and skilled, able to substantiate with sight or hearing, giving him a procedure, the conscientious one’s acknowledgment should be acted upon.

And there, Dhamma means the actual matter. Vinaya means both accusation and reminding. The Teacher’s Dispensation means both the accomplishment of the motion and the accomplishment of the announcement. Therefore, when the accuser has stated the matter, the accused should be asked, “Is this true, or not?” Having examined the matter in this way, having accused and reminded with the actual matter, that case should be settled with the accomplishment of the motion and the accomplishment of the announcement. And if a shameless person accuses a modest person, and that shameless person is foolish and unlearned, his line of reasoning should not be accepted; he should be told thus, “In what are you accusing him?” Indeed, he will say, “What is this, venerable sirs? In what, indeed?” “You do not even know ‘in what’; it is not proper for you, being such a fool, to accuse another,” he should be dismissed; no questioning should be given to him. But if that shameless person is wise and learned, and is able to accomplish [his purpose] by overwhelming with what has been seen or heard, giving questioning to this one, action should be taken according to the confession of the modest one.

Sace lajjī alajjiṃ codeti, so ca lajjī bālo hoti abyatto, na sakkoti anuyogaṃ dātuṃ, tassa nayo dātabbo “kimhi naṃ codesi sīlavipattiyā vā ācāravipattiādīsu vā ekissā”ti. Kasmā pana imasseva evaṃ nayo dātabbo, na itarassāti, nanu na yuttaṃ vinayadharānaṃ agatigamananti? Na yuttameva. Idaṃ pana agatigamanaṃ na hoti, dhammānuggaho nāma eso. Alajjiniggahatthāya hi lajjipaggahatthāya ca sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ. Tatra alajjī nayaṃ labhitvā ajjhottharanto ehiti, lajjī pana nayaṃ labhitvā diṭṭhe diṭṭhasantānena sute sutasantānena patiṭṭhāya kathessati, tasmā tassa dhammānuggaho vaṭṭati. Sace pana so lajjī paṇḍito hoti byatto, patiṭṭhāya katheti, alajjī ca “etampi natthi, etampi natthī”ti paṭiññaṃ na deti, alajjissa paṭiññāya eva kātabbaṃ.

If a conscientious one accuses a shameless one, and that conscientious one is a fool and unskilled, unable to give a procedure, he should be given a method: “On what do you accuse him—defective virtue, defective conduct, or one of these?” Why is the method given to him and not the other—isn’t it unfit for Vinaya experts to act biasedly? Indeed, it is not unfit. This is not bias; it is support for the Dhamma. For training rules are established to restrain the shameless and support the conscientious. A shameless one, given a method, will overwhelm; a conscientious one, given a method, will speak based on continuity of sight or hearing, so supporting him is fitting. If that conscientious one is wise and skilled, speaking with basis, and the shameless one says, “This isn’t so, that isn’t so,” refusing acknowledgment, it should be acted upon with the shameless one’s acknowledgment.

If a modest person accuses a shameless person, and that modest person is foolish and unlearned, and is not able to give questioning, his line of reasoning should be accepted: “In what are you accusing him – in one of an offense against virtue, an offense against conduct, and the like?” But why should only this one be given this line of reasoning, and not the other? Surely it is not proper for Vinaya experts to go to partiality? It is indeed not proper. But this is not going to partiality; this is called supporting the Dhamma. For the training rule was laid down for the sake of restraining the shameless and for the sake of supporting the modest. Here, a shameless person, receiving the line of reasoning, will come overwhelming; but a modest person, receiving the line of reasoning, will speak, establishing himself in the continuum of what has been seen with what has been seen, and in the continuum of what has been heard with what has been heard. Therefore, supporting the Dhamma for him is permissible. But if that modest person is wise and learned, and speaks, establishing himself, and the shameless one says, “This is not so, this is not so,” and does not give a confession, action should be taken according to the confession of the shameless one.

Tadatthadīpanatthañca idaṃ vatthu veditabbaṃ – tipiṭakacūḷābhayatthero kira lohapāsādassa heṭṭhā bhikkhūnaṃ vinayaṃ kathetvā sāyanhasamaye vuṭṭhāti, tassa vuṭṭhānasamaye dve attapaccatthikā kathaṃ pavattesuṃ. Eko “etampi natthi, etampi natthī”ti paṭiññaṃ na deti, atha appāvasese paṭhamayāme therassa tasmiṃ puggale “ayaṃ patiṭṭhāya katheti, ayaṃ pana paṭiññaṃ na deti, bahūni ca vatthūni osaṭāni, addhā etaṃ kataṃ bhavissatī”ti asuddhaladdhi uppannā. Tato bījanīdaṇḍakena pādakathalikāya saññaṃ datvā “ahaṃ, āvuso, vinicchinituṃ ananucchaviko, aññena vinicchināpehī”ti āha. “Kasmā, bhante”ti? Thero tamatthaṃ ārocesi. Cuditakapuggalassa kāye ḍāho uṭṭhito, tato so theraṃ vanditvā “bhante, vinicchinituṃ anurūpena vinayadharena nāma tumhādiseneva bhavituṃ vaṭṭati, codakena ca īdiseneva bhavituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vatvā setakāni nivāsetvā “ciraṃ kilamitāttha mayā”ti khamāpetvā pakkāmi.

To illustrate this meaning, this story should be understood: It is said that the Elder Cūḷābhaya, learned in the three Piṭakas, after teaching Vinaya to monks below the Lohapāsāda, rose in the evening. As he rose, two adversaries began a discussion. One refused acknowledgment, saying, “This isn’t so, that isn’t so.” Late in the first watch, the elder thought of that person, “This one speaks with basis, but this one refuses acknowledgment, and many bases have been settled; surely this was done,” and an impure opinion arose. Then, signaling with a fan stick on a legged tray, he said, “Friends, I am unfit to judge; have another judge it.” “Why, venerable sir?” He explained the reason. Heat arose in the accused’s body; he paid homage to the elder, saying, “Venerable sir, only one like you is fit to judge, and only such a one should accuse,” put on white robes, apologized for long troubling them, and departed.

And to illustrate this point, this story should be known: It is said that the elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya, after teaching the Vinaya to the monks below the Lohapāsāda (Brazen Palace), got up in the evening. At the time of his getting up, two adversaries started a discussion. One did not admit to anything, saying, “This is not so, this is not so.” Then, in the remaining part of the first watch of the night, the elder, regarding that person, developed an impure view, thinking, “This one speaks with conviction, but this one does not admit; and many cases have been dropped; surely, this must have been done.” Then, giving a signal with the handle of a fan on a footstool, he said, “Friends, I am not competent to decide this. Have someone else decide it.” “Why, venerable sir?” The elder explained the matter. A burning sensation arose in the body of the accused person. Then he, having bowed to the elder, said, “Venerable sir, it is fitting that one like you should be a Vinayadhara, suitable to decide, and the accuser should be like this,” and after dressing in white clothes, he said, “I have been troubled for a long time,” asked for forgiveness, and departed.

To illustrate this point, the following account should be understood: It is said that the elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya, after teaching the Vinaya to the monks beneath the Lohapāsāda, rose in the evening. At the time of his rising, two adversaries began a dispute. One of them refused to acknowledge, saying, “This is also not present, that is also not present.” Then, in the first watch of the night, the elder, regarding that person, thought, “This person is speaking based on his own understanding, but he does not acknowledge, and many issues have been left unresolved. Surely, this must have been done.” Thus, a doubt arose in him. Then, giving a sign with the handle of a broom, he said, “Friend, I am not suitable to decide this matter. Let someone else decide it.” “Why, venerable sir?” The elder explained the reason. A fever arose in the body of the accused person. Then, he paid homage to the elder and said, “Venerable sir, only someone like you, who is skilled in the Vinaya, is fit to decide this matter, and only someone like this is fit to accuse.” Having said this, he put on white robes, apologized, saying, “I have been weary for a long time,” and departed.

Evaṃ lajjinā codiyamāno alajjī bahūsupi vatthūsu uppannesu paṭiññaṃ na deti, so neva “suddho”ti vattabbo, na “asuddho”ti, jīvamatako nāma āmakapūtiko nāma cesa. Sace panassa aññampi tādisaṃ vatthu uppajjati, na vinicchinitabbaṃ, tathā nāsitako bhavissati . Sace pana alajjīyeva alajjiṃ codeti, so vattabbo “āvuso, tava vacanenāyaṃ kiṃ sakkā vattu”nti. Itarampi tatheva vatvā “ubhopi ekasambhogaparibhogā hutvā jīvathā”ti uyyojetabbā. Sīlatthāya nesaṃ vinicchayo na kātabbo, pattacīvarapariveṇādiatthāya pana patirūpaṃ sakkhiṃ labhitvā kātabboti.

Thus, when a conscientious one accuses a shameless one and many bases arise, if he refuses acknowledgment, he should neither be called “pure” nor “impure”; he is a living corpse, a raw stench. If another such basis arises for him, it should not be judged, lest he be expelled. If a shameless one accuses a shameless one, he should be told, “Friend, can anything be said by your words?” The other says the same, and both should be dismissed with, “Live together sharing use.” Their judgment should not be made for virtue’s sake, but for suitable items like bowls, robes, or lodgings, it may be done with a proper witness.

Thus, when a modest person is accused, an immodest person does not admit, even when many cases arise. He should not be called “pure,” nor “impure.” He is just barely alive, like something rotten but untouched. If another such case arises for him, it should not be investigated, and he will thus be destroyed. But if an immodest person accuses an immodest person, he should be told, “Friend, what can this person be called by your word?” The other should also be told the same, and they should be dismissed, saying, “Both of you, live together, sharing the same communal life and possessions.” No decision should be made for them for the sake of their virtue. But for the sake of their bowl, robe, dwelling, etc., having obtained a suitable witness, it should be done.

Thus, when a shameless person is accused by a conscientious one, even though many issues arise, he does not acknowledge. Such a person should not be declared “innocent” or “guilty.” He is called a “living corpse” or a “putrid mass.” If another similar issue arises regarding him, it should not be decided, for he will become a destroyer. However, if a shameless person accuses another shameless person, he should be told, “Friend, what can be said by your words?” The other should also be addressed in the same way, and both should be dismissed, saying, “Both of you, having shared the same enjoyment and use, may live together.” Their conduct should not be judged for the sake of virtue, but for the sake of robes, bowls, and dwellings, a suitable witness should be obtained and the matter decided.

Atha lajjī lajjiṃ codeti, vivādo ca nesaṃ kismiñcideva appamattako hoti, saññāpetvā “mā evaṃ karothā”ti accayaṃ desāpetvā uyyojetabbā . Atha panettha cuditakena sahasā viraddhaṃ hoti, ādito paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma natthi. So ca pakkhānurakkhaṇatthāya paṭiññaṃ na deti, “mayaṃ saddahāma, mayaṃ saddahāmā”ti bahū uṭṭhahanti, so tesaṃ paṭiññāya ekavāraṃ dvevāraṃ suddho hotu, atha pana viraddhakālato paṭṭhāya ṭhāne na tiṭṭhati, vinicchayo na dātabbo.

If a conscientious one accuses a conscientious one, and their dispute is minor, they should be persuaded, “Don’t do this,” made to confess the fault, and dismissed. But if the accused suddenly errs here, there was no shameless one from the start. If he refuses acknowledgment to protect his faction, and many rise saying, “We believe, we believe,” with their acknowledgment he may be pure once or twice, but from the time of erring, he has no standing, and judgment should not be given.

But if a modest person accuses a modest person, and their dispute is about something minor, they should be made to understand, told, “Do not do this,” made to confess their transgression, and dismissed. But if the accused has quickly erred here, and from the beginning, there is no immodest person. And he does not admit for the sake of protecting his faction, and many rise up, saying, “We believe, we believe,” let him be pure once or twice by their admission. But if he does not stand firm in his position from the time of the error, no decision should be given.

If a conscientious person accuses another conscientious person, and their dispute is over some trivial matter, they should be persuaded, made to confess their fault, and then dismissed. However, if the accused suddenly becomes agitated, and from the beginning, there is no shameless person, but he refuses to acknowledge out of partiality, and many rise up, saying, “We believe, we believe,” then, after his acknowledgment once or twice, he may be declared innocent. But if he fails to stand firm from the time of his agitation, no decision should be given.

232. Adinnādānavatthuṃ vinicchinantena (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92) pana pañcavīsati avahārā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbā. Tesu ca kusalena vinayadharena otiṇṇaṃ vatthuṃ sahasā avinicchinitvāva pañca ṭhānāni oloketabbāni, yāni sandhāya porāṇā āhu –

232. When judging a case of taking what is not given (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92), the twenty-five modes of theft should be carefully considered. A skilled Vinaya expert, without hastily judging a settled basis, should examine five aspects, as the ancients said—

232. When deciding a case of theft (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.92), the twenty-five types of theft should be carefully considered. A skilled Vinayadhara, having entered into the case, should not hastily decide it, but should examine five points, with reference to which the ancients said:

232. When deciding a case of theft (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92), twenty-five types of theft should be carefully considered. In such cases, a skilled Vinaya expert should not hastily decide but should first examine five factors, as the ancients have said:

Tulayitvā pañca ṭhānāni, dhāreyyatthaṃ vicakkhaṇo”ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92);

Weighing these five aspects, the wise should discern the meaning” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92);

Weighing the five points, a wise person should determine the matter.” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.92);

Tattha vatthunti bhaṇḍaṃ. Avahārakena hi “mayā idaṃ nāma avahaṭa”nti vuttepi āpattiṃ anāropetvāva taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ “sasāmikaṃ vā asāmikaṃ vā”ti upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Sasāmikepi sāmikānaṃ sālayabhāvo vā nirālayabhāvo vā upaparikkhitabbo. Sace tesaṃ sālayakāle avahaṭaṃ, bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā āpatti kātabbā. Sace nirālayakāle, pārājikena na kātabbā. Bhaṇḍasāmikesu pana bhaṇḍaṃ āharāpentesu bhaṇḍaṃ dātabbaṃ. Ayamettha sāmīci.

Therein, basis is the item. Even if the thief says, “I took this,” without charging an offense, the item should be examined, “Is it owned or unowned?” If owned, the owners’ attachment or detachment should be examined. If taken when they were attached, the item’s value should be assessed, and an offense charged. If when detached, a pārājika should not be charged. If the owners request the item, it should be given. This is the proper conduct here.

Here, object means the goods. Even when a thief says, “I have stolen this,” the offense should not be imposed without examining whether the goods are “owned or unowned.” Even if owned, it should be examined whether the owners are attached or unattached. If stolen when they were attached, the offense should be determined after valuing the goods. If when they were unattached, it should not be determined as a Pārājika. When the owners of the goods have the goods brought, the goods should be given. This is the proper conduct here.

Here, object refers to the item. Even if the thief says, “I stole this,” without admitting the offense, the item should be investigated as to whether it has an owner or not. If it has an owner, it should be determined whether the owner was present or absent at the time of the theft. If the item was stolen while the owner was present, the value should be assessed, and the offense determined. If the owner was absent, it does not amount to a pārājika offense. If the owner of the item requests its return, the item should be given back. This is the proper procedure.

Imassa panatthassa dīpanatthamidaṃ vatthu – bhātiyarājakāle kira mahācetiyapūjāya dakkhiṇadisato eko bhikkhu sattahatthaṃ paṇḍukāsāvaṃ aṃse karitvā cetiyaṅgaṇaṃ pāvisi. Taṅkhaṇameva ca rājāpi cetiyavandanatthaṃ āgato. Tato ussāraṇāya vattamānāya mahājanasammaddo ahosi. Atha so bhikkhu janasammaddapīḷito aṃsato patantaṃ kāsāvaṃ adisvāva nikkhanto, nikkhamitvā kāsāvaṃ apassanto “ko īdise janasammadde kāsāvaṃ lacchati, na dāni taṃ mayha”nti dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā gato. Athañño bhikkhu pacchā āgacchanto taṃ kāsāvaṃ disvā theyyacittena gahetvā puna vippaṭisārī hutvā “assamaṇo dānimhi, vibbhamissāmī”ti citte uppanne “vinayadhare pucchitvā ñassāmī”ti cintesi.

To illustrate this meaning, this story: In King Bhātiya’s time, at a great shrine festival, a monk from the south entered the shrine courtyard with a seven-handspan yellow robe on his shoulder. At that moment, the king came to pay homage. Amid the crowd’s commotion to clear the way, the monk, pressed by the throng, left without noticing the robe fall from his shoulder. Not seeing it afterward, he thought, “Who would get a robe in such a crowd? It’s no longer mine,” relinquished it, and left. Another monk, coming later, saw the robe, took it with theft in mind, then regretted, “I’m no monk now; I’ll disrobe,” but thought, “I’ll ask a Vinaya expert first.”

To illustrate this point, this is the story: It is said that during the time of King Bhātiya, at the great cetiya festival, a monk from the southern direction entered the cetiya courtyard carrying a seven-hand-span yellow robe on his shoulder. At that very moment, the king also arrived to worship the cetiya. Then, as the announcement was being made, there was a great crowd of people. Then that monk, pressed by the crowd, not seeing the robe falling from his shoulder, departed. After departing and not seeing the robe, he thought, “Who will get the robe in such a crowd? It is no longer mine,” and, abandoning responsibility, he left. Then another monk, coming later, saw that robe, took it with a thieving mind, and then, being remorseful, thought, “I am now a non-ascetic, I will become disrobed,” and thought, “I will ask a Vinayadhara and find out.”

To illustrate this point, the following account is given: During the time of King Bhātiya, a monk carrying a seven-cubit-long yellow robe on his shoulder entered the courtyard of the great cetiya for the worship. At that moment, the king also arrived to pay homage to the cetiya. As the crowd was being cleared, a great commotion arose. The monk, pressed by the crowd, did not see the robe falling from his shoulder and left. After leaving, not seeing the robe, he thought, “Who can find a robe in such a crowd? It is no longer mine,” and he abandoned it and left. Another monk, coming later, saw the robe and, with a thieving mind, took it. Later, feeling remorse, he thought, “I am no longer a monk; I will disrobe.” Then he decided, “I will ask the Vinaya experts and find out.”

Tena samayena cūḷasumanatthero nāma sabbapariyattidharo vinayācariyapāmokkho mahāvihāre paṭivasati. So bhikkhu theraṃ upasaṅkamitvā vanditvā okāsaṃ kāretvā attano kukkuccaṃ pucchi. Thero tena bhaṭṭhe janakāye pacchā āgantvā gahitabhāvaṃ ñatvā “atthi dāni ettha okāso”ti cintetvā āha “sace kāsāvasāmikaṃ bhikkhuṃ āneyyāsi, sakkā bhaveyya tava patiṭṭhā kātu”nti. Kathāhaṃ, bhante, taṃ dakkhissāmīti. Tahiṃ tahiṃ gantvā olokehīti. So pañcapi mahāvihāre oloketvā neva addakkhi. Tato naṃ thero pucchi “katarāya disāya bahū bhikkhū āgacchantī”ti? “Dakkhiṇadisāya, bhante”ti. Tena hi kāsāvaṃ dīghato ca tiriyañca minitvā ṭhapehi, ṭhapetvā dakkhiṇadisāya vihārapaṭipāṭiyā vicinitvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ ānehīti. So tathā katvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ disvā therassa santikaṃ ānesi. Thero pucchi “tavedaṃ kāsāva”nti? “Āma, bhante”ti. Kuhiṃ te pātitanti? So sabbaṃ ācikkhi. Thero tena kataṃ dhuranikkhepaṃ sutvā itaraṃ pucchi “tayā idaṃ kuhiṃ disvā gahita”nti? Sopi sabbaṃ ārocesi. Tato taṃ thero āha “sace te suddhacittena gahitaṃ abhavissa, anāpattiyeva te assa, theyyacittena pana gahitattā dukkaṭaṃ āpannosi, taṃ desetvā anāpattiko hoti, idañca kāsāvaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā etasseva bhikkhuno dehī”ti. So bhikkhu amateneva abhisitto varamassāsappatto ahosi. Evaṃ vatthu oloketabbaṃ.

At that time, the Elder Cūḷasumana, master of all scriptures and chief Vinaya teacher, dwelt in the Great Monastery. That monk approached, paid homage, found an opportunity, and asked about his remorse. Knowing it was taken later amidst the crowd, the elder thought, “There’s a chance here,” and said, “If you bring the robe’s owner, your standing might be established.” “How will I find him, venerable sir?” “Go here and there and look.” He searched the five great monasteries but did not find him. The elder asked, “From which direction did many monks come?” “The south, venerable sir.” “Then measure the robe lengthwise and crosswise, store it, and search the southern monasteries in order to bring that monk.” He did so, found the monk, and brought him to the elder. The elder asked, “Is this your robe?” “Yes, venerable sir.” “Where did you drop it?” He explained everything. Hearing of the relinquishment, the elder asked the other, “Where did you see and take it?” He told all. The elder said, “If you had taken it with a pure mind, there’d be no offense; but since you took it with theft in mind, you’ve committed a dukkaṭa. Confess it, and you’ll be free of offense. Make this robe your own and give it to this monk.” That monk felt as if anointed with nectar, relieved as if granted a boon. Thus, the basis should be examined.

At that time, an elder named Cūḷasumana, a master of all the scriptures and a leading Vinaya teacher, resided in the Mahāvihāra. The monk approached the elder, bowed, made an opportunity, and asked about his doubt. The elder, knowing that he had come later and taken it after the crowd had dispersed, thought, “There is now an opportunity here,” and said, “If you could bring the monk who owns the robe, it would be possible to establish your position.” “How, venerable sir, will I see him?” “Go here and there and look.” He looked in the five great monasteries but did not see him. Then the elder asked him, “From which direction do many monks come?” “From the southern direction, venerable sir.” “Then, measure the robe lengthwise and widthwise, and put it down. Having put it down, search along the line of monasteries in the southern direction and bring that monk.” He did so, saw that monk, and brought him to the elder. The elder asked, “Is this your robe?” “Yes, venerable sir.” “Where did you drop it?” He told everything. The elder, hearing about his abandonment of responsibility, asked the other, “Where did you see and take this?” He also told everything. Then the elder said to him, “If you had taken it with a pure mind, there would be no offense for you. But because you took it with a thieving mind, you have incurred a Dukkaṭa. Confess it and become free from offense. And take this robe as your own and give it to this monk.” The monk was as if anointed with nectar, having attained a great reassurance. Thus, the object should be examined.

At that time, the elder Cūḷasumana, who was well-versed in all the scriptures and foremost in Vinaya, was residing in the Mahāvihāra. The monk approached the elder, paid homage, and sought permission to ask about his concern. The elder, knowing that the monk had taken the robe after the crowd had left, thought, “There is an opportunity here,” and said, “If you can bring the owner of the robe, it may be possible to establish your innocence.” “But how, venerable sir, can I find him?” “Go and look in various places.” The monk searched in the five great monasteries but did not find him. Then the elder asked, “From which direction do many monks come?” “From the south, venerable sir.” “Then measure the robe lengthwise and crosswise, place it there, and search along the southern path of the monastery to find that monk and bring him.” The monk did so and, finding the monk, brought him to the elder. The elder asked, “Is this your robe?” “Yes, venerable sir.” “Where did you lose it?” The monk explained everything. Hearing that the monk had abandoned the robe, the elder asked the other, “Where did you see this and take it?” He also explained everything. Then the elder said, “If you had taken it with a pure mind, there would be no offense. But since you took it with a thieving mind, you have committed a dukkaṭa offense. Confess it, and you will be free of offense. Then, considering this robe as your own, give it back to this monk.” The monk, as if sprinkled with the water of immortality, attained great relief. Thus, the matter should be investigated.

Kāloti avahārakālo. Tadeva hi bhaṇḍaṃ kadāci appagghaṃ hoti, kadāci mahagghaṃ. Tasmā taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ yasmiṃ kāle avahaṭaṃ, tasmiṃyeva kāle yo tassa aggho hoti, tena agghena āpatti kāretabbā. Evaṃ kālo oloketabbo.

Time is the time of theft. The same item is sometimes of little value, sometimes great. Thus, the value of the item at the time it was taken should determine the offense. Thus, time should be examined.

Time is the time of the theft. The same goods are sometimes of little value, sometimes of great value. Therefore, the value of the goods at the time they were stolen should be the value by which the offense is determined. Thus, the time should be examined.

Time refers to the time of theft. The value of an item may sometimes be low and sometimes high. Therefore, the offense should be determined based on the value of the item at the time it was stolen. Thus, the time should be examined.

Desoti avahāradeso. Tañhi bhaṇḍaṃ yasmiṃ dese avahaṭaṃ, tasmiṃyeva dese yo tassa aggho hoti, tena agghena āpatti kāretabbā. Bhaṇḍuṭṭhānadese hi bhaṇḍaṃ appagghaṃ hoti, aññattha mahagghaṃ.

Place is the place of theft. The value of the item in the place where it was taken should determine the offense. For an item is of little value where it originates, but great elsewhere.

Place is the place of the theft. The value of the goods in the place where they were stolen should be the value by which the offense is determined. For goods are of little value in the place where they are produced, but of great value elsewhere.

Place refers to the place of theft. The value of an item may vary depending on where it was stolen. In the place where the item is usually kept, its value may be low, but elsewhere, it may be high. Thus, the place should be examined.

Imassapi ca atthassa dīpanatthamidaṃ vatthu – antarasamudde kira eko bhikkhu susaṇṭhānaṃ nāḷikeraṃ labhitvā bhamaṃ āropetvā saṅkhathālakasadisaṃ manoramaṃ pānīyathālakaṃ katvā tattheva ṭhapetvā cetiyagiriṃ agamāsi . Añño bhikkhu antarasamuddaṃ gantvā tasmiṃ vihāre paṭivasanto taṃ thālakaṃ disvā theyyacittena gahetvā cetiyagirimeva āgato. Tassa tattha yāguṃ pivantassa taṃ thālakaṃ disvā thālakasāmiko bhikkhu āha “kuto te idaṃ laddha”nti. Antarasamuddato me ānītanti. So taṃ “netaṃ tava santakaṃ, theyyāya te gahita”nti saṅghamajjhaṃ ākaḍḍhi. Tattha ca vinicchayaṃ alabhitvā mahāvihāraṃ agamiṃsu, tattha ca bheriṃ paharāpetvā mahācetiyasamīpe sannipātaṃ katvā vinicchayaṃ ārabhiṃsu. Vinayadharattherā avahāraṃ saññāpesuṃ.

To illustrate this meaning, this story: In mid-ocean, a monk got a well-shaped coconut, carved it into a charming drinking tray like a conch tray, left it there, and went to Cetiyagiri. Another monk, going to mid-ocean and staying in that monastery, saw the tray, took it with theft in mind, and came to Cetiyagiri. While drinking gruel there, the tray’s owner saw it and said, “Where did you get this?” “I brought it from mid-ocean.” He said, “It’s not yours; you stole it,” and dragged him to the Sangha’s midst. Not getting a judgment there, they went to the Great Monastery, sounded the drum, gathered near the great shrine, and began the judgment. The Vinaya elders investigated the theft.

And to illustrate this point, this is the story: It is said that in the middle of the ocean, a monk, having obtained a well-shaped coconut, made it into a beautiful drinking vessel resembling a conch shell and kept it there. He then went to Cetiyagiri. Another monk, going to the middle of the ocean and residing in that monastery, saw that vessel, took it with a thieving mind, and came to Cetiyagiri. When he was drinking gruel there, the owner of the vessel saw it and said, “Where did you get this?” “It was brought to me from the middle of the ocean.” He dragged him into the midst of the Sangha, saying, “This is not yours, you took it by theft.” And not being able to get a decision there, they went to the Mahāvihāra. There, having sounded the drum, they held an assembly near the great cetiya and began the investigation. The Vinayadhara elders explained the theft.

To illustrate this point, the following account is given: A monk in the middle of the ocean obtained a well-shaped coconut, made it into a beautiful drinking vessel resembling a conch shell, and left it there while he went to Cetiyagiri. Another monk, going to the middle of the ocean and staying in that monastery, saw the vessel and, with a thieving mind, took it and went to Cetiyagiri. While drinking gruel there, the owner of the vessel saw it and asked, “Where did you get this?” “I brought it from the middle of the ocean.” “This is not yours; you have stolen it,” and he dragged him into the assembly. Not finding a resolution there, they went to the Mahāvihāra, where they beat the drum and gathered near the great cetiya to begin the investigation. The Vinaya experts explained the theft.

Tasmiñca sannipāte ābhidhammikagodattatthero nāma vinayakusalo hoti, so evamāha “iminā idaṃ thālakaṃ kuhiṃ avahaṭa”nti? “Antarasamudde avahaṭa”nti. Tattha taṃ kiṃ agghatīti. Na kiñci agghati. Tatra hi nāḷikeraṃ bhinditvā miñjaṃ khāditvā kapālaṃ chaḍḍeti, dāruatthaṃ pana pharatīti. Imassa bhikkhuno ettha hatthakammaṃ kiṃ agghatīti? Māsakaṃ vā ūnamāsakaṃ vāti. Atthi pana katthaci sammāsambuddhena māsake vā ūnamāsake vā pārājikaṃ paññattanti. Evaṃ vutte “sādhu sādhu, sukathitaṃ suvinicchita”nti ekasādhukāro ahosi. Tena ca samayena bhātiyarājāpi cetiyavandanatthaṃ nagarato nikkhanto taṃ saddaṃ sutvā “kiṃ ida”nti pucchitvā sabbaṃ paṭipāṭiyā sutvā nagare bheriṃ carāpesi “mayi sante bhikkhūnampi bhikkhunīnampi gihīnampi adhikaraṇaṃ ābhidhammikagodattattherena vinicchitaṃ suvinicchitaṃ, tassa vinicchaye atiṭṭhamānaṃ rājāṇāya ṭhapemī”ti. Evaṃ deso oloketabbo.

In that assembly, the Abhidhamma Elder Godatta, skilled in Vinaya, said, “Where did this monk take this tray?” “In mid-ocean.” “What is its value there?” “It has no value there. They break coconuts, eat the flesh, discard the shell, or chop it for wood.” “What’s the value of this monk’s handiwork here?” “A māsaka or less.” “Has the Perfectly Enlightened One ever prescribed a pārājika for a māsaka or less?” At this, a single cheer of “Well said, well judged” arose. At that time, King Bhātiya, leaving the city to pay homage at the shrine, heard the sound, asked, “What’s this?” learned everything in order, and had the drum sounded in the city: “While I reign, matters of monks, nuns, and laypeople judged by the Abhidhamma Elder Godatta are well judged; I establish royal command for those not standing by his judgment.” Thus, place should be examined.

And in that assembly, there was a Vinaya expert named Abhidhammika Godatta Thera. He said, “Where did this person steal this vessel?” “In the middle of the ocean.” “What is its value there?” “It has no value. For there, they break the coconut, eat the kernel, and throw away the shell. But for the purpose of firewood, they chop it.” “What is the value of this monk’s handiwork here?” “A Māṣaka or less than a Māṣaka.” “But has the Blessed One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, anywhere prescribed a Pārājika for a Māṣaka or less than a Māṣaka?” When this was said, there was a single shout of “Sādhu, sādhu, well said, well decided.” And at that time, King Bhātiya, having departed from the city to worship the cetiya, heard that sound, asked, “What is this?” and having heard everything in detail, had the drum sounded in the city, “While I am alive, the case of the monks, nuns, and laymen has been decided by Abhidhammika Godatta Thera, well decided. I place under royal command anyone who does not abide by his decision.” Thus, the place should be examined.

At that gathering, the elder Godatta, skilled in Vinaya and Abhidhamma, was present. He asked, “Where was this vessel stolen?” “In the middle of the ocean.” “What is its value there?” “It has no value.” “There, after breaking the coconut and eating the kernel, the shell is discarded. It is only useful for firewood.” “What is the value of this monk’s action?” “A māsaka or less than a māsaka.” “Is there anywhere in the teachings of the Buddha where a pārājika offense is prescribed for a māsaka or less?” When this was said, there was unanimous approval, “Well said, well decided.” At that time, King Bhātiya, having left the city to pay homage to the cetiya, heard the noise and asked, “What is this?” After hearing the full account, he had the drum beaten in the city, proclaiming, “While I am here, the disputes of monks, nuns, and laypeople are to be decided by the elder Godatta, skilled in Abhidhamma. His decisions are well-made, and I uphold them.” Thus, the place should be examined.

Agghoti bhaṇḍaggho. Navabhaṇḍassa hi yo aggho hoti, so pacchā parihāyati. Yathā navadhoto patto aṭṭha vā dasa vā agghati, so pacchā bhinno vā chiddo vā āṇigaṇṭhikāhato vā appaggho hoti, tasmā na sabbadā bhaṇḍaṃ pakatiaggheneva kātabbanti. Evaṃ aggho oloketabbo.

Value is the item’s value. The value of a new item later diminishes. A newly washed bowl may be worth eight or ten, but later, if broken, chipped, or struck by a nail knot, it’s of little value; thus, an item should not always be judged by its original value. Thus, value should be examined.

Value is the value of the goods. The value of new goods decreases later. Just as a newly washed bowl may be worth eight or ten, it later becomes of little value when broken, cracked, or struck with a nail. Therefore, the goods should not always be determined by their original value. Thus, the value should be examined.

Value refers to the value of the item. The value of a new item may decrease over time. For example, a newly washed bowl may be worth eight or ten, but later, if it is broken, cracked, or damaged by a nail, its value decreases. Therefore, the value of an item should not always be determined by its original price. Thus, the value should be examined.

Paribhogoti bhaṇḍaparibhogo. Paribhogenapi hi vāsiādibhaṇḍassa aggho parihāyati. Tasmā evaṃ upaparikkhitabbaṃ – sace koci kassaci pādagghanakaṃ vāsiṃ harati, tatra vāsisāmiko pucchitabbo “tayā ayaṃ vāsi kittakena kītā”ti? “Pādena, bhante”ti. Kiṃ pana te kiṇitvāva ṭhapitā, udāhu naṃ vaḷañjesīti? Sace vadati “ekadivasaṃ me dantakaṭṭhaṃ vā rajanachalli vā pattapacanakadāru vā chinnaṃ, ghaṃsitvā vā nisitā”ti, athassa porāṇako aggho bhaṭṭhoti veditabbo. Yathā ca vāsiyā, evaṃ añjaniyā vā añjanisalākāya vā kuñcikāya vā palālena vā thusehi vā iṭṭhakacuṇṇena vā ekavāraṃ ghaṃsitvā dhovitamattenapi aggho bhassati. Tipumaṇḍalassa makaradantacchedanenapi parimajjanamattenapi, udakasāṭakassa sakiṃ nivāsanapārupanenapi paribhogasīsena aṃse vā sīse vā ṭhapanamattenapi, taṇḍulādīnaṃ papphoṭanenapi tato ekaṃ vā dve vā apanayanenapi antamaso ekaṃ pāsāṇasakkharaṃ uddharitvā chaḍḍitamattenapi, sappitelādīnaṃ bhājanantarapaavattanenapi antamaso tato makkhikaṃ vā kipillikaṃ vā uddharitvā chaḍḍitamattenapi, guḷapiṇḍakassa madhurabhāvajānanatthaṃ nakhena vijjhitvā aṇumattaṃ gahitamattenapi aggho bhassati. Tasmā yaṃ kiñci pādagghanakaṃ vuttanayeneva sāmikehi paribhogena ūnaṃ kataṃ hoti, na taṃ avahaṭo bhikkhu pārājikena kātabboti. Evaṃ aggho oloketabbo.

Use is the item’s use. Use also diminishes the value of items like axes. Thus, it should be examined: If someone takes another’s axe worth a foot, the owner should be asked, “How much did you buy this axe for?” “A foot, venerable sir.” “Did you just buy and keep it, or use it?” If he says, “I cut a tooth-stick, dye-bark, or cooking wood once, or sharpened it by rubbing,” its old value is reduced. Just as with an axe, so with an eye-salve box, rod, key, or even if rubbed once with straw, chaff, or brick powder and washed, the value drops. Even cutting with a tin blade, wiping a triple circle, wearing or donning a water robe once, placing it on shoulder or head, winnowing rice and removing one or two grains, lifting and discarding even one stone pebble, transferring ghee or oil to another vessel, removing a fly or ant and discarding it, or piercing a sugar lump with a nail to taste a tiny bit—all reduce value. Thus, anything worth a foot, used and diminished by owners as stated, should not make the taker liable for a pārājika. Thus, value should be examined.

Use is the use of the goods. The value of goods like knives, etc., also decreases with use. Therefore, it should be examined thus: If someone steals a knife worth a foot, the owner of the knife should be asked, “How much did you buy this knife for?” “For a foot, venerable sir.” “But did you just keep it after buying it, or did you use it?” If he says, “For one day, I cut a tooth-stick, or dye bark, or firewood for cooking rice, or sharpened it by whetting,” then its old value should be understood as reduced. Just as with the knife, so too with a collyrium tube, a collyrium stick, a key, even by the mere act of rubbing once with chaff, husks, or brick dust, the value is reduced. Even by the mere act of cutting the three circles of a marking on a tipu (a type of metal), or by mere polishing, with a water cloth, even by the mere act of wearing or carrying it once, or by placing it on the shoulder or head as a mark of use, even by winnowing rice, etc., or by removing one or two grains from it, or even by removing and throwing away a single pebble, with sesame oil, etc., even by transferring it to another vessel, or even by removing and throwing away a fly or an ant from it, with a lump of jaggery, even by piercing it with a fingernail and taking a tiny amount to know its sweetness, the value is reduced. Therefore, whatever is worth a foot and has been made less by use by the owners in the manner described, the monk who steals it should not be determined as having committed a Pārājika. Thus, the value should be examined.

Use refers to the use of the item. The value of an item like a knife may decrease with use. Therefore, it should be investigated: If someone steals a knife worth a pāda, the owner should be asked, “For how much did you buy this knife?” “For a pāda, venerable sir.” “Did you buy it and keep it, or did you use it?” If he says, “I used it for one day to cut toothwood, dye, or firewood, and then sharpened it,” its value should be considered as that of an old item. Similarly, for items like an ointment stick, a key, a straw, chaff, or brick powder, even if used once, their value decreases. For example, the value of a three-circle gem decreases even if it is merely wiped, the value of a water cloth decreases if worn once, the value of rice decreases if it is pounded and a few grains are removed, the value of ghee or oil decreases if transferred to another vessel, even if only a fly or ant is removed, and the value of a lump of sugar decreases if a small amount is taken with a fingernail to taste its sweetness. Therefore, if any item worth a pāda has been used by its owner, the monk who stole it should not be charged with a pārājika offense. Thus, the use should be examined.

Evaṃ imāni tulayitvā pañca ṭhānāni dhāreyya atthaṃ vicakkhaṇo, āpattiṃ vā anāpattiṃ vā garukaṃ vā lahukaṃ vā āpattiṃ yathāṭhāne ṭhapeyyāti. Tenāhu aṭṭhakathācariyā –

Thus, weighing these five aspects, the wise should discern the meaning, placing offense or non-offense, grave or light, as appropriate. Hence, the commentary teachers said—

Thus, weighing these five points, a wise person should determine the matter, whether it is an offense or not an offense, a serious or a light offense, and should place the offense in its proper place. Therefore, the commentary teachers said:

Having weighed these five factors, the wise should determine the offense or non-offense, whether it is grave or minor, and place it in its proper category. Therefore, the commentary teachers have said:

Aggiṃ viya ca sampassaṃ, nāmaseyya vicakkhaṇo”ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.160-1 tatrāyaṃ anusāsanī);

Like seeing fire, the wise should not touch” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.160-1, this is the instruction);

And seeing them like fire, a wise person should not touch them.” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.160-1, this is the instruction therein);

233. Uttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ vinicchinantena (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.197) pana “kiṃ te adhigataṃ. Kinti te adhigataṃ, kadā te adhigataṃ, kattha te adhigataṃ, katame te kilesā pahīnā, katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhī”ti imāni cha ṭhānāni visodhetabbāni. Sace hi koci bhikkhu uttarimanussadhammādhigamaṃ byākareyya, na so ettāvatā sakkāro kātabbo, imesaṃ pana channaṃ ṭhānānaṃ sodhanatthaṃ evaṃ vattabbo “kiṃ te adhigataṃ, kiṃ jhānaṃ udāhu vimokkhādīsu aññatara”nti. Yo hi yena adhigato dhammo, so tassa pākaṭo hoti. Sace “idaṃ nāma me adhigata”nti vadati, tato “kinti te adhigata”nti pucchitabbo, “aniccalakkhaṇādīsu kiṃ dhuraṃ katvā aṭṭhatiṃsāya vā ārammaṇesu rūpārūpaajjhattabahiddhādibhedesu vā dhammesu kena mukhena abhinivisitvā”ti. Yo hi yassābhiniveso, so tassa pākaṭo hoti. Sace “ayaṃ nāma me abhiniveso, evaṃ mayā adhigata”nti vadati, tato “kadā te adhigata”nti pucchitabbo, “kiṃ pubbaṇhe, udāhu majjhanhikādīsu aññatarasmiṃ kāle”ti. Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatakālo pākaṭo hoti. Sace “amukasmiṃ nāma kāle adhigaka”nti vadati, tato “kattha te adhigata”nti pucchitabbo, “kiṃ divāṭṭhāne, udāhu rattiṭṭhānādīsu aññatarasmiṃ okāse”ti. Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatokāso pākaṭo hoti. Sace “amukasmiṃ nāma me okāse adhigata”nti vadati, tato “katame te kilesā pahīnā”ti pucchitabbo, “kiṃ paṭhamamaggavajjhā, udāhu dutiyādimaggavajjhā”ti. Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatamaggena pahīnā kilesā pākaṭā honti.

233. When judging a declaration of superhuman states (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.197), these six aspects should be purified: “What have you attained? How did you attain it? When did you attain it? Where did you attain it? Which defilements have you abandoned? Of which states are you a recipient?” If a monk declares attaining a superhuman state, he should not be honored just for that; these six aspects should be clarified thus: “What have you attained—jhāna or one of the liberations?” What he has attained is clear to him. If he says, “I attained this,” then ask, “How did you attain it?”—“By what means, through impermanence or the thirty-eight objects, or internal-external distinctions?” His approach is clear to him. If he says, “This was my approach; thus I attained,” then ask, “When did you attain it?”—“In the morning, or at noon or another time?” Everyone knows their attainment time. If he says, “At such a time,” then ask, “Where did you attain it?”—“In a day-place, night-place, or another spot?” Everyone knows their attainment place. If he says, “At such a place,” then ask, “Which defilements have you abandoned?”—“Those cut by the first path, or the second or others?” Everyone knows the defilements their path abandoned.

233. When deciding a case of claiming superhuman attainments (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.197), these six points should be clarified: “What have you attained? What kind of attainment do you have? When did you attain it? Where did you attain it? Which defilements have you abandoned? Of which states are you a gainer?” If a monk declares the attainment of superhuman states, he should not be honored just for that. But for the purpose of clarifying these six points, he should be asked, “What have you attained? What Jhāna, or one of the Vimokkhas, etc.?” For the state that one has attained is evident to him. If he says, “I have attained this,” then he should be asked, “What kind of attainment do you have?” “Taking what as the forefront among the characteristics of impermanence, etc., or among the thirty-eight objects of meditation, or among the states divided into form, formless, internal, external, etc., with what approach did you become engrossed?” For the engrossment of each person is evident to him. If he says, “This is my engrossment, thus I have attained,” then he should be asked, “When did you attain it?” “Was it in the morning, or at noon, or at some other time?” For the time of attainment is evident to everyone. If he says, “I attained it at such and such a time,” then he should be asked, “Where did you attain it?” “Was it in a daytime place, or in a nighttime place, or in some other location?” For the place of attainment is evident to everyone. If he says, “I attained it in such and such a place,” then he should be asked, “Which defilements have you abandoned?” “Are they those to be abandoned by the first path, or those to be abandoned by the second path, etc.?” For the defilements abandoned by the path attained are evident to everyone.

233. When deciding the declaration of superhuman states (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.197), the following six points should be clarified: “What have you attained? How have you attained it? When did you attain it? Where did you attain it? Which defilements have you abandoned? Which dhammas have you gained?” If a monk declares the attainment of a superhuman state, he should not be honored merely on that account. To clarify these six points, he should be asked, “What have you attained? Which jhāna or which liberation?” For the dhammas attained by someone are evident in him. If he says, “I have attained this,” then he should be asked, “How have you attained it? What characteristic did you focus on—impermanence, etc.—or which of the thirty-eight objects of meditation, or which of the internal and external dhammas divided into form and formless?” For the inclination of someone is evident in him. If he says, “This is my inclination, thus I have attained it,” then he should be asked, “When did you attain it? Was it in the early morning, midday, or another time?” For the time of attainment is evident to everyone. If he says, “I attained it at such and such a time,” then he should be asked, “Where did you attain it? Was it during the day, at night, or in another place?” For the place of attainment is evident to everyone. If he says, “I attained it in such and such a place,” then he should be asked, “Which defilements have you abandoned? Were they abandoned by the first path, the second path, or another?” For the defilements abandoned by the path are evident to everyone.

Sace “ime nāma me kilesā pahīnā”ti vadati, tato “katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhī”ti pucchitabbo, “kiṃ sotāpattimaggassa, udāhu sakadāgāmimaggādīsu aññatarassā”ti. Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatadhammo pākaṭo hoti. Sace “imesaṃ nāmāhaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhī”ti vadati, ettāvatāpissa vacanaṃ na saddhātabbaṃ. Bahussutā hi uggahaparipucchākusalā bhikkhū imāni cha ṭhānāni sodhetuṃ sakkonti, imassa pana bhikkhuno āgamanapaṭipadā sodhetabbā. Yadi āgamanapaṭipadā na sujjhati, “imāya paṭipadāya lokuttaradhammo nāma na labbhatī”ti apanetabbo. Yadi panassa āgamanapaṭipadā sujjhati, dīgharattaṃ tīsu sikkhāsu appamatto jāgariyamanuyutto catūsu paccayesu alaggo ākāse pāṇisamena cetasā viharatīti paññāyati, tassa bhikkhuno byākaraṇaṃ paṭipadāya saddhiṃ saṃsandati. “Seyyathāpi nāma gaṅgodakaṃ yamunodakena saṃsandati sameti, evameva supaññattā tena bhagavatā sāvakānaṃ nibbānagāminī paṭipadā, saṃsandati nibbānañca paṭipadā cā”ti (dī. ni. 2.296) vuttasadisaṃ hoti. Apica kho na ettakenapi sakkāro kātabbo. Kasmā? Ekaccassa hi puthujjanassapi sato khīṇāsavassa paṭipattisadisā paṭipatti hoti, tasmā so bhikkhu tehi tehi upāyehi uttāsetabbo. Khīṇāsavassa nāma asaniyāpi matthake patamānāya bhayaṃ vā chambhitattaṃ vā lomahaṃso vā na hoti, puthujjanassa appamattakenapi hoti.

If he says, “These defilements I abandoned,” then ask, “Of which states are you a recipient?”—“The stream-entry path, or once-return or another?” Everyone knows their attained state. If he says, “I am a recipient of these states,” his words should not yet be believed. Learned monks skilled in learning and questioning can clarify these six aspects, but his path of approach should be examined. If his path does not purify, “No supramundane state is gained by this path,” and he should be set aside. If his path purifies—long heedful in the three trainings, unattached to the four requisites, dwelling with a mind like a hand in the sky—it accords with his declaration. “Just as Ganges water accords with Yamuna water, so the well-proclaimed path to liberation for disciples accords with liberation and the path” (dī. ni. 2.296), it is said. Yet, even this does not warrant honor. Why? Some ordinary people’s practice resembles an arahant’s, so he should be tested by various means. An arahant has no fear, trembling, or goosebumps even if lightning strikes his head; an ordinary person does with little.

If he says, “These are the defilements I have abandoned,” then he should be asked, “Of which states are you a gainer?” “Of the path of stream-entry, or of one of the paths of once-returner, etc.?” For the state attained is evident to everyone. If he says, “I am a gainer of these states,” his statement should not be believed just for that. For monks who are learned and skilled in learning and questioning can clarify these six points. But this monk’s path of approach should be clarified. If the path of approach is not clear, he should be dismissed, saying, “By this path, the supramundane state cannot be attained.” But if his path of approach is clear, it is evident that he has been diligent for a long time in the three trainings, heedful, practicing vigilance, unattached to the four requisites, and dwelling with a mind like a hand in the sky. That monk’s declaration agrees with the path. It is like what is said, “Just as the water of the Ganges agrees and merges with the water of the Yamuna, even so, the path to Nibbāna for disciples is well taught by the Blessed One; Nibbāna and the path agree” (Dī. Ni. 2.296). But even with this, honor should not be given. Why? Because some ordinary people have a path similar to the path of one whose taints are destroyed. Therefore, that monk should be frightened by various means. For one whose taints are destroyed, even if a thunderbolt were to fall on his head, there would be no fear, trembling, or horripilation. But for an ordinary person, there is even with a small thing.

If he says, “These are the defilements I have abandoned,” then he should be asked, “Which dhammas have you gained? Have you gained the path of stream-entry, once-returning, or another?” For the dhammas attained by someone are evident in him. If he says, “I have gained these dhammas,” his statement should not be accepted at face value. Learned monks skilled in memorization and questioning can clarify these six points, but this monk’s conduct should also be examined. If his conduct is not pure, it should be concluded, “By this conduct, supramundane dhammas are not attained.” If his conduct is pure, and he has long been diligent in the three trainings, detached from the four requisites, and dwells with a mind like the open sky, then his declaration accords with his conduct. “Just as the water of the Ganges meets and merges with the water of the Yamunā, so too the path leading to Nibbāna, well-proclaimed by the Blessed One for his disciples, meets and merges with Nibbāna” (dī. ni. 2.296). However, even then, he should not be honored excessively. Why? Because even some ordinary persons may have conduct similar to that of an arahant. Therefore, that monk should be tested by various means. For an arahant, even if a thunderbolt were to fall on his head, there would be no fear, terror, or goosebumps, but for an ordinary person, even a slight cause can produce these.

Tatrimāni vatthūni (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.102) – dīghabhāṇakaabhayatthero kira ekaṃ piṇḍapātikaṃ pariggahetuṃ asakkonto daharassa saññaṃ adāsi. So taṃ nahāyamānaṃ kalyāṇīnadīmukhadvāre nimujjitvā pāde aggahesi. Piṇḍapātiko “kumbhīlo”ti saññāya mahāsaddamakāsi, tadā naṃ “puthujjano”ti jāniṃsu.

These stories (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.102): The Elder Abhaya, a long-discourse reciter, unable to test an almsgoer, signaled a novice. While bathing at the Kalyāṇī river’s mouth, the novice grabbed his feet underwater. The almsgoer, thinking “crocodile,” cried out loudly, and they knew, “He’s an ordinary person.”

Here are the stories (Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.102): It is said that the elder Dīghabhāṇaka Abhaya, being unable to take care of a certain alms-goer, gave a signal to a novice. He, while the alms-goer was bathing, immersed himself in the mouth of the Kalyāṇī River and grabbed his feet. The alms-goer, thinking it was a crocodile, made a loud noise. Then they knew he was an ordinary person.

Here are some accounts (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.102): The elder Dīghabhāṇaka Abhaya, unable to restrain a certain alms collector, gave him the appearance of a youth. While bathing at the mouth of the Kalyāṇī River, he grabbed his feet. The alms collector, thinking it was a crocodile, made a loud noise. Then they knew he was an ordinary person.

Candamukhatissarājakāle pana mahāvihāre saṅghatthero khīṇāsavo dubbalacakkhuko vihāreyeva acchati. Rājā “theraṃ pariggaṇhissāmī”ti bhikkhūsu bhikkhācāraṃ gatesu appasaddo upasaṅkamitvā sappo viya pāde aggahesi. Thero silāthambho viya niccalo hutvā “ko etthā”ti āha. “Ahaṃ, bhante, tisso”ti? “Sugandhaṃ vāyasi no tissā”ti. Evaṃ khīṇāsavassa bhayaṃ nāma natthi.

In King Candamukhatissa’s time, the Sangha elder in the Great Monastery, an arahant with weak eyes, stayed in the monastery. The king, “I’ll test the elder,” approached quietly when monks were on almsround, grabbed his feet like a snake. The elder, still as a stone pillar, said, “Who’s there?” “I am Tissa, venerable sir.” “You smell sweet, not like Tissa.” Thus, an arahant has no fear.

But during the time of King Candamukha Tissa, the Sangha elder in the Mahāvihāra, whose taints were destroyed and who had weak eyesight, was staying in the monastery. The king, thinking, “I will take care of the elder,” when the monks had gone on their alms round, approached silently like a snake and grabbed his feet. The elder, like a stone pillar, remained still and said, “Who is here?” “It is I, venerable sir, Tissa.” “You smell fragrant, Tissa.” Thus, there is no fear for one whose taints are destroyed.

During the time of King Candamukha Tissa, the elder Saṅghatthera, an arahant with weak eyes, stayed in the monastery. The king, thinking, “I will test the elder,” approached quietly while the monks were out on alms round and grabbed his feet like a snake. The elder, unmoved like a stone pillar, asked, “Who is here?” “I am Tissa, venerable sir.” “Do you smell good, Tissa?” Thus, an arahant has no fear.

Ekacco pana puthujjanopi atisūro hoti nibbhayo. So rajanīyena ārammaṇena pariggaṇhitabbo. Vasabharājāpi ekaṃ theraṃ pariggaṇhamāno ghare nisīdāpetvā tassa santike badarasāḷavaṃ maddamāno nisīdi. Mahātherassa kheḷo calito, therassa puthujjanabhāvo āvibhūto. Khīṇāsavassa hi rasataṇhā nāma suppahīnā, dibbesupi rasesu nikanti nāma na hoti, tasmā imehi upāyehi pariggahetvā sacassa bhayaṃ vā chambhitattaṃ vā rasataṇhā vā uppajjati, “na ca tvaṃ arahā”ti apanetabbo. Sace pana abhīru acchambhī anutrāsī hutvā sīho viya nisīdati, dibbārammaṇepi nikantiṃ na janeti, ayaṃ bhikkhu sampannaveyyākaraṇo samantā rājarājamahāmattādīhi pesitaṃ sakkāraṃ arahatīti veditabbo. Evaṃ tāva uttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ vinicchinitabbaṃ.

Some ordinary people are very bold, fearless. He should be tested with a desirable object. King Vasabha, testing an elder, sat him at home, crushing badara fruit nearby. The great elder’s saliva stirred, revealing his ordinary state. An arahant’s craving for tastes is fully abandoned, with no attachment even to divine tastes. Thus, if fear, trembling, or taste-craving arises, “You are not an arahant,” and he should be set aside. If fearless, unshaken, unalarmed, sitting like a lion, with no attachment to divine objects, this monk with perfect declaration should be honored by kings and ministers as an arahant. Thus, a declaration of superhuman states should be judged.

But some ordinary people are very brave and fearless. He should be taken care of with a delightful object. King Vasabha, taking care of an elder, made him sit in his house and sat near him, crushing badarasāḷava (a type of fruit). The elder’s saliva moved. The elder’s state as an ordinary person became evident. For one whose taints are destroyed, craving for taste is completely abandoned; there is no attachment even to divine tastes. Therefore, having taken care of him by these means, if fear, trembling, or craving for taste arises in him, he should be dismissed, saying, “You are not an Arahant.” But if he is fearless, untrembling, unafraid, and sits like a lion, and does not generate attachment even to divine objects, this monk is to be understood as having a complete declaration and deserves the honor sent by kings, ministers, etc., from all around. Thus, the claim of superhuman attainments should be decided.

Some ordinary persons, however, are very brave and fearless. They should be tested with tempting objects. King Vasabha, while testing a certain elder, made him sit in his house and, sitting near him, crushed a jujube fruit. The elder’s saliva flowed, revealing his ordinary nature. For an arahant, craving for tastes is completely abandoned; there is no desire even for divine tastes. Therefore, by such means, if fear, terror, or craving for tastes arises, it should be concluded, “You are not an arahant.” But if he remains fearless, unshaken, and untrembling, sitting like a lion, and does not generate desire even for divine objects, this monk is worthy of the honor sent by kings, ministers, and others, as he is fully endowed with the declaration. Thus, the declaration of superhuman states should be decided.

234. Sakale pana vinayavinicchaye (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) kosallaṃ patthayantena catubbidho vinayo jānitabbo.

234. One aspiring to skill in the entire Vinaya judgment (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) should know the fourfold Vinaya.

234. But one who desires skill in all Vinaya decisions (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45) should know the fourfold Vinaya.

234. For one who aspires to skill in all Vinaya decisions (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), the fourfold Vinaya should be known.

Katamaṃ catubbidhaṃ? Suttaṃ suttānulomaṃ ācariyavādaṃ attanomatinti. Yaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ “āhaccapadena kho, mahārāja, rasena ācariyavaṃsena adhippāyā”ti (mi. pa. 4.2.3). Ettha hi āhaccapadanti suttaṃ adhippetaṃ. Rasoti suttānulomaṃ. Ācariyavaṃsoti ācariyavādo. Adhippāyoti attanomati.

What is the fourfold? Sutta, suttānuloma, ācariyavāda, and attanomati. As it is said, “By the given word, O great king, by essence, by the tradition of teachers, by intent” (mi. pa. 4.2.3). Here, given word means sutta. Essence means suttānuloma. Tradition of teachers means ācariyavāda. Intent means attanomati.

What are the four kinds? They are: the Sutta, what accords with the Sutta, the teachers’ opinion, and one’s own opinion. In reference to this it was said, “By a statement handed down, great king, by inference, by the tradition of teachers, and by one’s own reasoning” (Mi. Pa. 4.2.3). Here, āhaccapada (a statement handed down) refers to the Sutta. Rasa (inference) is what accords with the Sutta. Ācariyavaṃsa (the tradition of teachers) is the teachers’ opinion. Adhippāya (one’s own reasoning) is one’s own opinion.

What is the fourfold [Vinaya]? It is the Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda, and Attanomati. Regarding this, it is said: “O great king, by the phrase ‘āhaccapada,’ the meaning is conveyed through the essence, the lineage of teachers, and the intention.” Here, āhaccapada refers to the Sutta. Rasa refers to Suttānuloma. Ācariyavaṃsa refers to Ācariyavāda. Adhippāya refers to Attanomati.

Suttānulomaṃ nāma cattāro mahāpadesā. Ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā –

Suttānuloma (what accords with the Sutta) refers to the four great authorities. These were stated by the Blessed One thus:

Suttānuloma refers to the four great references. These were spoken by the Blessed One as follows:

“Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mayā ’idaṃ na kappatī’ti appaṭikkhittaṃ, tañce akappiyaṃ anulometi, kappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo na kappati. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mayā ’idaṃ na kappatī’ti appaṭikkhittaṃ, tañce kappiyaṃ anulometi, akappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo kappati. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mayā ’idaṃ kappatī’ti ananuññātaṃ, taṃ ce akappiyaṃ anulometi, kappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo na kappati. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mayā ’idaṃ kappatī’ti ananuññātaṃ, tañce kappiyaṃ anulometi, akappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo kappatī”ti (mahāva. 305).

“Monks, whatever I have not forbidden saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms to the unallowable and obstructs the allowable, it is not allowable for you. Whatever I have not forbidden saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms to the allowable and obstructs the unallowable, it is allowable for you. Whatever I have not permitted saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms to the unallowable and obstructs the allowable, it is not allowable for you. Whatever I have not permitted saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it conforms to the allowable and obstructs the unallowable, it is allowable for you” (mahāva. 305).

“Monks, whatever I have not prohibited, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it accords with what is unallowable and goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you. Monks, whatever I have not prohibited, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it accords with what is allowable and goes against what is unallowable, that is allowable for you. Monks, whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it accords with what is unallowable and goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you. Monks, whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it accords with what is allowable and goes against what is unallowable, that is allowable for you” (Mahāva. 305).

“Monks, what I have not rejected as ‘this is not allowable,’ if it conforms to what is allowable and opposes what is not allowable, that is not allowable for you. What I have not rejected as ‘this is not allowable,’ if it conforms to what is allowable and opposes what is not allowable, that is allowable for you. What I have not approved as ‘this is allowable,’ if it conforms to what is not allowable and opposes what is allowable, that is not allowable for you. What I have not approved as ‘this is allowable,’ if it conforms to what is allowable and opposes what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.” (Mahāva. 305)

Ācariyavādo nāma dhammasaṅgāhakehi pañcahi arahantasatehi ṭhapitā pāḷivinimuttā okkantavinicchayappavattā aṭṭhakathātanti.

Ācariyavāda is the commentary established by the five hundred arahants who compiled the Dhamma, apart from the text, determining established judgments.

Ācariyavāda (the teachers’ opinion) refers to the commentaries that were established by the five hundred arahants who compiled the Dhamma, which are free from the Pāḷi text, and are based on the flow of decisions that descended (from the Buddha).

Ācariyavāda refers to the commentaries established by the five hundred Arahants who compiled the Dhamma, which are free from Pāḷi, based on deep investigation, and are the Aṭṭhakathā.

Attanomati nāma suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā anumānena attano anubuddhiyā nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathanaṃ.

Attanomati is reasoning beyond sutta, suttānuloma, and ācariyavāda, speaking by one’s own inference and understanding of method.

Attanomati (one’s own opinion) refers to setting aside the Sutta, what accords with the Sutta, and the teachers’ opinion, and speaking based on inference, one’s own understanding, and adherence to one’s own view.

Attanomati refers to the explanation established by one’s own inference, abandoning the Sutta, Suttānuloma, and Ācariyavāda, and relying on one’s own understanding through reasoning.

Apica suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu āgato sabbopi theravādo attanomati nāma. Taṃ pana attanomatiṃ gahetvā kathentena na daḷhaggāhaṃ gahetvā voharitabbaṃ, kāraṇaṃ sallakkhetvā atthena pāḷiṃ, pāḷiyā ca atthaṃ saṃsanditvā kathetabbaṃ, attanomati ācariyavāde otāretabbā. Sace tattha otarati ceva sameti ca, gahetabbā. Sace neva otarati na sameti, na gahetabbā. Ayañhi attanomati nāma sabbadubbalā, attanomatito ācariyavādo balavataro.

Further, all traditions in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya commentaries are called attanomati. When speaking with attanomati, one should not hold it firmly; considering the reason, matching meaning with text and text with meaning, it should be spoken, and attanomati should be aligned with ācariyavāda. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken. If it neither aligns nor accords, it should not be taken. For attanomati is the weakest; ācariyavāda is stronger than attanomati.

Moreover, all the views of the elders that have come down in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and commentaries are called one’s own opinion. However, one who speaks taking up that ‘own opinion’ should not speak adhering strongly to it. One should discern the reason, correlate the meaning with the Pāḷi and the Pāḷi with the meaning, and speak accordingly. One’s own opinion should be brought down to the level of the teachers’ opinion. If it descends to that level and agrees, it should be accepted. If it neither descends nor agrees, it should not be accepted. For this ‘own opinion’ is the weakest of all; the teachers’ opinion is stronger than one’s own opinion.

Furthermore, all the Theravāda found in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and Aṭṭhakathā is called Attanomati. However, one who speaks based on Attanomati should not hold firmly to it but should speak after carefully considering the reason, reconciling the meaning with the Pāḷi, and harmonizing the Pāḷi with the meaning. Attanomati should be brought into line with Ācariyavāda. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted. If it does not align or agree, it should not be accepted. For Attanomati is weak in all respects, while Ācariyavāda is stronger.

Ācariyavādopi suttānulome otāretabbo. Tattha otaranto samento eva gahetabbo, itaro na gahetabbo. Ācariyavādato hi suttānulomaṃ balavataraṃ.

Ācariyavāda too should be aligned with suttānuloma. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; otherwise, not. For suttānuloma is stronger than ācariyavāda.

The teachers’ opinion should also be brought down to what accords with the Sutta. Only that which descends to that level and agrees should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For what accords with the Sutta is stronger than the teachers’ opinion.

Ācariyavāda should also be brought into line with Suttānuloma. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, it should not be accepted. For Suttānuloma is stronger than Ācariyavāda.

Suttānulomampi sutte otāretabbaṃ. Tattha otarantaṃ samentameva gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Suttānulomato hi suttameva balavataraṃ. Suttañhi appaṭivattiyaṃ kārakasaṅghasadisaṃ buddhānaṃ ṭhitakālasadisaṃ. Tasmā yadā dve bhikkhū sākacchanti, sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā katheti, paravādī suttānulomaṃ. Tehi aññamaññaṃ khepaṃ vā garahaṃ vā akatvā suttānulomaṃ sutte otāretabbaṃ. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbaṃ, no ce, na gahetabbaṃ, suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ suttaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro ācariyavādaṃ. Tehipi aññamaññaṃ khepaṃ vā garahaṃ vā akatvā ācariyavādo sutte otāretabbo. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbo. Anotaranto asamento ca gārayhācariyavādo na gahetabbo, suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ suttaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro attanomatiṃ. Tehipi aññamaññaṃ khepaṃ vā garahaṃ vā akatvā attanomati sutte otāretabbā. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbā, no ce, na gahetabbā, suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbaṃ.

Suttānuloma too should be aligned with sutta. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; otherwise, not. For sutta is stronger than suttānuloma. Sutta is unassailable, like a performing Sangha, like the Buddha’s enduring time. Thus, when two monks discuss, one citing sutta and the other suttānuloma, without disparaging or blaming each other, suttānuloma should be aligned with sutta. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not, not, and one should stand on sutta. If one cites sutta and the other ācariyavāda, without disparaging or blaming, ācariyavāda should be aligned with sutta. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not aligning or according, a contemptible ācariyavāda should not be taken, and one should stand on sutta. If one cites sutta and the other attanomati, without disparaging or blaming, attanomati should be aligned with sutta. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not, not, and one should stand on sutta.

What accords with the Sutta should also be brought down to the Sutta. Only that which descends to that level and agrees should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For the Sutta itself is stronger than what accords with the Sutta. The Sutta is indeed unwavering, like a group of doers of action, and like the period of the Buddhas’ presence. Therefore, when two monks are discussing, the proponent speaks based on the Sutta, and the opponent on what accords with the Sutta. Without criticizing or blaming each other, they should bring what accords with the Sutta down to the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with the Sutta. If one speaks based on the Sutta, and the other on the teachers’ opinion, they too, without criticizing or blaming each other, should bring the teachers’ opinion down to the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If it does not descend and does not agree, and is a blameworthy teacher’s opinion, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with the Sutta. If one speaks based on the Sutta, and the other on one’s own opinion, they too, without criticizing or blaming each other, should bring one’s own opinion down to the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with the Sutta.

Suttānuloma should also be brought into line with the Sutta. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, it should not be accepted. For the Sutta is stronger than Suttānuloma. The Sutta is unshakable, like the Sangha of the Buddha’s time, resembling the Buddha’s own time. Therefore, when two monks discuss, one holding the Sutta and the other Suttānuloma, they should bring Suttānuloma into line with the Sutta without mutual criticism or blame. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by the Sutta. Similarly, if one holds the Sutta and the other Ācariyavāda, they should bring Ācariyavāda into line with the Sutta. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by the Sutta. Likewise, if one holds the Sutta and the other Attanomati, they should bring Attanomati into line with the Sutta. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by the Sutta.

Athāyaṃ suttānulomaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttaṃ, suttānulome otāretabbaṃ. Sace otarati sameti, tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyati, gahetabbaṃ, no ce tathā paññāyati, na otarati na sameti, bāhirakasuttaṃ vā hoti siloko vā aññaṃ vā gārayhasuttaṃ guḷhavessantaraguḷhavinayavedallādīnaṃ aññatarato ābhataṃ, na gahetabbaṃ, suttānulomasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ suttānulomaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro ācariyavādaṃ. Ācariyavādo suttānulome otāretabbo. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbo. No ce, na gahetabbo, suttānulomeyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ suttānulomaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro attanomatiṃ. Attanomati suttānulome otāretabbā. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbā. No ce, na gahetabbā, suttānulomeyeva ṭhātabbaṃ.

If one cites suttānuloma and the other sutta, suttānuloma should be aligned with sutta. If it aligns and accords, it is evident as text from the three councils, and should be taken; if not evident as such, not aligning or according, it is an external text, verse, or something contemptible brought from Guḷhavessantara, Guḷhavinaya, Vedalla, or the like, and should not be taken—one should stand on suttānuloma. If one cites suttānuloma and the other ācariyavāda, ācariyavāda should be aligned with suttānuloma. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not, not, and one should stand on suttānuloma. If one cites suttānuloma and the other attanomati, attanomati should be aligned with suttānuloma. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not, not, and one should stand on suttānuloma.

If one speaks based on what accords with the Sutta, and the other on the Sutta, it should be brought down to what accords with the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it is evident that it has been recited in the three councils and has come down in the Pāḷi; it should be accepted. If it is not evident in that way, does not descend, and does not agree, and is an external sutta, a verse, or something else blameworthy, taken from one of the obscure Vessantara, obscure Vinaya, or Vedalla texts, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with what accords with the Sutta. If one speaks based on what accords with the Sutta, and the other on the teachers’ opinion, the teachers’ opinion should be brought down to what accords with the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with what accords with the Sutta. If one speaks based on what accords with the Sutta, and the other on one’s own opinion, one’s own opinion should be brought down to what accords with the Sutta. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with what accords with the Sutta.

Similarly, if one holds Suttānuloma and the other the Sutta, they should bring Suttānuloma into line with the Sutta. If it aligns and agrees, and the three Councils are seen to have upheld the Pāḷi, it should be accepted; if not, and it does not align or agree, and it is an external Sutta or a verse or some other blameworthy Sutta brought from elsewhere, such as the Guḷha-Vessantara or Guḷha-Vinaya-Vedalla, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Suttānuloma. Similarly, if one holds Suttānuloma and the other Ācariyavāda, they should bring Ācariyavāda into line with Suttānuloma. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Suttānuloma. Likewise, if one holds Suttānuloma and the other Attanomati, they should bring Attanomati into line with Suttānuloma. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Suttānuloma.

Athāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttaṃ. Suttaṃ ācariyavāde otāretabbaṃ. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbaṃ. Itaraṃ gārayhasuttaṃ na gahetabbaṃ, ācariyavādeyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttānulomaṃ. Suttānulomaṃ ācariyavāde otāretabbaṃ. Otarantaṃ samentameva gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ na gahetabbaṃ, ācariyavādeyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro attanomatiṃ. Attanomati ācariyavāde otāretabbā. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbā. No ce, na gahetabbā, ācariyavādeyeva ṭhātabbaṃ.

If one cites ācariyavāda and the other sutta, sutta should be aligned with ācariyavāda. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; a contemptible sutta should not be taken—one should stand on ācariyavāda. If one cites ācariyavāda and the other suttānuloma, suttānuloma should be aligned with ācariyavāda. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; otherwise, not, and one should stand on ācariyavāda. If one cites ācariyavāda and the other attanomati, attanomati should be aligned with ācariyavāda. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; if not, not, and one should stand on ācariyavāda.

If one speaks based on the teachers’ opinion, and the other on the Sutta, the Sutta should be brought down to the teachers’ opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If it is a blameworthy sutta, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with the teachers’ opinion. If one speaks based on the teachers’ opinion, and the other on what accords with the Sutta, what accords with the Sutta should be brought down to the teachers’ opinion. Only that which descends and agrees should be accepted; the other should not be accepted, and one should remain with the teachers’ opinion. If one speaks based on the teachers’ opinion, and the other on one’s own opinion, one’s own opinion should be brought down to the teachers’ opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with the teachers’ opinion.

Similarly, if one holds Ācariyavāda and the other the Sutta, they should bring the Sutta into line with Ācariyavāda. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, a blameworthy Sutta should not be accepted, and one should stand by Ācariyavāda. Similarly, if one holds Ācariyavāda and the other Suttānuloma, they should bring Suttānuloma into line with Ācariyavāda. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Ācariyavāda. Likewise, if one holds Ācariyavāda and the other Attanomati, they should bring Attanomati into line with Ācariyavāda. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; if not, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Ācariyavāda.

Atha panāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttaṃ. Suttaṃ attanomatiyaṃ otāretabbaṃ. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbaṃ. Itaraṃ gārayhasuttaṃ na gahetabbaṃ, attanomatiyameva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttānulomaṃ. Suttānulomaṃ attanomatiyaṃ otāretabbaṃ. Otarantaṃ samentameva gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ na gahetabbaṃ, attanomatiyameva ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro ācariyavādaṃ. Ācariyavādo attanomatiyaṃ otāretabbo. Sace otarati sameti, gahetabbo. Itaro gārayhācariyavādo na gahetabbo, attanomatiyameva ṭhātabbaṃ, attano gahaṇameva baliyaṃ kātabbaṃ. Sabbaṭṭhānesu ca khepo vā garahā vā na kātabbāti.

If one cites attanomati and the other sutta, sutta should be aligned with attanomati. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; a contemptible sutta should not be taken—one should stand on attanomati. If one cites attanomati and the other suttānuloma, suttānuloma should be aligned with attanomati. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; otherwise, not, and one should stand on attanomati. If one cites attanomati and the other ācariyavāda, ācariyavāda should be aligned with attanomati. If it aligns and accords, it should be taken; a contemptible ācariyavāda should not be taken—one should stand on attanomati, giving preference to one’s own grasp. In all cases, disparagement or blame should not be made.

If one speaks based on one’s own opinion, and the other on the Sutta, the Sutta should be brought down to one’s own opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If it is a blameworthy sutta, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with one’s own opinion. If one speaks based on one’s own opinion, and the other on what accords with the Sutta, what accords with the Sutta should be brought down to one’s own opinion. Only that which descends and agrees should be accepted; the other should not be accepted, and one should remain with one’s own opinion. If one speaks based on one’s own opinion, and the other on the teachers’ opinion, the teachers’ opinion should be brought down to one’s own opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be accepted. If it is a blameworthy teachers’ opinion, it should not be accepted, and one should remain with one’s own opinion; one should strengthen one’s own view. And in all situations, neither criticism nor blame should be made.

Similarly, if one holds Attanomati and the other the Sutta, they should bring the Sutta into line with Attanomati. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, a blameworthy Sutta should not be accepted, and one should stand by Attanomati. Similarly, if one holds Attanomati and the other Suttānuloma, they should bring Suttānuloma into line with Attanomati. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, it should not be accepted, and one should stand by Attanomati. Likewise, if one holds Attanomati and the other Ācariyavāda, they should bring Ācariyavāda into line with Attanomati. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted; otherwise, a blameworthy Ācariyavāda should not be accepted, and one should stand by Attanomati, making one’s own holding the stronger. In all cases, criticism or blame should not be made.

Atha panāyaṃ kappiyanti gahetvā katheti, paro akappiyanti, sutte ca suttānulome ca otāretabbaṃ. Sace kappiyaṃ hoti, kappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Sace akappiyaṃ, akappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ tassa kappiyabhāvasādhakaṃ suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dasseti, paro kāraṇaṃ na vindati, kappiyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Atha paro tassa akappiyabhāvasādhakaṃ suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dasseti, anena attano gahaṇanti katvā daḷhaṃ ādāya na ṭhātabbaṃ, “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchitvā akappiye eva ṭhātabbaṃ. Atha dvinnampi kāraṇacchāyā dissati, paṭikkhittabhāvoyeva sādhu, akappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Vinayañhi patvā kappiyākappiyavicāraṇaṃ āgamma rundhitabbaṃ, gāḷhaṃ kattabbaṃ, sotaṃ pacchinditabbaṃ, garukabhāveyeva ṭhātabbaṃ.

If one cites “allowable” and the other “unallowable,” it should be aligned with sutta and suttānuloma. If allowable, stand on allowable; if unallowable, stand on unallowable. If one shows much reason and judgment from sutta proving its allowability, and the other finds no reason, stand on allowable. If the other shows much reason and judgment from sutta proving its unallowability, one should not hold firm thinking, “My grasp,” but accept with “Well said” and stand on unallowable. If both show a shadow of reason, the prohibited state is better—stand on unallowable. In Vinaya, deliberation on allowable and unallowable should be restrained, tightened, cut off, and stand on the grave aspect.

If one speaks asserting ‘it is allowable,’ and the other ‘it is unallowable,’ it should be brought down to the Sutta and what accords with the Sutta. If it is allowable, one should remain with the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should remain with the unallowable. If one presents many reasons and decisions from the Sutta to establish that it is allowable, and the other finds no reason, one should remain with the allowable. If the other presents many reasons and decisions from the Sutta to establish that it is unallowable, one should not remain stubbornly holding one’s own view, but should acknowledge ‘it is well,’ and remain with the unallowable. If the shadow of reason appears for both, the state of prohibition is better, and one should remain with the unallowable. For when it comes to the Vinaya, having come to the consideration of what is allowable and unallowable, it should be blocked, made firm, the stream should be cut off, and one should remain in the state of gravity.

Furthermore, if one holds “allowable” and the other “not allowable,” they should bring both into line with the Sutta and Suttānuloma. If it is allowable, one should stand by what is allowable; if not allowable, one should stand by what is not allowable. If one presents many reasons and investigations from the Sutta to establish its allowability, and the other cannot find a reason, one should stand by what is allowable. If the other presents many reasons and investigations from the Sutta to establish its non-allowability, and one cannot find a reason, one should firmly hold one’s own position and not stand by it, but accept it as “good” and stand by what is not allowable. If the shadow of both reasons is seen, it is better to reject it and stand by what is not allowable. For in the Vinaya, after reaching the consideration of what is allowable and not allowable, one should restrain oneself, act firmly, cut off the stream, and stand by what is weighty.

Atha panāyaṃ akappiyanti gahetvā katheti, paro kappiyanti, sutte ca suttānulome ca otāretabbaṃ. Sace kappiyaṃ hoti, kappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Sace akappiyaṃ, akappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Athāyaṃ bahūhi suttavinicchayakāraṇehi akappiyabhāvaṃ dasseti, paro kāraṇaṃ na vindati, akappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Atha paro bahūhi suttavinicchayakāraṇehi kappiyabhāvaṃ dasseti, ayaṃ kāraṇaṃ na vindati, kappiye ṭhātabbaṃ. Atha dvinnampi kāraṇacchāyā dissati, attano gahaṇaṃ na vissajjetabbaṃ. Yathā cāyaṃ kappiyākappiye akappiyakappiye ca vinicchayo vutto, evaṃ anāpattiāpattivāde āpattānāpattivāde ca, lahukagarukāpattivāde garukalahukāpattivāde cāpi vinicchayo veditabbo. Nāmamatteyeva hi ettha nānaṃ, yojanānaye nānaṃ natthi, tasmā na vitthāritaṃ.

If one cites “unallowable” and the other “allowable,” it should be aligned with sutta and suttānuloma. If allowable, stand on allowable; if unallowable, stand on unallowable. If one shows much reason and judgment from sutta proving its unallowability, and the other finds no reason, stand on unallowable. If the other shows much reason and judgment from sutta proving its allowability, and one finds no reason, stand on allowable. If both show a shadow of reason, one’s grasp should not be relinquished. As this judgment is stated for allowable-unallowable and unallowable-allowable, so it should be understood for non-offense-offense and offense-non-offense, light-grave offense and grave-light offense judgments. The difference is only in name, not in method or application, so it is not elaborated.

If one speaks asserting ‘it is unallowable,’ and the other ‘it is allowable,’ it should be brought down to the Sutta and what accords with the Sutta. If it is allowable, one should remain with the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should remain with the unallowable. If one presents the state of being unallowable with many reasons from the Sutta and decisions, and the other finds no reason, one should remain with the unallowable. If the other presents the state of being allowable with many reasons from the Sutta and decisions, and this one finds no reason, one should remain with the allowable. If the shadow of reason appears for both, one should not abandon one’s own view. Just as this decision regarding allowable and unallowable, and unallowable and allowable has been stated, so too should the decision be understood in the case of non-offense and offense, offense and non-offense, minor and major offenses, and major and minor offenses. Here, there is only a difference in name; there is no difference in the method of application, therefore it has not been elaborated.

Similarly, if one holds “not allowable” and the other “allowable,” they should bring both into line with the Sutta and Suttānuloma. If it is allowable, one should stand by what is allowable; if not allowable, one should stand by what is not allowable. If one presents many reasons and investigations from the Sutta to establish its non-allowability, and the other cannot find a reason, one should stand by what is not allowable. If the other presents many reasons and investigations from the Sutta to establish its allowability, and one cannot find a reason, one should stand by what is allowable. If the shadow of both reasons is seen, one should not abandon one’s own holding. Just as this consideration of what is allowable and not allowable, and what is not allowable and allowable, is explained, so too should the consideration of non-offense and offense, offense and non-offense, light and grave offenses, and grave and light offenses be understood. For here, the difference is only in name; in application, there is no difference, so it is not elaborated.

Evaṃ kappiyākappiyādivinicchaye uppanne yo suttasuttānulomaācariyavādaattanomatīsu atirekakāraṇaṃ labhati, tassa vāde ṭhātabbaṃ, sabbaso pana kāraṇavinicchayaṃ alabhantena suttaṃ na jahitabbaṃ, suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbanti. Evaṃ sakalavinayavinicchaye kosallaṃ patthayantena ayaṃ catubbidho vinayo jānitabbo.

In such judgments of allowable-unallowable and the like, one who gains extra reason in sutta, suttānuloma, ācariyavāda, or attanomati should stand on that view. Without gaining any reason or judgment, sutta should not be abandoned—one should stand on sutta. Thus, one aspiring to skill in the entire Vinaya judgment should know this fourfold Vinaya.

Thus, when a decision regarding allowable and unallowable, etc., arises, one who finds superior reasons among the Sutta, what accords with the Sutta, the teachers’ opinion, and one’s own opinion, should remain with that view. But one who does not find any conclusive reasoning at all should not abandon the Sutta, but should remain with the Sutta. Thus, one desiring skill in the entire Vinaya decision-making should know this fourfold Vinaya.

Thus, in the consideration of what is allowable and not allowable, etc., when a dispute arises, one should stand by the view that has the most supporting reasons among the Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda, and Attanomati. However, if one cannot find any decisive reason, one should not abandon the Sutta but stand by the Sutta. Thus, one who aspires to skill in the complete Vinaya investigation should know this fourfold Vinaya.

Imañca pana catubbidhaṃ vinayaṃ ñatvāpi vinayadharena puggalena tilakkhaṇasamannāgatena bhavitabbaṃ. Tīṇi hi vinayadharassa lakkhaṇāni icchitabbāni. Katamāni tīṇi? Suttañcassa svāgataṃ hoti suppavatti suvinicchitaṃ suttato anubyañjanasoti idamekaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ. Vinaye kho pana ṭhito hoti asaṃhīroti idaṃ dutiyaṃ. Ācariyaparamparā kho panassa suggahitā hoti sumanasikatā sūpadhāritāti idaṃ tatiyaṃ.

Even knowing this fourfold Vinaya, a Vinaya expert should possess three characteristics. What are the three desired characteristics of a Vinaya expert? The sutta is well-mastered, well-practiced, well-determined by thread and letter—this is one characteristic. He stands firm in Vinaya, unshaken—this is the second. The tradition of teachers is well-grasped, well-attended, well-retained—this is the third.

And having known this fourfold Vinaya, a person who is a Vinaya-holder should be endowed with three characteristics. Indeed, three characteristics of a Vinaya-holder are to be desired. What are the three? The Sutta is well-learned by him, well-practiced, well-determined according to the letter and spirit; this is one characteristic. He is established in the Vinaya, unwavering; this is the second. The lineage of teachers is well-grasped by him, well-attended to, well-considered; this is the third.

Having known this fourfold Vinaya, a person who bears the Vinaya should be endowed with the three characteristics. Three characteristics of a Vinayadhara should be desired. What are the three? The Sutta is well-received, well-practiced, well-investigated, and understood from the Sutta and its details—this is the first characteristic. One is firmly established in the Vinaya, unshaken—this is the second. The lineage of teachers is well-learned, well-considered, and well-retained—this is the third.

Tattha suttaṃ nāma sakalaṃ vinayapiṭakaṃ. Tadassa svāgataṃ hotīti suṭṭhu āgataṃ. Suppavattīti suṭṭhu pavattaṃ paguṇaṃ vācuggataṃ. Suvinicchitaṃ suttaso anubyañjanasoti pāḷito ca paripucchato ca aṭṭhakathāto ca suvinicchitaṃ hoti kaṅkhāchedanaṃ katvā uggahitaṃ. Vinaye kho pana ṭhito hotīti vinaye lajjibhāvena patiṭṭhito hoti. Alajjī hi bahussutopi samāno lābhagarukatāya tantiṃ visaṃvādetvā uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ satthusāsanaṃ dīpetvā sāsane mahantaṃ upaddavaṃ karoti, saṅghabhedampi saṅgharājimpi uppādeti. Lajjī pana kukkuccako sikkhākāmo jīvitahetupi tantiṃ avisaṃvādetvā dhammameva vinayameva dīpeti, satthusāsanaṃ garukaṃ katvā ṭhapeti. Tathā hi pubbe mahātherā tikkhattuṃ vācaṃ nicchāresuṃ “anāgate lajjī rakkhissati, lajjī rakkhissati, lajjī rakkhissatī”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). Evaṃ yo lajjī, so vinayaṃ avijahanto avokkamanto lajjibhāveneva vinaye ṭhito hoti suppatiṭṭhitoti.

Therein, sutta is the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. It is well-mastered—thoroughly acquired. Well-practiced—thoroughly practiced, proficient, recited by heart. Well-determined by thread and letter—determined well from the text, questioning, and commentary, grasped by dispelling doubt. He stands firm in Vinaya—established in Vinaya with conscientiousness. A shameless one, though learned, distorts the tradition for gain, showing what is not Dhamma or Vinaya, causing great harm in the teaching, even schism or ruin. A conscientious one, cautious and eager for training, does not distort the tradition even for life’s sake, showing only Dhamma and Vinaya, honoring the Teacher’s instruction. Thus, the great elders of old thrice declared, “In the future, the conscientious will protect, the conscientious will protect, the conscientious will protect” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). Thus, one who is conscientious, not abandoning or transgressing Vinaya, stands firm in Vinaya with conscientiousness, well-established.

Herein, Sutta is the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Tadassa svāgataṃ hotīti means it is well-learned by him. Suppavattīti means it is well-practiced, proficient, and fluent in speech. Suvinicchitaṃ suttaso anubyañjanasoti means it is well-determined according to the text, through questioning, and from the commentary, having removed doubt and learned it. Vinaye kho pana ṭhito hotīti means he is established in the Vinaya through the state of moral shame. For one without moral shame, even though he is very learned, due to being attached to gain, misrepresents the tradition, displays what is not Dhamma and not Vinaya as the teaching of the Teacher, and creates great trouble in the Dispensation; he even causes schisms and dissensions in the Saṅgha. But one with moral shame, scrupulous, desiring training, even at the cost of his life, does not misrepresent the tradition, but displays only Dhamma and Vinaya, holding the Teacher’s Dispensation in high regard. Thus, the great elders of old declared three times, “In the future, the one with moral shame will protect, the one with moral shame will protect, the one with moral shame will protect” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45). Thus, one who has moral shame, not abandoning the Vinaya, not transgressing, is well-established in the Vinaya through the state of moral shame.

Here, Sutta means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. It is well-received—thoroughly received. Well-practiced—thoroughly practiced, familiar, and verbalized. Well-investigated from the Sutta and its details—investigated thoroughly from the Pāḷi, questioning, and the Aṭṭhakathā, having resolved doubts and learned it. Firmly established in the Vinaya—one is established in the Vinaya through a sense of shame. For a shameless one, even if learned, deceives the thread out of greed for gain, leads others astray, and causes great harm to the Dispensation, even causing schism in the Sangha and creating Sangha disputes. But a shameful one, scrupulous and desiring training, does not deceive the thread even for the sake of life, illuminates only the Dhamma and Vinaya, and upholds the Teacher’s Dispensation with respect. Thus, the great elders of the past declared three times: “In the future, the shameful will protect, the shameful will protect, the shameful will protect.” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45). Thus, one who is shameful, not abandoning or straying from the Vinaya, is firmly established in the Vinaya through a sense of shame.

Asaṃhīroti saṃhīro nāma yo pāḷiyaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vā heṭṭhato vā uparito vā padapaṭipāṭiyā vā pucchiyamāno vitthunati vipphandati santiṭṭhituṃ na sakkoti, yaṃ yaṃ parena vuccati, taṃ taṃ anujānāti, sakavādaṃ chaḍḍetvā paravādaṃ gaṇhāti. Yo pana pāḷiyaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vā heṭṭhupariyena vā padapaṭipāṭiyā vā pucchiyamāno na vitthunati na vipphandati, ekekalomaṃ saṇḍāsena gaṇhanto viya “evaṃ mayaṃ vadāma, evaṃ no ācariyā vadantī”ti vissajjeti, yamhi pāḷi ca pāḷivinicchayo ca suvaṇṇabhājane pakkhittasīhavasā viya parikkhayaṃ pariyādānaṃ agacchanto tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ vuccati “asaṃhīro”ti.

Unshaken—one who, questioned on the text or commentary, from below or above, or in word order, falters, stumbles, cannot stand firm, agrees with whatever the other says, abandoning his own view for the other’s, is shaken. But one who, questioned on the text or commentary, from below or above, or in word order, does not falter or stumble, answering as if picking each hair with tongs, “Thus we say, thus our teachers say,” where the text and its judgment stand like lion’s fat in a golden vessel, not exhausted or consumed, is called “unshaken.”

Asaṃhīroti: ‘Saṃhīra’ refers to one who, when questioned about the Pāḷi or the commentary, from below or above, or about the sequence of words, trembles, struggles, is unable to remain steady, agrees with whatever is said by others, abandons his own view and takes up the view of others. But one who, when questioned about the Pāḷi or the commentary, from below or above, or about the sequence of words, does not tremble, does not struggle, as if grasping each single hair with tongs, answers, “Thus we say, thus our teachers say,” in whom the Pāḷi and the decision of the Pāḷi remain, like lion’s fat placed in a golden vessel, without diminishing or disappearing, he is called “asaṃhīra” (unwavering).

Unshaken—one who is shaken is one who, when questioned about the Pāḷi or Aṭṭhakathā, from below or above, or about the sequence of words, falters, struggles, and cannot stand firm, and agrees with whatever the other says, abandoning his own view and accepting the other’s view. But one who, when questioned about the Pāḷi or Aṭṭhakathā, from below or above, or about the sequence of words, does not falter or struggle, but takes each point with a hook, saying, “Thus we say, thus our teachers say,” and replies, in whom the Pāḷi and the investigation of the Pāḷi stand like lion’s fat placed in a golden vessel, not diminishing or exhausting, is called “unshaken.”

Ācariyaparamparā kho panassa suggahitā hotīti theraparamparā vaṃsaparamparā assa suṭṭhu gahitā hoti. Sumanasikatāti suṭṭhu manasikatā, āvajjitamatte ujjalitapadīpo viya hoti. Sūpadhāritāti suṭṭhu upadhāritā pubbāparānusandhito atthato kāraṇato ca upadhāritā . Attanomatiṃ pahāya ācariyasuddhiyā vattā hoti, “mayhaṃ ācariyo asukācariyassa santike uggaṇhi, so asukassā”ti evaṃ sabbaṃ ācariyaparamparaṃ theravādaṅgaṃ haritvā yāva upālitthero sammāsambuddhassa santike uggaṇhīti pāpetvā ṭhapeti, tatopi āharitvā upālitthero sammāsambuddhassa santike uggaṇhi, dāsakatthero attano upajjhāyassa upālittherassa, soṇatthero attano upajjhāyassa dāsakattherassa, siggavatthero attano upajjhāyassa soṇattherassa, moggaliputtatissatthero attano upajjhāyassa siggavattherassa caṇḍavajjittherassa cāti evaṃ sabbaṃ ācariyaparamparaṃ theravādaṅgaṃ āharitvā attano ācariyaṃ pāpetvā ṭhapeti. Evaṃ uggahitā hi ācariyaparamparā suggahitā hoti. Evaṃ asakkontena pana avassaṃ dve tayo parivaṭṭā uggahetabbā. Sabbapacchimena hi nayena yathā ācariyo ācariyācariyo ca pāḷiñca paripucchañca vadanti, tathā ñātuṃ vaṭṭati.

The tradition of teachers is well-grasped—the lineage of elders, the succession, is thoroughly grasped. Well-attended—thoroughly attended, shining like a lit lamp when reflected upon. Well-retained—thoroughly retained, connected from start to end, retained by meaning and reason. Abandoning personal opinion, he follows the purity of teachers, “My teacher learned from such a teacher, he from such,” bringing the entire teacher tradition back to the Elder Upāli learning from the Perfectly Enlightened One, and even beyond, tracing it to Upāli learning from the Buddha, Dāsaka from his preceptor Upāli, Soṇa from his preceptor Dāsaka, Siggava from his preceptor Soṇa, Moggaliputtatissa from his preceptors Siggava and Caṇḍavajji—thus bringing and establishing the entire teacher tradition to his own teacher. A tradition so grasped is well-grasped. One unable to do so must at least learn two or three cycles. By the latest method, one should know as the teacher and teacher’s teacher speak of the text and questioning.

Ācariyaparamparā kho panassa suggahitā hotīti means the lineage of elders, the lineage of the tradition, is well-grasped by him. Sumanasikatāti means it is well-attended to; at the mere recollection, it is like a brightly lit lamp. Sūpadhāritāti means it is well-considered, considered from the beginning to the end, from the meaning and the reason. Abandoning one’s own opinion, he acts with the purity of the teachers, thinking, “My teacher learned from such and such a teacher, and he from such and such,” thus tracing the entire lineage of teachers, the limb of the elders’ view, back to elder Upāli who learned from the presence of the Perfectly Enlightened One, and placing it there. Then, bringing it forward from there: Elder Upāli learned from the presence of the Perfectly Enlightened One, elder Dāsaka from his preceptor elder Upāli, elder Soṇa from his preceptor elder Dāsaka, elder Siggava from his preceptor elder Soṇa, elder Moggaliputtatissa from his preceptor elder Siggava and elder Caṇḍavajji, thus bringing the entire lineage of teachers, the limb of the elders’ view, forward to his own teacher and placing it there. For a lineage of teachers learned in this way is well-grasped. But one who is unable to do so should definitely learn two or three cycles. At the very least, it is necessary to know how the teacher and the teacher’s teacher state the Pāḷi and the questioning.

The lineage of teachers is well-learned—the lineage of elders is well-learned. Well-considered—thoroughly considered, like a lamp lit when touched. Well-retained—thoroughly retained, connected from beginning to end in meaning and reason. Abandoning Attanomati, one speaks with the purity of the teacher, saying, “My teacher learned from such a teacher, he from such a one,” thus bringing the entire lineage of teachers, the Theravāda, up to the Elder Upāli, who learned from the presence of the Fully Enlightened One. From there, bringing it up to the Elder Dāsaka, who learned from his preceptor, the Elder Upāli; the Elder Soṇa, who learned from his preceptor, the Elder Dāsaka; the Elder Siggava, who learned from his preceptor, the Elder Soṇa; the Elder Moggaliputtatissa, who learned from his preceptors, the Elder Siggava and the Elder Caṇḍavajji—thus bringing the entire lineage of teachers, the Theravāda, and establishing it with one’s own teacher. Thus learned, the lineage of teachers is well-learned. If one cannot do this, at least two or three cycles should be learned. For in the end, one should know as the teacher and the teacher’s teacher, and the Pāḷi and questioning, speak.

Imehi ca pana tīhi lakkhaṇehi samannāgatena vinayadharena vatthuvinicchayatthaṃ sannipatite saṅghe otiṇṇe vatthusmiṃ codakena ca cuditakena ca vutte vattabbe sahasā avinicchinitvāva cha ṭhānāni oloketabbāni. Katamāni cha? Vatthu oloketabbaṃ, mātikā oloketabbā, padabhājanīyaṃ oloketabbaṃ, tikaparicchedo oloketabbo, antarāpatti oloketabbā, anāpatti oloketabbāti.

With these three characteristics, a Vinaya expert, when the Sangha gathers to judge a settled basis stated by accuser and accused, should not judge hastily but examine six aspects. What six? The basis, the summary, the word analysis, the triple classification, the intermediate offense, and non-offense should be examined.

And a Vinaya-holder endowed with these three characteristics, when the Saṅgha has assembled for the decision of a case, and a case has arisen, when the accuser and the accused have stated their cases, should not make a decision hastily, but should examine six points. What are the six? The case should be examined, the root-text (mātikā) should be examined, the word-explanation (padabhājanīya) should be examined, the threefold division (tikapariccheda) should be examined, the intermediate offense (antarāpatti) should be examined, and the non-offense (anāpatti) should be examined.

Endowed with these three characteristics, a Vinayadhara, when the Sangha has gathered for the purpose of investigating a case, and the accuser and the accused have spoken, should, without hasty investigation, look at six places. What are the six? The case should be examined, the matrix should be examined, the word analysis should be examined, the threefold classification should be examined, the intermediate offense should be examined, and the non-offense should be examined.

Vatthuṃ olokentopi hi “tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā āgantabbaṃ, na tveva naggena āgantabbaṃ, yo āgaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (pārā. 517) evaṃ ekaccaṃ āpattiṃ passati, so taṃ suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Even examining the basis, seeing an offense like, “One must come covered with grass or leaves, not naked; one who comes naked commits a dukkaṭa” (pārā. 517), he brings that sutta and settles that matter.

For even one examining the case sees a certain offense, such as, “One should come covered with grass or leaves, but one should not come naked; whoever comes (naked), there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Pārā. 517), he will bring that sutta and settle that dispute.

When examining the case, one sees an offense such as, “One should come covering oneself with grass or leaves, not naked. If one comes naked, it is an offense of wrong-doing.” (Pārā. 517). One brings that Sutta and settles that dispute.

Mātikaṃ olokentopi “sampajānamusāvāde pācittiya”ntiādinā (pāci. 3) nayena pañcannaṃ āpattīnaṃ aññataraṃ āpattiṃ passati, so taṃ suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Examining the summary, seeing one of the five offenses by the method, “Deliberate lying is a pācittiya” and so forth (pāci. 3), he brings that sutta and settles that matter.

Even one examining the root-text (mātikā) sees one of the five offenses, such as, “In the case of intentional lying, there is a pācittiya offense” (Pāci. 3), he will bring that sutta and settle that dispute.

When examining the matrix, one sees an offense such as, “In intentional false speech, there is an offense requiring confession.” (Pāci. 3), and so on, for the five kinds of offenses. One brings that Sutta and settles that dispute.

Padabhājanīyaṃ olokentopi “akkhayite sarīre methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevati, āpatti pārājikassa. Yebhuyyena khayite sarīre methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevati, āpatti thullaccayassā”tiādinā (pārā. 59 atthato samānaṃ) nayena sattannaṃ āpattīnaṃ aññataraṃ āpattiṃ passati, so padabhājanīyato suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Examining the word analysis, seeing one of the seven offenses by the method, “Practicing sexual intercourse with an un-decomposed body is a pārājika; with a mostly decomposed body, a thullaccaya” and so forth (pārā. 59, meaning similar), he brings the sutta from the word analysis and settles that matter.

Even one examining the word-explanation (padabhājanīya) sees one of the seven offenses, such as, “One who engages in sexual intercourse with the body not yet decomposed, there is an offense requiring expiation (pārājika). One who engages in sexual intercourse with the body mostly decomposed, there is an offense of grave wrongdoing (thullaccaya)” (Pārā. 59, essentially the same), he will bring the sutta from the word-explanation and settle that dispute.

When examining the word analysis, one sees an offense such as, “If one engages in sexual intercourse with a living being, it is an offense entailing defeat. If one engages in sexual intercourse with a mostly decomposed being, it is an offense of grave wrong-doing.” (Pārā. 59, similar in meaning), and so on, for the seven kinds of offenses. One brings the Sutta from the word analysis and settles that dispute.

Tikaparicchedaṃ olokentopi tikasaṅghādisesaṃ vā tikapācittiyaṃ vā tikadukkaṭaṃ vā aññataraṃ vā āpattiṃ tikaparicchede passati, so tato suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Examining the triple classification, seeing a triple saṅghādisesa, pācittiya, dukkaṭa, or another offense in the triple classification, he brings that sutta and settles that matter.

Even one examining the threefold division (tikapariccheda) sees a threefold saṅghādisesa, or a threefold pācittiya, or a threefold dukkaṭa, or any other offense in the threefold division, he will bring the sutta from there and settle that dispute.

When examining the threefold classification, one sees an offense such as a threefold Saṅghādisesa, a threefold Pācittiya, or a threefold wrong-doing, or any one of them in the threefold classification. One brings the Sutta from there and settles that dispute.

Antarāpattiṃ olokentopi “paṭilātaṃ ukkhipati, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (pāci. 355) evaṃ yā sikkhāpadantaresu antarāpatti hoti, taṃ passati, so taṃ suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Examining the intermediate offense, seeing an intermediate offense in other training rules like, “Lifting what is received is a dukkaṭa” (pāci. 355), he brings that sutta and settles that matter.

Even one examining the intermediate offense (antarāpatti) sees an intermediate offense within the training rules, such as, “He lifts up what has been laid down, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Pāci. 355), he will bring that sutta and settle that dispute.

When examining the intermediate offense, one sees an offense such as, “If one lifts a covering, it is an offense of wrong-doing.” (Pāci. 355), and so on, for offenses occurring between training rules. One brings that Sutta and settles that dispute.

Anāpattiṃ olokentopi “anāpatti bhikkhu asādiyantassa, atheyyacittassa, na maraṇādhippāyassa, anullapanādhippāyassa, na mocanādhippāyassa asañcicca asatiyā ajānantassā”ti (pārā. 72, 136, 180, 225, 263 thokaṃ thokaṃ visadisaṃ) evaṃ tasmiṃ tasmiṃ sikkhāpade niddiṭṭhaṃ anāpattiṃ passati, so taṃ suttaṃ ānetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati.

Examining non-offense, seeing non-offense specified in each training rule like, “There is no offense for a monk not desiring, without theft in mind, not intending death, not intending flattery, not intending release, unintentionally, unmindfully, unknowingly” (pārā. 72, 136, 180, 225, 263, slightly varied), he brings that sutta and settles that matter.

Even one examining the non-offense (anāpatti) sees the non-offense specified in each training rule, such as, “There is no offense for a monk who does not consent, who has no intention of stealing, who does not intend to kill, who does not intend to boast, who does not intend to release, who acts unintentionally, unmindfully, unknowingly” (Pārā. 72, 136, 180, 225, 263, slightly different), he will bring that sutta and settle that dispute.

When examining the non-offense, one sees the non-offense stated in various training rules such as, “There is no offense for a monk who does not consent, who is not of a mind to steal, who does not intend death, who does not intend to incite, who does not intend to release, who is unintentional, unmindful, or unknowing.” (Pārā. 72, 136, 180, 225, 263, slightly different). One brings that Sutta and settles that dispute.

Yo hi bhikkhu catubbidhavinayakovido tilakkhaṇasampanno imāni cha ṭhānāni oloketvā adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamessati, tassa vinicchayo appaṭivattiyo buddhena sayaṃ nisīditvā vinicchitasadiso hoti. Taṃ ce evaṃ vinicchayakusalaṃ bhikkhuṃ koci katasikkhāpadavītikkamo bhikkhu upasaṅkamitvā attano kukkuccaṃ puccheyya, tena sādhukaṃ sallakkhetvā sace anāpatti hoti, “anāpattī”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace pana āpatti hoti, sā desanāgāminī ce, “desanāgāminī”ti vattabbaṃ. Vuṭṭhānagāminī ce, “vuṭṭhānagāminī”ti vattabbaṃ. Athassa pārājikacchāyā dissati, “pārājikāpattī”ti na vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Methunadhammavītikkamo hi uttarimanussadhammavītikkamo ca oḷāriko, adinnādānamanaussaviggahavītikkamā pana sukhumā cittalahukā. Te sukhumeneva āpajjati, sukhumena rakkhati, tasmā visesena taṃvatthukaṃ kukkuccaṃ pucchiyamāno “āpattī”ti avatvā sacassa ācariyo dharati, tato tena so bhikkhu “amhākaṃ ācariyaṃ pucchā”ti pesetabbo. Sace so puna āgantvā “tumhākaṃ ācariyo suttato nayato oloketvā ’satekiccho’ti maṃ āhā”ti vadati, tato tena so “sādhu suṭṭhu yaṃ ācariyo bhaṇati, taṃ karohī”ti vattabbo. Atha panassa ācariyo natthi, saddhiṃ uggahitatthero pana atthi, tassa santikaṃ pesetabbo “amhehi saha uggahitatthero gaṇapāmokkho, taṃ gantvā pucchā”ti. Tenapi “satekiccho”ti vinicchite “sādhu suṭṭhu tassa vacanaṃ karohī”ti vattabbo. Atha tassa saddhiṃ uggahitattheropi natthi, antevāsiko paṇḍito atthi, tassa santikaṃ pesetabbo “asukadaharaṃ gantvā pucchā”ti. Tenapi “satekiccho”ti vinicchite “sādhu suṭṭhu tassa vacanaṃ karohī”ti vattabbo. Atha daharassapi pārājikacchāyāva upaṭṭhāti, tenapi “pārājikosī”ti na vattabbo. Dullabho hi buddhuppādo, tato dullabhatarā pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca. Evaṃ pana vattabbo “vivittaṃ okāsaṃ sammajjitvā divāvihāraṃ nisīditvā sīlāni visodhetvā dvattiṃsākāraṃ tāva manasikarohī”ti. Sace tassa arogaṃ sīlaṃ, kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati, saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahanti, upacārappanāppattaṃ viya cittaṃ ekaggaṃ hoti, divasaṃ atikkantampi na jānāti, so divasātikkame upaṭṭhānaṃ āgato evaṃ vattabbo “kīdisā te cittappavattī”ti. Ārocitāya ca cittapavattiyā vattabbo “pabbajjā nāma cittavisuddhatthāya, appamatto samaṇadhammaṃ karohī”ti.

A monk skilled in the fourfold Vinaya, endowed with the three characteristics, examining these six aspects and settling a matter—his judgment is unassailable, like one judged by the Buddha seated himself. If a monk who has transgressed a training rule approaches such a skilled judge and asks about his remorse, he should consider carefully: if there is no offense, say, “No offense”; if an offense requires confession, say, “It requires confession”; if it requires reinstatement, say, “It requires reinstatement.” If a shadow of a pārājika appears, do not say, “A pārājika offense.” Why? Sexual intercourse and superhuman state transgressions are gross; taking what is not given and human killing are subtle, light in mind. He commits and guards them subtly, so when specially asked about such a basis, without saying “An offense,” if his teacher is alive, send him, “Ask our teacher.” If he returns saying, “My teacher, examining sutta and method, said I’m redeemable,” tell him, “Good, do well what the teacher says.” If he has no teacher but a co-learning elder, send him there, “Go ask the elder we learned with, the group leader.” If he too judges, “Redeemable,” say, “Good, do well his words.” If he has no co-learning elder but a wise pupil, send him, “Go ask that novice.” If he too judges, “Redeemable,” say, “Good, do well his words.” If even the novice sees a pārājika shadow, do not say, “You’re a pārājika.” Rare is a Buddha’s arising, rarer still renunciation and ordination. Say instead, “Sweep a secluded spot, sit in day-residence, purify your virtues, and attend to the thirty-two parts.” If his virtues are intact, he strives in meditation, phenomena become clear, his mind seems concentrated as if reaching access or absorption, not noticing the day’s passing, when he comes to report after the day, ask, “How was your mind’s flow?” When he explains, say, “Renunciation is for mind-purification; heedfully fulfill the recluse’s duties.”

For the decision of a monk who is skilled in the fourfold Vinaya, endowed with the three characteristics, and who settles a dispute by examining these six points, is unwavering, like a decision made by the Buddha himself sitting down. And if a monk who has transgressed a training rule approaches such a monk skilled in decision-making and asks about his scruples, he should carefully consider it, and if it is a non-offense, he should say, “It is a non-offense.” But if it is an offense, if it is to be confessed, he should say, “It is to be confessed.” If it requires rehabilitation, he should say, “It requires rehabilitation.” If the shadow of a pārājika offense appears, he should not say, “It is a pārājika offense.” Why? For transgression of sexual intercourse and transgression of superhuman states are gross, while theft and killing a human being are subtle and the mind is fickle concerning them. One falls into those (offenses) subtly, and protects (oneself from them) subtly. Therefore, especially when being asked about scruples concerning those matters, without saying “It is an offense,” if his teacher is alive, then he should send that monk, saying, “Ask our teacher.” If he comes back again and says, “Your teacher, having examined it according to the Sutta and the method, told me, ‘It is remediable,’” then he should say to him, “Good, do well what the teacher says.” But if his teacher is not alive, and there is a senior monk with whom he learned together, he should be sent to him, saying, “The senior monk who learned together with us is the leader of the group, go and ask him.” If he too decides, “It is remediable,” he should say, “Good, do well his word.” If there is no senior monk with whom he learned together, and there is a learned resident pupil, he should be sent to him, saying, “Go and ask such and such a junior monk.” If he too decides, “It is remediable,” he should say, “Good, do well his word.” But if the shadow of a pārājika offense appears even to the junior monk, he too should not say, “You have committed a pārājika offense.” For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and rarer than that are going forth and higher ordination. But he should say this, “Having swept a secluded place, sitting down for the day-abiding, purify your precepts, and reflect on the thirty-two parts of the body.” If his precepts are sound, he practices the meditation subject, the formations become evident, and the mind becomes one-pointed as if it has attained access or absorption, and he does not even know that the day has passed, when he comes to the attendance after the day has passed, he should be asked, “What is the state of your mind?” And when the state of mind has been reported, he should say, “Going forth is for the purification of the mind; be heedful and practice the monk’s duty.”

A monk who is skilled in the fourfold Vinaya and endowed with the three characteristics, having examined these six places, will settle a dispute. His judgment is irreversible, like one decided by the Buddha himself. If such a monk skilled in judgment is approached by a monk who has transgressed a training rule and asks about his remorse, he should carefully consider it. If there is no offense, he should say, “There is no offense.” If there is an offense that requires confession, he should say, “It requires confession.” If it requires rehabilitation, he should say, “It requires rehabilitation.” If the shadow of defeat is seen, he should not say, “It is an offense entailing defeat.” Why? For the transgression of sexual misconduct and the transgression of superhuman states are gross, while the transgression of theft, assault, and dispute are subtle and light-minded. They are committed subtly and guarded subtly. Therefore, when asked about such a case with special concern, one should not say, “It is an offense,” but the teacher who holds the Sutta should be consulted, and that monk should be sent to him, saying, “Ask our teacher.” If he returns and says, “Your teacher, having examined the Sutta and the method, told me, ‘It is a minor matter,’” then one should say, “Good, well said by the teacher, do as he says.” If there is no teacher, but there is a senior monk with whom one has studied, he should be sent to him, saying, “Go and ask the senior monk who is the head of our group.” If he also decides, “It is a minor matter,” one should say, “Good, well said by him, do as he says.” If there is no senior monk with whom one has studied, but there is a wise junior monk, he should be sent to him, saying, “Go and ask such a junior monk.” If he also decides, “It is a minor matter,” one should say, “Good, well said by him, do as he says.” If even the junior monk sees the shadow of defeat, one should not say, “You are defeated.” For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and rarer still is ordination and higher ordination. Instead, one should say, “Sweep a secluded place, sit in the day quarters, purify your virtues, and reflect on the thirty-two parts.” If his virtue is unbroken, the meditation subject will succeed, the formations will become clear, the mind will become one-pointed as if reaching access concentration, and he will not know the passing of the day. When the day has passed and he comes to the meeting, one should ask, “How is your mental state?” When he reports his mental state, one should say, “Ordination is for the purification of the mind, be heedful and practice the ascetic duties.”

Yassa pana sīlaṃ bhinnaṃ hoti, tassa kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayati, patodābhitunnaṃ viya cittaṃ vikampati, vippaṭisāragginā ḍayhati, tattapāsāṇe nisinno viya taṅkhaṇeyeva vuṭṭhāti. So āgato “kā te cittapavattī”ti pucchitabbo. Ārocitāya cittapavattiyā “natthi loke raho nāma pāpakammaṃ pakubbato. Sabbapaṭhamañhi pāpaṃ karonto attanā jānāti. Athassa ārakkhadevatā paracittavidū samaṇabrāhmaṇā aññā ca devatā jānanti, tvaṃyeva dāni tava sotthiṃ pariyesāhī”ti vattabbo. Evaṃ katavītikkameneva bhikkhunā sayameva āgantvā ārocite paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

For one whose sīla is broken, meditation does not connect; like a mind struck by a goad, it trembles, burns with the fire of remorse, and he rises at once as if sitting on a heated stone. He, having come, should be asked, “How does your mind function?” When he declares the functioning of his mind, he should be told, “There is no secret in the world for one doing an evil deed. Indeed, when first doing an evil deed, one knows it oneself. Then guardian deities, seers who know others’ minds, brahmins, and other deities know it. Now you alone must seek your own well-being.” Thus, a monk who has committed a transgression should come of his own accord, declare it, and practice accordingly.

But for one whose virtue is broken, the meditation subject does not work; the mind trembles like one struck with a goad, it burns with the fire of remorse, and he gets up immediately as if sitting on a hot stone. When he comes, he should be asked, “How is your mind proceeding?” When he reports the state of his mind, he should be told, “There is no secret place in the world for one doing evil. First of all, when doing evil, one knows it oneself. Then the guardian deities, monks and brahmins who know the minds of others, and other deities know it. Now you should seek your own well-being.” When a transgression has been committed, one should deal with it only if the monk himself comes and reports it.

For one whose virtue is broken, the meditation subject does not succeed; the mind trembles like one struck by a goad, burns with the fire of remorse, and rises immediately like one sitting on a hot stone. When such a person comes, he should be asked, “What is your mental behavior?” When his mental behavior is reported, he should be told, “There is no secrecy in the world for one who commits evil deeds. For indeed, the one who first commits evil knows it himself. Then the guardian deities, those who know the minds of others, ascetics and brahmins, and other deities know it. Now you yourself must seek your own welfare.” Having thus made the transgression known, the monk himself should come and report it, and then the proper course of action should be followed.

235. Idāni yā sā pubbe vuttappabhedā codanā, tassāyeva sampattivipattijānanatthaṃ ādimajjhapariyosānādīnaṃ vasena vinicchayo veditabbo . Seyyathidaṃ, codanāya ko ādi, kiṃ majjhe, kiṃ pariyosānaṃ? Codanāya “ahaṃ taṃ vattukāmo, karotu me āyasmā okāsa”nti evaṃ okāsakammaṃ ādi. Otiṇṇena vatthunā codetvā sāretvā vinicchayo majjhe. Āpattiyaṃ vā anāpattiyaṃ vā patiṭṭhāpanena samatho pariyosānaṃ.

235. Now, to understand the success or failure of that accusation previously described by its divisions, its ruling should be known through its beginning, middle, end, and so forth. That is: What is the beginning of an accusation, what is its middle, what is its end? For an accusation, the request for permission, “I wish to speak to you; may the venerable grant me the opportunity,” is the beginning. Accusing and reminding with the basis of the offense and determining it is the middle. Establishing whether there is an offense or not and settling it is the end.

235. Now, concerning that charge which has been previously described in its various forms, its determination should be understood by way of its beginning, middle, and conclusion, etc., in order to understand its success and failure. That is to say, what is the beginning of a charge, what is its middle, what is its conclusion? The beginning of a charge is making the opportunity by saying, “I wish to speak to you, venerable sir, please give me the opportunity.” The middle is investigating, reminding and determining by charging with the revealed offense. The conclusion is the settlement by establishing either an offense or no offense.

235. Now, for the previously mentioned types of accusation, the judgment should be understood in terms of the beginning, middle, and end, in order to know its success or failure. That is to say, what is the beginning of an accusation, what is the middle, and what is the end? The beginning of an accusation is the act of requesting permission, saying, “I wish to speak to you, venerable sir, please grant me permission.” The middle is the accusation made after approaching the matter, discussing it, and reaching a judgment. The end is the settlement by establishing whether there is an offense or no offense.

Codanāya kati mūlāni, kati vatthūni, kati bhūmiyo? Codanāya dve mūlāni samūlikā vā amūlikā vā. Tīṇi vatthūni diṭṭhaṃ sutaṃ parisaṅkitaṃ. Pañca bhūmiyo kālena vakkhāmi, no akālena, bhūtena vakkhāmi, no abhūtena, saṇhena vakkhāmi, no pharusena, atthasaṃhitena vakkhāmi, no anatthasaṃhitena, mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaroti. Imāya ca pana codanāya codakena puggalena “parisuddhakāyasamācāro nu khomhī”tiādinā (pari. 436) nayena upālipañcakesu vuttesu pannarasasu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Cuditakena dvīsu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbaṃ sacce ca akuppe cāti.

How many roots, bases, and grounds does an accusation have? An accusation has two roots: with a basis or without a basis. It has three bases: seen, heard, suspected. It has five grounds: I will speak at the proper time, not at an improper time; I will speak what is true, not what is false; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is beneficial, not what is harmful; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with ill will. And with this accusation, the accuser should establish himself in the fifteen qualities stated in the method of Upāli’s five questions (pari. 436), such as, “Am I one of pure bodily conduct?” The accused should establish himself in two qualities: truth and steadfastness.

How many roots, how many bases, how many grounds are there for a charge? A charge has two roots: well-founded or unfounded. There are three bases: seen, heard, or suspected. There are five grounds: I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I will speak of what is true, not of what is false; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is connected with the goal, not what is unconnected with the goal; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred. And concerning this charge, the accuser should establish himself in the fifteen qualities mentioned in the Upāli’s Pentads (pari. 436) such as “Am I one of pure bodily conduct?” etc. The accused should establish himself in two qualities: truth and imperturbability.

How many roots does an accusation have, how many bases, and how many grounds? An accusation has two roots: it is either with a root or without a root. There are three bases: seen, heard, or suspected. There are five grounds: I will speak at the proper time, not at an improper time; I will speak truthfully, not falsely; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak meaningfully, not meaninglessly; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hate. Furthermore, in this accusation, the accuser should be established in the fifteen qualities mentioned in the Upāli Pentad (pari. 436). The accused should be established in two qualities: truth and steadfastness.

Anuvijjakena (pari. 360) ca codako pucchitabbo “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ codesi, kimhi naṃ codesi, sīlavipattiyā codesi, ācāravipattiyā codesi, diṭṭhivipattiyā codesī”ti. So ce evaṃ vadeyya “sīlavipattiyā vā codemi, ācāravipattiyā vā codemi, diṭṭhivipattiyā vā codemī”ti. So evamassa vacanīyo “jānāsi panāyasmā sīlavipattiṃ, jānāsi ācāravipattiṃ, jānāsi diṭṭhivipatti”nti. So ce evaṃ vadeyya “jānāmi kho ahaṃ, āvuso, sīlavipattiṃ, jānāmi ācāravipattiṃ, jānāmi diṭṭhivipatti”nti. So evamassa vacanīyo “katamā panāvuso, sīlavipatti, katamā ācāravipatti, katamā diṭṭhivipattī”ti? So ce evaṃ vadeyya “cattāri pārājikāni terasa saṅghādisesā, ayaṃ sīlavipatti. Thullaccayaṃ pācittiyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ dubbhāsitaṃ, ayaṃ ācāravipatti. Micchādiṭṭhi antaggāhikā diṭṭhi, ayaṃ diṭṭhivipattī”ti.

The examiner (pari. 360) should question the accuser: “Friend, that monk you accuse—what do you accuse him of? Do you accuse him of a sīlavipatti, an ācāravipatti, or a diṭṭhivipatti?” If he says, “I accuse him of a sīlavipatti, an ācāravipatti, or a diṭṭhivipatti,” he should be told, “Venerable, do you know what a sīlavipatti is, what an ācāravipatti is, what a diṭṭhivipatti is?” If he says, “Friend, I know what a sīlavipatti is, I know what an ācāravipatti is, I know what a diṭṭhivipatti is,” he should be told, “Friend, what then is a sīlavipatti, what is an ācāravipatti, what is a diṭṭhivipatti?” If he says, “The four pārājika and thirteen saṅghādisesa—these are sīlavipatti. Thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, dubbhāsita—these are ācāravipatti. Wrong view and extreme view—these are diṭṭhivipatti.”

And the investigator (pari. 360) should ask the accuser, “Friend, when you accuse this monk, with what do you accuse him? Do you accuse him of a transgression of virtue, a transgression of conduct, or a transgression of view?” If he says, “I accuse him of a transgression of virtue, or I accuse him of a transgression of conduct, or I accuse him of a transgression of view,” he should be told, “Venerable sir, do you know transgression of virtue, do you know transgression of conduct, do you know transgression of view?” If he says, “Friend, I do know transgression of virtue, I do know transgression of conduct, I do know transgression of view,” he should be told, “Venerable sir, what is transgression of virtue, what is transgression of conduct, what is transgression of view?” If he says, “The four pārājikas, the thirteen saṅghādisesas, this is transgression of virtue. A grave offense (thullaccaya), a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita, this is transgression of conduct. Wrong view, speculative view, this is transgression of view.”

The investigator (pari. 360) should also question the accuser: “Friend, when you accuse this monk, on what basis do you accuse him? Do you accuse him of a failure in virtue, a failure in conduct, or a failure in view?” If he says, “I accuse him of a failure in virtue, or a failure in conduct, or a failure in view,” he should be asked, “Do you know, venerable sir, what a failure in virtue is, what a failure in conduct is, what a failure in view is?” If he says, “I know, friend, what a failure in virtue is, what a failure in conduct is, what a failure in view is,” he should be asked, “What, friend, is a failure in virtue, what is a failure in conduct, what is a failure in view?” If he says, “The four pārājikas, the thirteen saṅghādisesas, this is a failure in virtue. The thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, and dubbhāsita, this is a failure in conduct. Wrong view, the view holding to extremes, this is a failure in view.”

So evamassa vacanīyo “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ codesi, diṭṭhena vā codesi, sutena vā codesi, parisaṅkāya vā codesī”ti . So ce evaṃ vadeyya “diṭṭhena vā codemi, sutena vā codemi, parisaṅkāya vā codemī”ti. So evamassa vacanīyo “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ diṭṭhena codesi, kiṃ te diṭṭhaṃ, kinti te diṭṭhaṃ, kadā te diṭṭhaṃ, kattha te diṭṭhaṃ, pārājikaṃ ajjhāpajjanto diṭṭho, saṅghādisesaṃ ajjhāpajjanto diṭṭho, thullaccayaṃ pācittiyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ dubbhāsitaṃ ajjhāpajjanto diṭṭho, kattha cāyaṃ bhikkhu ahosi, kattha ca tvaṃ karosi, kiñca tvaṃ karosi, kiṃ ayaṃ bhikkhu karotī”ti?

He should be told, “Friend, that monk you accuse—do you accuse him based on what was seen, heard, or suspected?” If he says, “I accuse him based on what was seen, heard, or suspected,” he should be told, “Friend, that monk you accuse based on what was seen—what did you see, how did you see it, when did you see it, where did you see it? Did you see him committing a pārājika, a saṅghādisesa, a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, or a dubbhāsita? Where was this monk, where were you, what were you doing, and what was this monk doing?”

He should be told, “Friend, when you accuse this monk, do you accuse him based on what you have seen, or on what you have heard, or on suspicion?” If he says, “I accuse him based on what I have seen, or on what I have heard, or on suspicion,” he should be told, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on what you have seen, what did you see, what kind of thing did you see, when did you see it, where did you see it? Did you see him committing a pārājika, did you see him committing a saṅghādisesa, did you see him committing a grave offense (thullaccaya), a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita? Where was this monk, where were you, what were you doing, what was this monk doing?”

He should then be asked, “Friend, when you accuse this monk, do you accuse him based on what you have seen, or what you have heard, or what you suspect?” If he says, “I accuse him based on what I have seen, or what I have heard, or what I suspect,” he should be asked, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on what you have seen, what have you seen, how have you seen it, when did you see it, where did you see it? Did you see him committing a pārājika offense, a saṅghādisesa offense, a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense? Where was this monk, where were you, what were you doing, what was this monk doing?”

So ce evaṃ vadeyya “na kho ahaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ diṭṭhena codemi, apica sutena codemī”ti. So evamassa vacanīyo “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ sutena codesi, kiṃ te sutaṃ, kinti te sutaṃ, kadā te sutaṃ, kattha te sutaṃ, pārājikaṃ ajjhāpannoti sutaṃ, saṅghādisesaṃ ajjhāpannoti sutaṃ, thullaccayaṃ pācittiyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ dubbhāsitaṃ ajjhāpannoti sutaṃ, bhikkhussa sutaṃ, bhikkhuniyā sutaṃ, sikkhamānāya sutaṃ, sāmaṇerassa sutaṃ, sāmaṇeriyā sutaṃ, upāsakassa sutaṃ, upāsikāya sutaṃ, rājūnaṃ sutaṃ, rājamahāmattānaṃ sutaṃ, titthiyānaṃ sutaṃ, titthiyasāvakānaṃ suta”nti.

If he says, “Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what was seen, but rather based on what was heard,” he should be told, “Friend, that monk you accuse based on what was heard—what did you hear, how did you hear it, when did you hear it, where did you hear it? Did you hear that he committed a pārājika, a saṅghādisesa, a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, or a dubbhāsita? Did you hear it from a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, an upāsaka, an upāsikā, kings, royal ministers, sectarians, or sectarian disciples?”

If he says, “Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what I have seen, but I accuse him based on what I have heard,” he should be told, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on what you have heard, what did you hear, what kind of thing did you hear, when did you hear it, where did you hear it? Did you hear that he committed a pārājika, did you hear that he committed a saṅghādisesa, did you hear that he committed a grave offense (thullaccaya), a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita? Did you hear it from a monk, from a nun, from a probationer, from a male novice, from a female novice, from a male lay follower, from a female lay follower, from kings, from royal ministers, from sectarians, from disciples of sectarians?”

If he says, “I do not accuse this monk based on what I have seen, but rather based on what I have heard,” he should be asked, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on what you have heard, what have you heard, how have you heard it, when did you hear it, where did you hear it? Did you hear that he committed a pārājika offense, a saṅghādisesa offense, a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense? Did you hear it from a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, a female novice, a male lay follower, a female lay follower, kings, royal ministers, sectarians, or disciples of sectarians?”

So ce evaṃ vadeyya “na kho ahaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ sutena codemi, apica parisaṅkāya codemī”ti. So evamassa vacanīyo “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ parisaṅkāya codesi, kiṃ parisaṅkasi, kinti parisaṅkasi, kadā parisaṅkasi, kattha parisaṅkasi? Pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpannoti parisaṅkasi, saṅghādisesaṃ thullaccayaṃ pācittiyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ dubbhāsitaṃ ajjhāpannoti parisaṅkasi, bhikkhussa sutvā parisaṅkasi, bhikkhuniyā sutvā…pe… titthiyasāvakānaṃ sutvā parisaṅkasī”ti.

If he says, “Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what was heard, but rather based on suspicion,” he should be told, “Friend, that monk you accuse based on suspicion—what do you suspect, how do you suspect it, when did you suspect it, where did you suspect it? Do you suspect he committed a pārājika dhamma, a saṅghādisesa, a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, or a dubbhāsita? Did you suspect it after hearing from a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī… or sectarian disciples?”

If he says, “Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what I have heard, but I accuse him based on suspicion,” he should be told, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on suspicion, what do you suspect, what kind of thing do you suspect, when do you suspect, where do you suspect? Do you suspect that he committed a pārājika offense, do you suspect that he committed a saṅghādisesa, a grave offense (thullaccaya), a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita? Did you suspect it after hearing from a monk, after hearing from a nun… (as before) … after hearing from disciples of sectarians?”

If he says, “I do not accuse this monk based on what I have heard, but rather based on what I suspect,” he should be asked, “Friend, when you accuse this monk based on what you suspect, what do you suspect, how do you suspect it, when did you suspect it, where did you suspect it? Do you suspect that he committed a pārājika offense, a saṅghādisesa offense, a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense? Did you suspect it after hearing from a monk, a nun… up to disciples of sectarians?”

What is seen agrees with what is seen, what is seen corresponds with what is seen;

What is seen should correspond with what is seen; what is seen should agree with what is seen;

That person, having confessed, should be dealt with accordingly for the Uposatha.

What is heard agrees with what is heard, what is heard corresponds with what is heard;

What is heard should correspond with what is heard; what is heard should agree with what is heard;

That person, having confessed, should be dealt with accordingly for the Uposatha.

What is cognized agrees with what is cognized, what is cognized corresponds with what is cognized;

What is sensed should correspond with what is sensed; what is sensed should agree with what is sensed;

That person, having confessed, should be dealt with accordingly for the Uposatha.

Acknowledgment is made among the conscientious; it does not exist thus among the shameless;

An admission is made among those who have a sense of shame, it does not exist among the shameless;

A confession made by the conscientious is valid; among the shameless, it is not found;

Even if a shameless one speaks much, he compels through the sequence of duties. (pari. 359);

Even if a shameless person speaks much, he should be made to act according to the course of the statement. (pari. 359);

Even if the shameless speak much, they act in accordance with their nature. (pari. 359);

Apicettha saṅgāmāvacarena bhikkhunā saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamantena nīcacittena saṅgho upasaṅkamitabbo rajoharaṇasamena cittena, āsanakusalena bhavitabbaṃ nisajjakusalena, there bhikkhū anupakhajjantena nave bhikkhū āsanena appaṭibāhantena yathāpatirūpe āsane nisīditabbaṃ, anānākathikena bhavitabbaṃ atiracchānakathikena, sāmaṃ vā dhammo bhāsitabbo, paro vā ajjhesitabbo, ariyo vā tuṇhībhāvo nātimaññitabbo.

Moreover, a monk acting as a conciliator, when approaching the Saṅgha, should approach with a humble mind, like one removing dust, skilled in seating and sitting, not intruding on elder monks, not obstructing junior monks with seats, sitting in a suitable seat, not engaging in idle chatter or irrelevant talk, either speaking Dhamma himself or requesting another, and not despising noble silence.

Moreover, a monk who is engaged in a dispute, when approaching the saṅgha, should approach the saṅgha with a humble mind, with a mind like a dust-removing cloth, he should be skilled in seating, skilled in sitting, he should not press against the elder monks, he should not obstruct the new monks with his seat, he should sit in a suitable seat, he should not be one who speaks irrelevant talk, one who speaks digressing talk, he should either speak on the Dhamma himself, or request another to do so, he should not despise noble silence.

Furthermore, when a monk who is subject to disciplinary action approaches the Sangha, he should approach the Sangha with a humble mind, like one carrying dust, skilled in sitting, skilled in seating, not encroaching upon the senior monks, not obstructing the junior monks from seating, sitting in a suitable seat, not engaging in idle talk, speaking Dhamma himself or inviting another to speak, not despising the noble silence.

Saṅghena anumatena puggalena anuvijjakena anuvijjitukāmena na upajjhāyo pucchitabbo, na ācariyo pucchitabbo, na saddhivihāriko pucchitabbo, na antevāsiko pucchitabbo, na samānupajjhāyako pucchitabbo, na samānācariyako pucchitabbo, na jāti pucchitabbā, na nāmaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, na gottaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, na āgamo pucchitabbo, na kulapadeso pucchitabbo, na jātibhūmi pucchitabbā. Taṃ kiṃkāraṇā? Atrassa pemaṃ vā doso vā, peme vā sati dose vā chandāpi gaccheyya dosāpi gaccheyya mohāpi gaccheyya bhayāpi gaccheyyāti.

A person authorized by the Saṅgha as an examiner, desiring to examine, should not ask about the preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, one with the same preceptor, one with the same teacher, caste, name, clan, tradition, family region, or birthplace. Why not? Because affection or aversion might arise here; with affection or aversion, he might proceed with bias, ill will, delusion, or fear.

The investigator, authorized by the saṅgha, when wishing to investigate, should not ask the preceptor, should not ask the teacher, should not ask the co-resident, should not ask the pupil, should not ask one with the same preceptor, should not ask one with the same teacher, should not ask about the family, should not ask the name, should not ask the clan, should not ask the origin, should not ask the region of origin, should not ask the place of birth. Why is that? Because of that, there might be affection or aversion. If there is affection or aversion, one might go to desire, one might go to aversion, one might go to delusion, one might go to fear.

When a person authorized by the Sangha, wishing to investigate, is investigating, he should not question the preceptor, the teacher, the co-student, the pupil, the fellow preceptor, the fellow teacher, nor should he ask about birth, name, clan, lineage, family background, or birthplace. Why is that? Because in this case, affection or hatred may arise, and due to affection or hatred, he may be swayed by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear.

Saṅghena anumatena puggalena anuvijjakena anuvijjitukāmena saṅghagarukena bhavitabbaṃ, no puggalagarukena, saddhammagarukena bhavitabbaṃ, no āmisagarukena, atthavasikena bhavitabbaṃ, no parisakappikena, kālena anuvijjitabbaṃ, no akālena, bhūtena anuvijjitabbaṃ, no abhūtena, saṇhena anuvijjitabbaṃ, no pharusena, atthasaṃhitena anuvijjitabbaṃ, no anatthasaṃhitena, mettacittena anuvijjitabbaṃ, no dosantarena, na upakaṇṇakajappinā bhavitabbaṃ, na jimhaṃ pekkhitabbaṃ, na akkhi nikhaṇitabbaṃ, na bhamukaṃ ukkhipitabbaṃ, na sīsaṃ ukkhipitabbaṃ, na hatthavikāro kātabbo, na hatthamuddā dassetabbā.

A person authorized by the Saṅgha as an examiner, desiring to examine, should respect the Saṅgha, not individuals; respect the true Dhamma, not material gain; aim for benefit, not factionalism; examine at the proper time, not an improper time; examine with truth, not falsehood; examine gently, not harshly; examine with benefit, not harm; examine with a mind of loving-kindness, not ill will; not whisper in the ear, not look crookedly, not squint the eyes, not raise the eyebrows, not lift the head, not gesture with the hands, not show hand signals.

The investigator, authorized by the saṅgha, when wishing to investigate, should be one who respects the saṅgha, not one who respects individuals, one who respects the true Dhamma, not one who respects material gain, one who is concerned with the goal, not one who is concerned with the assembly, he should investigate at the right time, not at the wrong time, he should investigate what is true, not what is false, he should investigate gently, not harshly, he should investigate what is connected with the goal, not what is unconnected with the goal, he should investigate with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred, he should not be one who whispers in the ear, he should not look askance, he should not tap his eye, he should not raise his eyebrow, he should not raise his head, he should not make hand gestures, he should not show hand signs.

When a person authorized by the Sangha, wishing to investigate, is investigating, he should be respectful of the Sangha, not of individuals; respectful of the true Dhamma, not of material gains; intent on the meaning, not on frivolous pursuits; he should investigate at the proper time, not at an improper time; with truth, not falsehood; gently, not harshly; meaningfully, not meaninglessly; with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hate; he should not whisper in the ear, nor look askance, nor knit his brows, nor raise his eyebrows, nor raise his head, nor make hand gestures, nor show hand signs.

Āsanakusalena bhavitabbaṃ nisajjakusalena, yugamattaṃ pekkhantena atthaṃ anuvidhiyantena sake āsane nisīditabbaṃ, na ca āsanā vuṭṭhātabbaṃ, na vītihātabbaṃ, na kummaggo sevitabbo, na bāhāvikkhepakaṃ bhaṇitabbaṃ, aturitena bhavitabbaṃ asāhasikena, acaṇḍikatena bhavitabbaṃ vacanakkhamena, mettacittena bhavitabbaṃ hitānukampinā, kāruṇikena bhavitabbaṃ hitaparisakkinā, asamphappalāpinā bhavitabbaṃ pariyantabhāṇinā, averavasikena bhavitabbaṃ anasuruttena, attā pariggahetabbo, paro pariggahetabbo, codako pariggahetabbo, cuditako pariggahetabbo, adhammacodako pariggahetabbo, adhammacuditako pariggahetabbo, dhammacodako pariggahetabbo, dhammacuditako pariggahetabbo, vuttaṃ ahāpentena avuttaṃ appakāsentena otiṇṇāni padabyañjanāni sādhukaṃ uggahetvā paro paripucchitvā yathāpaṭiññāya kāretabbo, mando hāsetabbo, bhīru assāsetabbo, caṇḍo nisedhetabbo, asuci vibhāvetabbo, ujumaddavena na chandāgati gantabbā, na dosāgati gantabbā, na mohāgati gantabbā, na bhayāgati gantabbā, majjhattena bhavitabbaṃ dhammesu ca puggalesu ca, evañca pana anuvijjako anuvijjamāno satthu ceva sāsanakaro hoti, viññūnañca sabrahmacārīnaṃ piyo ca hoti manāpo ca garu ca bhāvanīyo cāti.

He should be skilled in seating and sitting, looking a yoke’s distance ahead, following the meaning, sitting in his own seat, not rising from the seat, not wandering off, not following a crooked path, not speaking with arm-waving, being unhurried and gentle, not aggressive, able to endure speech, with a mind of loving-kindness, compassionate for welfare, merciful, seeking others’ benefit, not babbling idly, speaking concisely, free from enmity, not repeating rumors, grasping himself, grasping the other, grasping the accuser, grasping the accused, grasping an unrighteous accuser, grasping an unrighteously accused, grasping a righteous accuser, grasping a righteously accused, clarifying what was said, revealing what was not said, properly learning the words and phrases of the offense, questioning the other, acting according to acknowledgment, cheering the slow, reassuring the timid, restraining the fierce, exposing the impure, not swayed by bias, ill will, delusion, or fear with upright gentleness, being impartial toward Dhamma and persons. Thus, an examiner examining in this way both fulfills the Teacher’s instruction and becomes dear, pleasing, respected, and esteemed by wise co-religionists.

He should be skilled in seating, skilled in sitting, looking only at the matter at hand, following the meaning, he should sit in his own seat, and he should not get up from his seat, he should not go back and forth, he should not follow the wrong path, he should not speak with waving of the arms, he should be unhurried, not hasty, not violent, capable of speaking, with a mind of loving-kindness, compassionate, sympathetic, wishing for the welfare, not speaking incoherently, speaking to the point, not subject to aversion, not talkative, he should take hold of himself, he should take hold of the other, he should take hold of the accuser, he should take hold of the accused, he should take hold of the one who accuses wrongly, he should take hold of the one who is accused wrongly, he should take hold of the one who accuses rightly, he should take hold of the one who is accused rightly, not omitting what has been said, not revealing what has not been said, carefully grasping the revealed words and phrases, questioning the other, he should make him act according to his own admission, he should make the dull-witted one laugh, he should reassure the fearful, he should restrain the violent, he should clarify what is unclear, with straightforwardness and gentleness, he should not go to desire, he should not go to aversion, he should not go to delusion, he should not go to fear, he should be impartial in regard to the dhammas and in regard to individuals, and when the investigator is investigating in this way, he is both a follower of the Teacher’s teaching, and he is dear and agreeable to his wise fellow monks, respected and worthy of emulation.

He should be skilled in sitting, skilled in seating, looking appropriately while following the meaning, sitting in his own seat, not rising from the seat, not transgressing, not taking a wrong path, not speaking with arms flailing, acting with urgency but not recklessly, without anger, patient in speech, with a mind of loving-kindness, compassionate for welfare, not indulging in frivolous talk, speaking within limits, free from enmity, not influenced by others, restraining himself, restraining others, restraining the accuser, restraining the accused, restraining the wrongful accuser, restraining the wrongful accused, restraining the rightful accuser, restraining the rightful accused, accepting what is said, not adding what is not said, thoroughly grasping the words and phrases, questioning others, and acting according to their confession. The slow should be encouraged, the timid reassured, the harsh restrained, the impure purified. One should not be swayed by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear, but remain impartial in matters of Dhamma and persons. Thus, the investigator, while investigating, becomes a doer of the Teacher’s dispensation and is dear and agreeable to his wise companions in the holy life, respected and worthy of esteem.

The discussion on the ruling regarding accusation and related matters is completed.

32. Garukāpattivuṭṭhānavinicchayakathā

32. Discussion on the Ruling Regarding Rehabilitation from Serious Offenses

32. The Discussion on the Determination of the Expiation of Grave Offenses

32. The Discussion on the Judgment of Emergence from Grave Offenses

236. Garukāpattivuṭṭhānanti parivāsamānattādīhi vinayakammehi garukāpattito vuṭṭhānaṃ. Tattha (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) tividho parivāso paṭicchannaparivāso suddhantaparivāso samodhānaparivāsoti. Tesu paṭicchannaparivāso tāva yathāpaṭicchannāya āpattiyā dātabbo. Kassaci hi ekāhappaṭicchannā āpatti hoti, kassaci dvīhappaṭicchannā, kassaci ekāpatti hoti, kassaci dve tisso tatuttari vā. Tasmā paṭicchannaparivāsaṃ dentena paṭhamaṃ tāva paṭicchannabhāvo jānitabbo. Ayañhi āpatti nāma dasahākārehi paṭicchannā hoti.

236. Garukāpattivuṭṭhāna—Rehabilitation from a serious offense through Vinaya acts like parivāsa and mānatta. Here (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), parivāsa is threefold: paṭicchannaparivāsa, suddhantaparivāsa, and samodhānaparivāsa. Among them, paṭicchannaparivāsa should be given according to the concealed nature of the offense. For some, an offense is concealed for one day; for some, two days; for some, it is one offense; for others, two, three, or more. Thus, when giving paṭicchannaparivāsa, the state of concealment should first be known. For an offense is concealed through ten aspects.

236. Expiation of a grave offense means the expiation of a grave offense through the disciplinary procedures of parivāsa, mānatta, etc. Herein (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), there are three kinds of parivāsa: paṭicchannaparivāsa (concealed parivāsa), suddhantaparivāsa (pure-ended parivāsa), and samodhānaparivāsa (combined parivāsa). Among them, paṭicchannaparivāsa should be given for an offense that has been concealed as it was concealed. For some, the offense is concealed for one day, for some for two days, for some there is one offense, for some there are two, three, or more. Therefore, when giving paṭicchannaparivāsa, first of all, the state of concealment should be known. For this offense is concealed in ten ways.

236. Emergence from grave offenses refers to the emergence from grave offenses through disciplinary actions such as probation and penance. Herein (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), probation is of three kinds: concealed probation, pure probation, and combined probation. Among these, concealed probation is to be given according to the concealment of the offense. For some, an offense is concealed for one day; for others, for two days; for some, one offense; for others, two, three, or more. Therefore, when giving concealed probation, one must first know the nature of the concealment. For an offense is concealed in ten ways.

Tatrāyaṃ mātikā – āpatti ca hoti āpattisaññī ca, pakatatto ca hoti pakatattasaññī ca, anantarāyiko ca hoti anantarāyikasaññī ca, pahu ca hoti pahusaññī ca, chādetukāmo ca hoti chādeti cāti. Tattha āpatti ca hoti āpattisaññī cāti yaṃ āpanno, sā āpattiyeva hoti, sopi ca tattha āpattisaññīyeva. Iti jānanto chādeti, channā hoti, atha panāyaṃ tattha anāpattisaññī, acchannā hoti. Anāpatti pana āpattisaññāyapi anāpattisaññāyapi chādentena acchāditāva hoti, lahukaṃ vā garukāti garukaṃ vā lahukāti chādeti, alajjipakkhe tiṭṭhati, āpatti pana acchannā hoti, garukaṃ lahukāti maññamāno deseti, neva desitā hoti, na channā, garukaṃ vā garukāti ñatvā chādeti, channā hoti, garukalahukabhāvaṃ na jānāti, āpattiṃ chādemīti chādeti, channāva hoti.

Here is the outline: There is an offense and he perceives it as an offense; he is a natural person and perceives himself as such; he is free of obstacles and perceives himself as such; he is capable and perceives himself as capable; he wishes to conceal and does conceal. Here, there is an offense and he perceives it as an offense means what he has committed is indeed an offense, and he perceives it as such. Knowing this, he conceals it—it is concealed. But if he perceives it as no offense, it is not concealed. If there is no offense, whether he perceives it as an offense or not, by concealing it, it remains unconcealed. Concealing it as light when it is serious, or serious when it is light, he stands with the shameless—it remains unconcealed. Thinking a serious offense is light and confessing it, it is neither confessed nor concealed. Knowing a serious offense as serious and concealing it, it is concealed. Not knowing whether it is serious or light, saying, “I conceal an offense,” and concealing it, it remains concealed.

Here is the matrix: there is an offense and there is the perception of an offense, there is being a full member and there is the perception of being a full member, there is no obstacle and there is the perception of no obstacle, there is ability and there is the perception of ability, and there is the desire to conceal and he conceals. Herein, there is an offense and there is the perception of an offense means that what he committed is indeed an offense, and he also perceives it as an offense. Knowing thus, he conceals it, it is concealed. But if he perceives it as not an offense, it is not concealed. But a non-offense, whether he perceives it as an offense or as a non-offense, is not concealed when he conceals it. Or he conceals it thinking that it is a light offense when it is grave, or that it is a grave offense when it is light, he stands on the side of the shameless, but the offense is not concealed. If he confesses thinking that a grave offense is light, it is neither confessed nor concealed. If he knows that a grave offense is grave and conceals it, it is concealed. He does not know whether it is grave or light, he conceals it thinking, “I am concealing an offense,” it is indeed concealed.

Herein, this is the outline: there is an offense, and one perceives it as an offense; one is properly ordained, and one perceives oneself as properly ordained; there is no obstacle, and one perceives there is no obstacle; one is capable, and one perceives oneself as capable; one wishes to conceal, and one conceals. Herein, there is an offense, and one perceives it as an offense means that one has committed an offense, and that offense indeed exists, and one perceives it as an offense. Knowing this, one conceals it, and it is concealed. But if one does not perceive it as an offense, it is not concealed. However, if one conceals without perceiving it as an offense, whether one perceives it as an offense or not, it remains unconcealed. If one conceals a minor offense as a grave one or a grave offense as a minor one, one remains on the side of the shameless. The offense is not concealed. If one declares a grave offense as a minor one, it is neither declared nor concealed. If one knows a grave offense as grave and conceals it, it is concealed. If one does not know the gravity or lightness of the offense and conceals it, thinking, “I am concealing an offense,” it is concealed.

Pakatattoti tividhaṃ ukkhepanīyakammaṃ akato. So ce pakatattasaññī hutvā chādeti, channā hoti. Atha “mayhaṃ saṅghena kammaṃ kata”nti apakatattasaññī hutvā chādeti, acchannā hoti. Apakatattena pana pakatattasaññinā vā apakatattasaññinā vā chāditāpi acchannāva hoti. Vuttampi cetaṃ –

Pakatatta means not subject to the three types of suspension acts. If he, perceiving himself as a natural person, conceals it, it is concealed. But if he thinks, “The Saṅgha has performed an act against me,” perceiving himself as not a natural person and conceals it, it is not concealed. For one not a natural person, whether perceiving himself as such or not, even if concealed, it remains unconcealed. It is also said:

Being a full member means that the three kinds of suspension (ukkhepanīyakamma) have not been performed on him. If he conceals it perceiving himself as a full member, it is concealed. If he conceals it perceiving himself as not a full member, thinking, “The saṅgha has performed an act on me,” it is not concealed. But even if it is concealed by one who is not a full member, whether he perceives himself as a full member or as not a full member, it is still not concealed. It has also been said:

Properly ordained means that the three kinds of suspension proceedings have not been carried out. If one, perceiving oneself as properly ordained, conceals, it is concealed. But if one thinks, “The Sangha has carried out proceedings against me,” and conceals without perceiving oneself as properly ordained, it is not concealed. However, if one who is not properly ordained conceals, whether perceiving oneself as properly ordained or not, it remains unconcealed. It is also said:

Anantarāyikoti yassa dasasu antarāyesu ekopi natthi, so ce anantarāyikasaññī hutvā chādeti, channā hoti. Sacepi so bhīrujātikatāya andhakāre amanussacaṇḍamigabhayena antarāyikasaññī hutvā chādeti, acchannāva hoti. Yassapi pabbatavihāre vasantassa kandaraṃ vā nadiṃ vā atikkamitvā ārocetabbaṃ hoti, antarāmagge ca caṇḍavāḷaamanussādibhayaṃ atthi, magge ajagarā nipajjanti, nadī pūrā hoti, etasmiṃ pana satiyeva antarāye antarāyikasaññī chādeti, acchannā hoti. Antarāyikassa pana antarāyikasaññāya chādayato acchannāva.

Anantarāyika means one free of any of the ten obstacles. If he, perceiving himself as free of obstacles, conceals it, it is concealed. But if, due to timidity, he fears darkness, non-humans, or fierce animals and perceives himself as having obstacles while concealing it, it remains unconcealed. For one living in a mountain monastery who must cross a ravine or river to declare it, with dangers like fierce animals or non-humans along the way, pythons lying on the path, or a full river—if he perceives an obstacle due to this and conceals it, it is not concealed. For one with an obstacle, concealing it while perceiving it as such, it remains unconcealed.

There is no obstacle means that he does not have even one of the ten obstacles. If he conceals it perceiving that there is no obstacle, it is concealed. Even if he conceals it perceiving that there is an obstacle due to his fearful nature, due to darkness, non-humans, or wild beasts, it is still not concealed. Even if someone living in a mountain monastery has to cross a ravine or a river to confess, and on the way there is fear of wild animals, non-humans, etc., snakes lie on the path, the river is full, but even with this obstacle, he conceals it perceiving that there is an obstacle, it is not concealed. But if one who has an obstacle conceals it with the perception of an obstacle, it is not concealed.

No obstacle means that for one who has none of the ten obstacles, if one conceals perceiving there is no obstacle, it is concealed. But if one, due to timidity, perceives an obstacle in the darkness, fearing non-human beings or wild animals, and conceals, it is not concealed. Even for one living in a mountain dwelling, if one must cross a ravine or river to report, and there is fear of wild animals or non-human beings on the path, snakes lie on the path, the river is full, and one conceals perceiving an obstacle, it is not concealed. But if one with an obstacle conceals perceiving an obstacle, it remains unconcealed.

Pahūti so sakkoti bhikkhuno santikaṃ gantuñceva ārocetuñca, so ce pahusaññī hutvā chādeti, channā hoti. Sacassa mukhe appamattako gaṇḍo vā hoti, hanukavāto vā vijjhati, danto vā rujjati, bhikkhā vā mandā laddhā hoti, tāvatakena pana neva vattuṃ na sakkoti, na gantuṃ, apica kho “na sakkomī”ti saññī hoti, ayaṃ pahu hutvā appahusaññī nāma. Iminā chāditāpi acchāditā. Appahunā pana vattuṃ vā gantuṃ vā asamatthena pahusaññinā vā appahusaññinā vā chāditā hoti, acchāditāva.

Pahu means he is able to go to a monk and declare it. If he, perceiving himself as capable, conceals it, it is concealed. If he has a slight boil in his mouth, jaw pain, toothache, or scant alms, and due to this cannot speak or go, thinking, “I am not capable,” he is capable but perceives himself as incapable. What he conceals remains unconcealed. For one incapable of speaking or going, whether perceiving himself as capable or not, what is concealed remains unconcealed.

There is ability means that he is able to go to a monk and confess. If he conceals it perceiving that he is able, it is concealed. If he has a small boil on his mouth, or his jaw is locked, or his tooth hurts, or he has obtained little almsfood, and because of that he is unable to speak or to go, but he perceives, “I am unable,” this is called being able but perceiving oneself as unable. Even if it is concealed by this person, it is not concealed. But if it is concealed by one who is unable to speak or to go, whether he perceives himself as able or as unable, it is not concealed.

Capable means that one is able to go and report to the monk. If one, perceiving oneself as capable, conceals, it is concealed. But if one has a small boil on the face, or a toothache, or has received little alms, and due to this one is unable to speak or go, and thinks, “I am not capable,” this is called capable but perceiving oneself as incapable. Concealing in this way, it remains unconcealed. But if one who is incapable, unable to speak or go, conceals, whether perceiving oneself as capable or not, it remains unconcealed.

Chādetukāmo ca hoti chādeti cāti idaṃ uttānatthameva. Sace pana “chādessāmī”ti dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā purebhatte vā pacchābhatte vā paṭhamayāmādīsu vā lajjidhammaṃ okkamitvā antoaruṇeyeva āroceti, ayaṃ chādetukāmo na chādeti nāma. Yassa pana abhikkhuke ṭhāne vasantassa āpajjitvā sabhāgassa bhikkhuno āgamanaṃ āgamentassa, sabhāgassa santikaṃ vā gacchantassa aḍḍhamāsopi māsopi atikkamati, ayaṃ na chādetukāmo chādeti nāma, ayampi acchannāva hoti. Yo pana āpannamattova aggiṃ akkantapuriso viya sahasā pakkamitvā sabhāgaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā āvikaroti, ayaṃ na chādetukāmova na chādeti nāma. Sace pana sabhāgaṃ disvāpi “ayaṃ me upajjhāyo vā ācariyo vā”ti lajjāya nāroceti, channāva hoti āpatti. Upajjhāyādibhāvo hi idha appamāṇaṃ, averisabhāgamattameva pamāṇaṃ. Tasmā averisabhāgassa santike ārocetabbā. Yo pana visabhāgo hoti sutvā pakāsetukāmo, evarūpassa upajjhāyassapi santike na ārocetabbā.

He wishes to conceal and does conceal—this is self-evident. But if, saying, “I will conceal,” he undertakes it, and before noon, after noon, or in the first watch and so forth, enters a state of conscience and declares it before dawn, this is wishing to conceal but not concealing. For one living in a place without monks, after committing it, waiting for a suitable monk to come or going to one, if half a month or a month passes, this is not wishing to conceal but concealing—this too is unconcealed. One who, immediately after committing it, departs swiftly like a man stepping on fire, goes to a suitable place, and declares it, is neither wishing to conceal nor concealing. But if, seeing a suitable monk and thinking, “He is my preceptor or teacher,” he does not declare it out of shame, the offense remains concealed. For here, being a preceptor or teacher is not the measure; only a suitable, non-hostile monk is the measure. Thus, it should be declared to a suitable, non-hostile monk. But one who is unsuitable, wishing to broadcast it upon hearing, even if a preceptor, should not be told.

There is the desire to conceal and he conceals – this is self-explanatory. But if, having made the determination, “I will conceal it,” he abandons the sense of shame before dawn, before the meal, after the meal, or in the first watch, etc., and confesses before the red of dawn appears, this is called having the desire to conceal but not concealing. But if someone living in a place without monks, having committed an offense, waits for the arrival of a suitable monk, or goes to a suitable monk, and half a month or a month passes, this is called not having the desire to conceal but concealing, this is also not concealed. But if someone, as soon as he has committed an offense, like a man who has stepped on fire, immediately goes to a suitable place and reveals it, this is called not having the desire to conceal and not concealing. But if, even after seeing a suitable monk, he does not confess out of shame, thinking, “This is my preceptor or my teacher,” the offense is concealed. For the state of being a preceptor, etc., is not the measure here, only the state of being a suitable non-enemy is the measure. Therefore, one should confess in the presence of a suitable non-enemy. If one who is unsuitable, after hearing it, wishes to reveal it, one should not confess even in the presence of such a preceptor.

Wishes to conceal and conceals means this is straightforward. But if one thinks, “I will conceal,” and puts off the burden, and reports in the early morning, late morning, or first watch of the night, having entered the state of shame, this is called wishing to conceal but not concealing. For one living in a remote place, if one commits an offense and a fellow monk comes, or one goes to a fellow monk, and half a month or a month passes, this is called not wishing to conceal but concealing, and it remains unconcealed. If one, having just committed an offense, leaves hastily like one who has stepped on fire, goes to a fellow monk’s place, and reveals it, this is called not wishing to conceal and not concealing. But if one sees a fellow monk and, out of shame, does not report, thinking, “This is my preceptor or teacher,” the offense is concealed. The status of preceptor or teacher here is immeasurable; only the status of a non-enemy fellow monk is the measure. Therefore, one should report to a non-enemy fellow monk. But if one is hostile and wishes to reveal after hearing, one should not report even to such a preceptor.

Tattha purebhattaṃ vā āpattiṃ āpanno hotu pacchābhattaṃ vā divā vā rattiṃ vā, yāva aruṇaṃ na uggacchati, tāva ārocetabbaṃ. Uddhaste aruṇe paṭicchannā hoti, paṭicchādanapaccayā ca dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ āpannassa pana santike āvikātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace āvikaroti, āpatti āvikatā hoti, dukkaṭā pana na muccati. Tasmā suddhassa santike āvikātabbā. Āvikaronto ca “tuyhaṃ santike ekaṃ āpattiṃ āvikaromī”ti vā “ācikkhāmī”ti vā ārocemī”ti vā “mama ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpannabhāvaṃ jānāhī”ti vā vadatu, “ekaṃ garukāpattiṃ āvikaromī”tiādinā vā nayena vadatu, sabbehipi ākārehi appaṭicchannāva hotīti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sace pana “lahukāpattiṃ āvikaromī”tiādinā nayena vadati, paṭicchannāva hoti. Vatthuṃ āroceti, āpattiṃ āroceti, ubhayaṃ āroceti, tividhenapi ārocitāva hoti.

Here, whether the offense is committed before noon, after noon, by day, or by night, it should be declared before the dawn rises. After dawn rises, it is concealed, and he incurs a dukkaṭa due to concealment. It is not allowable to declare a saṅghādisesa offense to a monk with a similar offense. If he declares it, the offense is declared, but he is not free from the dukkaṭa. Thus, it should be declared to a pure monk. When declaring, he may say, “I declare one offense in your presence,” “I explain,” “I announce,” or “Know that I have committed one offense,” or by the method, “I declare one serious offense,” and so forth—in all these ways, it is not concealed, as stated in the Kurundi. But if he says, “I declare a light offense,” and so forth, it remains concealed. Declaring the basis, declaring the offense, declaring both—all three ways make it declared.

Whether he commits the offense before the meal, after the meal, during the day, or at night, he should confess before the red of dawn appears. When the red of dawn has risen, it is concealed, and because of the concealment, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. But it is not proper to reveal it in the presence of one who has committed the same saṅghādisesa offense. If he reveals it, the offense is revealed, but he is not freed from the dukkaṭa. Therefore, it should be revealed in the presence of one who is pure. And when revealing it, he should say, “I reveal an offense to you,” or “I tell you,” or “I confess,” or “Know that I have committed an offense,” or he should say, “I reveal a grave offense,” etc. It has been said in the Kurundi that in all these ways, it is not concealed. But if he says, “I reveal a light offense,” etc., it is concealed. He reveals the object, he reveals the offense, he reveals both, in all three ways it is revealed.

Herein, whether one commits an offense in the morning, afternoon, day, or night, one should report it before dawn. After dawn, it is concealed, and due to concealment, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. For one who has committed a saṅghādisesa offense, it is not proper to reveal it to a fellow monk. If one reveals it, the offense is revealed, but the dukkaṭa is not absolved. Therefore, one should reveal it to a pure monk. While revealing, one should say, “I reveal one offense to you,” or “I inform you,” or “I report to you,” or “Know that I have committed one offense,” or “I reveal one grave offense,” and so on. In all these ways, it remains unconcealed. But if one says, “I reveal a minor offense,” it remains concealed. One may report the matter, report the offense, or report both; in all three ways, it is reported.

237. Iti imāni dasa kāraṇāni upaparikkhitvā paṭicchannaparivāsaṃ dentena paṭhamameva paṭicchannabhāvo jānitabbo, tato paṭicchannadivase ca āpattiyo ca sallakkhetvā sace ekāhappaṭicchannā hoti, “ahaṃ, bhante, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ sañcetanikaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ ekāhappaṭicchanna”nti evaṃ yācāpetvā khandhake (cūḷava. 98) āgatanayeneva kammavācaṃ vatvā parivāso dātabbo. Atha dvīhatīhādipaṭicchannā hoti, “dvīhappaṭicchannaṃ, tīhappaṭicchannaṃ, catūhappaṭicchannaṃ, pañcāhappaṭicchannaṃ…pe… cuddasāhappaṭicchanna”nti evaṃ yāva cuddasadivasāni divasavasena yojanā kātabbā, pañcadasadivasapaṭicchannāya “pakkhapaṭicchanna”nti yojanā kātabbā. Tato yāva ekūnatiṃsatimo divaso, tāva “atirekapakkhapaṭicchanna”nti, tato “māsapaṭicchannaṃ, atirekamāsapaṭicchannaṃ, dvemāsapaṭicchannaṃ, atirekadvemāsapaṭicchannaṃ, temāsa…pe… atirekaekādasamāsapaṭicchanna”nti evaṃ yojanā kātabbā. Saṃvacchare puṇṇe “ekasaṃvaccharapaṭicchanna”nti, tato paraṃ “atirekasaṃvaccharaṃ, dvesaṃvacchara”nti evaṃ yāva “saṭṭhisaṃvaccharaṃ, atirekasaṭṭhisaṃvaccharapaṭicchanna”nti vā tato vā bhiyyopi vatvā yojanā kātabbā.

237. Thus, examining these ten factors, when giving paṭicchannaparivāsa, the state of concealment should first be known, then the days of concealment and the offenses should be considered. If it is concealed for one day, having him request, “Venerable sirs, I committed one offense, intentional emission of semen, concealed for one day,” and by the method stated in the Khandhaka (cūḷava. 98), reciting the kammavācā, parivāsa should be given. If it is concealed for two, three, or more days, “concealed for two days, three days, four days, five days… up to fourteen days” should be applied day by day. For one concealed for fifteen days, “concealed for a fortnight” should be applied. Up to the twenty-ninth day, “concealed for more than a fortnight”; then, “concealed for a month, more than a month, two months, more than two months, three months… up to more than eleven months” should be applied. When a year is complete, “concealed for one year”; thereafter, “more than one year, two years… up to sixty years, more than sixty years” or even more should be stated and applied.

237. Thus, having examined these ten factors, when giving paṭicchannaparivāsa, first of all, the state of concealment should be known. Then, having considered the days of concealment and the offenses, if it is concealed for one day, he should be made to ask, “Venerable sir, I committed an offense, a deliberate emission of semen, concealed for one day,” and having recited the formal declaration (kammavācā) in the way given in the Khandhaka (cūḷava. 98), the parivāsa should be given. If it is concealed for two days, three days, etc., the wording should be adjusted according to the number of days up to fourteen days, saying, “concealed for two days, concealed for three days, concealed for four days, concealed for five days… up to… concealed for fourteen days.” For concealment for fifteen days, the wording “concealed for a fortnight” should be used. Then, up to the twenty-ninth day, “concealed for more than a fortnight” should be used. Then, “concealed for a month, concealed for more than a month, concealed for two months, concealed for more than two months, concealed for three months… up to… concealed for more than eleven months” should be used. When a year is complete, “concealed for one year” should be used. After that, “concealed for more than a year, concealed for two years” should be used, up to “concealed for sixty years, concealed for more than sixty years,” or even more than that should be said, and the wording should be adjusted.

237. Thus, having examined these ten factors, when giving concealed probation, one must first know the nature of the concealment. Then, having considered the days of concealment and the offenses, if it is concealed for one day, one should request, “Venerable sir, I have committed one offense, intentionally, involving semen, concealed for one day,” and having spoken the motion according to the method in the Khandhaka (cūḷava. 98), probation should be given. If it is concealed for two, three, or more days, up to fourteen days, the arrangement should be made accordingly, counting the days. For concealment of fifteen days, it should be arranged as “half-month concealment.” Up to the twenty-ninth day, it should be arranged as “extra half-month concealment.” Then, “one-month concealment, extra one-month concealment, two-month concealment, extra two-month concealment, three-month… up to extra eleven-month concealment,” and so on, the arrangement should be made. For a full year, it should be arranged as “one-year concealment,” and beyond that, “extra one-year concealment, two-year concealment,” and so on, up to “sixty-year concealment, extra sixty-year concealment,” or even more, the arrangement should be made.

Sace pana dve tisso tatuttari vā āpattiyo honti, yathā “ekaṃ āpatti”nti vuttaṃ, evaṃ “dve āpattiyo, tisso āpattiyo”ti vattabbaṃ. Tato paraṃ pana sataṃ vā hotu sahassaṃ vā , “sambahulā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Nānāvatthukāsupi “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ, ekaṃ kāyasaṃsaggaṃ, ekaṃ duṭṭhullavācaṃ, ekaṃ attakāmaṃ, ekaṃ sañcarittaṃ, ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ gaṇanavasena vā “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ nānāvatthukā ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ vatthukittanavasena vā “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ nāmamattavasena vā yojanā kātabbā. Tattha nāmaṃ duvidhaṃ sajātisādhāraṇaṃ sabbasādhāraṇañca. Tattha saṅghādisesoti sajātisādhāraṇaṃ. Āpattīti sabbasādhāraṇaṃ. Tasmā “sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ sabbasādhāraṇanāmavasenapi vaṭṭati. Idañhi parivāsādivinayakammaṃ vatthuvasena gottavasena nāmavasena āpattivasena ca kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

If there are two, three, or more offenses, as “one offense” is stated, so too “two offenses, three offenses” should be said. Beyond that, whether a hundred or a thousand, it is allowable to say “many.” Even for those of different bases, “Venerable sirs, I committed many saṅghādisesa offenses: one emission of semen, one physical contact, one lewd speech, one self-desire, one mediation, concealed for one day,” by enumeration; or “Venerable sirs, I committed many saṅghādisesa offenses of different bases, concealed for one day,” by stating the bases; or “Venerable sirs, I committed many saṅghādisesa offenses, concealed for one day,” by mere name—should be applied. Here, name is twofold: specific to the type and common to all. Saṅghādisesa is specific to the type; āpatti is common to all. Thus, “I committed many offenses, concealed for one day,” by the common name, is also allowable. For this parivāsa and other Vinaya acts are indeed allowable by basis, clan, name, and offense.

If there are two, three, or more offenses, just as it is said, “one offense,” so it should be said, “two offenses, three offenses.” Beyond that, however, whether there are a hundred or a thousand, it is appropriate to say “a number of.” Even in cases with different bases, one should formulate it, either by way of enumeration, such as, “Venerable sir, I have committed a number of saṅghādisesa offenses: one emission of semen, one physical contact, one offensive speech, one self-praise, one acting as a go-between, concealed for one day;” or by way of stating the bases, such as, “Venerable sir, I have committed a number of saṅghādisesa offenses with different bases, concealed for one day;” or by way of just stating the name, such as, “Venerable sir, I have committed a number of saṅghādisesa offenses, concealed for one day.” Here, the name is twofold: specific common name and universal common name. Of these, “saṅghādisesa” is a specific common name. “Offense” is a universal common name. Therefore, it is also appropriate to say, “I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day,” using the universal common name. Indeed, this legal procedure of parivāsa and so forth can be performed based on the base, the class, the name, and the offense.

If, however, there are two or three or more offenses, as it is said, “one offense,” so too should it be said, “two offenses, three offenses.” Beyond that, whether it is a hundred or a thousand, it is appropriate to say, “numerous.” Even if the offenses are based on different grounds, one should say, “Venerable sir, I have committed numerous saṅghādisesa offenses: one of emission, one of physical contact, one of lewd speech, one of self-interest, one of matchmaking, and one of concealment for a day.” Alternatively, one may state it by enumeration, or by mentioning the grounds, or simply by name. Here, the name is of two kinds: common to its kind and common to all. Here, “saṅghādisesa” is common to its kind. “Offense” is common to all. Therefore, it is appropriate to say, “I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day,” even by the name common to all. For this disciplinary action of probation, etc., can be performed based on ground, category, name, or offense.

Tattha sukkavissaṭṭhīti vatthu ceva gottañca. Saṅghādisesoti nāmañceva āpatti ca. Tattha “sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ kāyasaṃsagga”ntiādinā vacanenapi “nānāvatthukāyo”ti vacanenapi vatthu ceva gottañca gahitaṃ hoti. “Saṅghādiseso”ti vacanenapi “āpattiyo”ti vacanenapi nāmañceva āpatti ca gahitā hoti. Tasmā etesu yassa kassaci vasena kammavācā kātabbā. Idha pana sabbāpattīnaṃ sādhāraṇavasena sambahulanayeneva ca sabbattha kammavācaṃ yojetvā dassayissāma. Ekañhi āpattiṃ āpajjitvā “sambahulā”ti vinayakammaṃ karontassapi vuṭṭhāti ekaṃ vinā sambahulānaṃ abhāvato. Sambahulā pana āpajjitvā “ekaṃ āpajji”nti karontassa na vuṭṭhāti, tasmā sambahulanayeneva yojayissāma. Seyyathidaṃ – paṭicchannaparivāsaṃ dentena sace ekāhappaṭicchannā āpatti hoti.

Here, sukkavissaṭṭhi is both basis and clan. Saṅghādisesa is both name and offense. By saying “sukkavissaṭṭhi, kāyasaṃsagga,” and so forth, or “of different bases,” both basis and clan are included. By saying “saṅghādisesa” or “offenses,” both name and offense are included. Thus, the kammavācā should be performed by any of these. Here, however, we will show the kammavācā applied everywhere by the method of “many,” common to all offenses. For one who, having committed one offense, performs a Vinaya act as “many,” is rehabilitated, since without one there are not many. But one who, having committed many, performs it as “one offense,” is not rehabilitated; thus, we will apply it by the method of “many.” That is: When giving paṭicchannaparivāsa, if the offense is concealed for one day—

Here, emission of semen is both the base and the class. Saṅghādisesa is both the name and the offense. Here, by saying “emission of semen, physical contact,” and so on, or by saying “with different bases,” both the base and the class are grasped. By saying “Saṅghādisesa,” or by saying “offenses,” both the name and the offense are grasped. Therefore, the formal legal act (kammavācā) should be performed based on any one of these. Here, however, we will show the formulation of the formal legal act in all cases by way of the universal, and also by way of the multitude. Because even if one commits a single offense and performs the legal procedure saying “a number of,” one does not emerge, as there is no multitude without one. But if one commits a multitude and performs it saying “I committed one,” one does not emerge, therefore we will formulate it by way of the multitude. For example, when giving the concealed parivāsa, if there is an offense concealed for one day.

Here, “emission” refers to both the ground and the category. “Saṅghādisesa” refers to both the name and the offense. Here, by the phrase “emission, physical contact,” etc., and by the phrase “based on different grounds,” both the ground and the category are included. By the phrase “saṅghādisesa” and “offenses,” both the name and the offense are included. Therefore, the formal act should be performed according to whichever of these is applicable. Here, however, we will explain the formal act in a way that is common to all offenses and follows the method of plurality. For even if one commits a single offense and performs a disciplinary action by saying, “numerous,” one is cleared, as without one, there cannot be many. But if one commits numerous offenses and says, “I committed one,” one is not cleared. Therefore, we will apply the method of plurality. For example, when giving concealed probation, if there is an offense of concealment for a day.

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, dutiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo , tatiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yācāmīti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I, venerable sirs, request the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; for the second time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; for the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day”—

“Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I, venerable sir, ask the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. For the second time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. For the third time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day.”

“Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. I ask the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. For the second time, I ask the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. For the third time, I ask the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requests the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha give this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so has committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He asks the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. He asks the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may grant the monk named so-and-so a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. This is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requests the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gives this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Whoever agrees with giving this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so has committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He asks the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gives a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. If any venerable one approves of the giving of a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. He asks the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha grants the monk named so-and-so a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, they should speak.

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“For the second time, I say this matter…(as before)… For the third time, I say this matter…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…

“Dinno saṅghena itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāso, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“A one-day parivāsa has been given by the Saṅgha to this monk named so-and-so for many offenses concealed for one day; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“A one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day, has been given by the Saṅgha to the bhikkhu named so-and-so. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. I understand it thus.”

“The Saṅgha has granted the monk named so-and-so a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.”

Thus, taking the name of whoever committed it, the kammavācā should be performed.

In this way, taking the name of each and every one who has fallen, the formal legal act should be performed.

In this way, the formal act should be performed by taking the name of whoever has committed the offenses.

Kammavācāpariyosāne ca tena bhikkhunā māḷakasīmāyameva “parivāsaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti vattaṃ samādātabbaṃ, samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetabbaṃ. Ārocentena ca –

At the conclusion of the kammavācā, that monk, within the māḷakasīmā itself, should undertake the duties, saying, “I undertake parivāsa; I undertake the duties,” and having undertaken them, should announce it to the Saṅgha there. When announcing—

And at the conclusion of the formal legal act, that bhikkhu should, within the boundary of the precinct, undertake the practice, saying, “I undertake the parivāsa, I undertake the practice.” Having undertaken it, he should inform the Saṅgha there itself. And in informing,

At the conclusion of the formal act, the monk should undertake the observance in the boundary of the māḷaka, saying, “I undertake probation, I undertake the observance.” Having undertaken it, he should inform the Saṅgha right there. When informing, he should say:

Evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Imañca atthaṃ gahetvā yāya kāyaci vācāya ārocetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

It should be announced thus. Taking this meaning, it is indeed allowable to announce it in any words.

Thus he should inform. And taking this meaning, it is appropriate to inform in any way of speech.

He should inform in this way. And taking this meaning, it is appropriate to inform by any means of speech.

Ārocetvā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) sace nikkhipitukāmo hoti, “parivāsaṃ nikkhipāmi, vattaṃ nikkhipāmī”ti nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ekapadenapi cettha nikkhitto hoti parivāso, dvīhi pana sunikkhittoyeva. Samādānepi eseva nayo. Nikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya pakatattaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Māḷakato bhikkhūsu nikkhantesu ekassapi santike nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati, māḷakato nikkhamitvā satiṃ paṭilabhantena sahagacchantassa santike nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace sopi pakkanto, aññassa yassa māḷake nārocitaṃ, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ārocentena ca avasāne “vediyatīti maṃ āyasmā dhāretū”ti vattabbaṃ. Dvinnaṃ ārocentena “āyasmantā dhārentū”ti, tiṇṇaṃ ārocentena “āyasmanto dhārentū”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace appabhikkhuko vihāro hoti, sabhāgā bhikkhū vasanti, vattaṃ anikkhipitvā vihāreyeva rattipariggaho kātabbo. Atha na sakkā sodhetuṃ, vuttanayeneva vattaṃ nikkhipitvā paccūsasamaye ekena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato, aparikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā mahāmaggato okkamma gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ, antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayena vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetabbaṃ. Ārocentena sace navakataro hoti, “āvuso”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace vuḍḍhataro, “bhante”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace añño koci bhikkhu kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ āgacchati, sace esa taṃ passati, saddaṃ vāssa suṇāti, ārocetabbaṃ, anārocentassa ratticchedo ceva vattabhedo ca. Atha dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ okkamitvā ajānantasseva gacchati, ratticchedo hotiyeva, vattabhedo pana natthi, uggate aruṇe vattaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace so bhikkhu kenacideva karaṇīyena pakkanto hoti, yaṃ aññaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ passati, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Vihāraṃ gantvāpi yaṃ paṭhamaṃ passati, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ayaṃ nikkhittavattassa parihāro.

Having announced it (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), if he wishes to lay it aside, “I lay aside parivāsa; I lay aside the duties” should be said. Here, with one phrase, parivāsa is laid aside; with two, it is well laid aside. The same applies to undertaking. From the time of laying it aside, he stands as a natural person. When the monks leave the māḷaka, it is allowable to lay it aside in the presence of even one monk. Having left the māḷaka and regained mindfulness, it should be laid aside in the presence of one going with him. If that one has departed, it should be announced and laid aside in the presence of another to whom it was not announced in the māḷaka. When announcing, at the end, “May the venerable hold me as feeling it” should be said. To two, “May the venerables hold me”; to three, “May the venerables hold me” should be said. If the monastery has few monks and suitable monks dwell there, without laying aside the duties, the nights should be counted in the monastery itself. If it cannot be purified, laying aside the duties as stated, at dawn, with one monk, going beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of an enclosed monastery or the boundary-worthy place of an unenclosed monastery, stepping off the main road, he should sit in a concealed place like a thicket or enclosure; before dawn, undertaking the duties as stated, it should be announced. When announcing, if junior, “friend” should be said; if senior, “venerable sir” should be said. If another monk comes there for some purpose and he sees him or hears his sound, it should be announced; not announcing incurs both a break in the night and a breach of duties. If he enters the twelve-handspan vicinity unknowingly and leaves, there is a break in the night but no breach of duties. When dawn rises, the duties should be laid aside. If that monk has departed for some purpose, it should be announced and laid aside to the first monk seen. Even going to the monastery, it should be announced and laid aside to the first monk seen. This is the exemption for one who has laid aside the duties.

Having informed, (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) if he wishes to suspend it, he should suspend it, saying, “I suspend the parivāsa, I suspend the practice.” Even with one phrase, the parivāsa is suspended here, but with two, it is well suspended. The same method applies to undertaking. From the time of suspension, he stands in the position of a pure one. When the bhikkhus are leaving the precinct, it is appropriate to suspend it in the presence of even one. Having left the precinct, when one regains mindfulness, one should suspend it in the presence of the one going along with him. If he too has departed, having informed another to whom it was not informed in the precinct, it should be suspended. And when informing, at the end, it should be said, “Let the venerable one consider me as one who is making it known.” If informing two, it should be said, “Let the venerable ones consider.” If informing three, it should be said, “Let the venerable sirs consider.” If the monastery has few bhikkhus, and bhikkhus of the same class live there, the determination of the night should be made within the monastery itself without suspending the practice. Then, if it is not possible to purify, having suspended the practice in the aforementioned manner, at dawn, with one bhikkhu, having gone beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of the bounded monastery, or from the place suitable for a boundary of an unbounded monastery, having stepped off the main road, one should sit in a place concealed by a thicket or a fence. Right at dawn, having undertaken the practice in the aforementioned manner, one should inform. If the one informing is junior, it should be said, “Friend.” If he is senior, it should be said, “Venerable sir.” If any other bhikkhu comes to that place for some business, if this one sees him or hears his voice, he should inform. For one who does not inform, there is both a break in the night and a break in the practice. Then, if he goes beyond the twelve-hand-span vicinity without knowing, there is a break in the night indeed, but there is no break in the practice. When dawn has arisen, the practice should be suspended. If that bhikkhu has departed for some business, whatever other one he sees first, having informed him, it should be suspended. Even going to the monastery, whatever one he sees first, having informed him, it should be suspended. This is the observance for one who has suspended the practice.

After informing (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102), if he wishes to relinquish it, he should relinquish it by saying, “I relinquish probation, I relinquish the observance.” Here, probation is relinquished even by a single phrase, but it is properly relinquished by two phrases. The same method applies to undertaking. From the time of relinquishment, he stands in a state of purity. If the monks leave the māḷaka, it is permissible to relinquish it in the presence of even one monk. If he leaves the māḷaka and regains mindfulness, he should relinquish it in the presence of a monk who is accompanying him. If that monk has also departed, he should relinquish it after informing any monk in the māḷaka who has not been informed. When informing, at the end, he should say, “May the venerable one remember me as one who is undergoing probation.” If informing two, he should say, “May the venerable ones remember me.” If informing three, he should say, “May the venerable ones remember me.” If the monastery has few monks and fellow monks are residing together, the night should be spent in the monastery without relinquishing the observance. If it is not possible to purify, the observance should be relinquished as described, and at dawn, sitting in a concealed place such as a bush or a thicket, beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of an enclosed monastery or from the boundary-worthy area of an unenclosed monastery, after stepping off the main road, the observance should be undertaken at dawn as described and then informed. When informing, if the other is junior, he should say, “Friend.” If senior, he should say, “Venerable sir.” If another monk comes to that place for some business, and if he sees him or hears his voice, he should inform him. If he does not inform him, there is an interruption of the night and a breach of the observance. If he approaches within twelve hands’ breadth and departs without knowing, there is an interruption of the night, but no breach of the observance. At dawn, the observance should be relinquished. If that monk has departed for some business before dawn, he should relinquish it after informing any monk he first meets. If he goes to the monastery, he should relinquish it after informing the first monk he sees. This is the procedure for one who has relinquished the observance.

238. Evaṃ yattakāni divasāni āpatti paṭicchannā hoti, tattakāni tato adhikatarāni vā kukkuccavinodanatthāya parivasitvā saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā vattaṃ samādiyitvā mānattaṃ yācitabbaṃ. Ayañhi vatte samādinne eva mānattāraho hoti nikkhittavattena parivutthattā. Anikkhittavattassa pana puna samādānakiccaṃ natthi. So hi paṭicchannadivasātikkameneva mānattāraho hoti, tasmā tassa mānattaṃ dātabbameva. Taṃ dentena –

238. Having undergone parivāsa for as many days as the offense was concealed, or more to dispel scruple, approaching the Saṅgha, undertaking the duties, he should request mānatta. For he becomes worthy of mānatta only when the duties are undertaken, having completed parivāsa with the duties laid aside. For one who has not laid aside the duties, there is no need to undertake them again. He becomes worthy of mānatta by exceeding the concealed days; thus, mānatta should indeed be given to him. When giving it—

238. Thus, for however many days the offense is concealed, or for more than that for the sake of dispelling remorse, having undergone the parivāsa, having approached the Saṅgha, having undertaken the practice, one should ask for mānatta. For one is worthy of mānatta only when the practice has been undertaken, because the parivāsa has been completed with the practice suspended. But for one who has not suspended the practice, there is no need to undertake it again. For he is worthy of mānatta by the very passing of the days of concealment, therefore mānatta should be given to him. The one giving it –

238. In this way, after undergoing probation for as many days as the offense was concealed, or more, to dispel remorse, he should approach the Saṅgha, undertake the observance, and request rehabilitation. For when the observance is undertaken, he becomes worthy of rehabilitation because he has completed the probation after relinquishing the observance. For one who has not relinquished the observance, there is no need to undertake it again. He becomes worthy of rehabilitation simply by the passing of the days of concealment. Therefore, rehabilitation should be given to him. When giving it:

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ, bhante, parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso, dutiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso, tatiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmī”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. Venerable sirs… for the second time, venerable sirs… for the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day”—

“Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I, venerable sir, having completed the parivāsa, ask the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. Venerable sir…(as before)… I, having completed the parivāsa, for the second time, venerable sir, ask the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. Venerable sir…(as before)… I, having completed the parivāsa, for the third time, venerable sir, ask the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day.”

“Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted me a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir, having completed probation, I ask the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir… For the second time, I ask the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir… For the third time, I ask the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day.”

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so has committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He, having completed the parivāsa, asks the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give six nights of mānatta to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted him a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed probation, he asks the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may grant the monk named so-and-so a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācati, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ deti, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattassa dānaṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gives this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. Whoever agrees with giving this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so has committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He, having completed the parivāsa, asks the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gives six nights of mānatta to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. If any venerable one approves of the giving of six nights of mānatta to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak.

“Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted him a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed probation, he asks the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha grants the monk named so-and-so a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, they should speak.

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“For the second time, I say this matter…(as before)… For the third time, I say this matter…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…

“Dinnaṃ saṅghena itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“A six-night mānatta has been given by the Saṅgha to this monk named so-and-so for many offenses concealed for one day; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“Six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day, have been given by the Saṅgha to the bhikkhu named so-and-so. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. I understand it thus.”

“The Saṅgha has granted the monk named so-and-so a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.”

Kammavācāpariyosāne ca tena bhikkhunā māḷakasīmāyameva “mānattaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti vattaṃ samādātabbaṃ, samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetabbaṃ. Ārocentena ca –

At the conclusion of the kammavācā, that monk, within the māḷakasīmā itself, should undertake the duties, saying, “I undertake mānatta; I undertake the duties,” and having undertaken them, should announce it to the Saṅgha there. When announcing—

And at the conclusion of the formal legal act, that bhikkhu should, within the boundary of the precinct, undertake the practice, saying, “I undertake the mānatta, I undertake the practice.” Having undertaken it, he should inform the Saṅgha there itself. And in informing,

At the conclusion of the formal act, the monk should undertake the observance in the boundary of the māḷaka, saying, “I undertake rehabilitation, I undertake the observance.” Having undertaken it, he should inform the Saṅgha right there. When informing, he should say:

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ mānattaṃ carāmi, vediyāmahaṃ bhante, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. I am undergoing mānatta; I feel it, venerable sirs; may the Saṅgha hold me as feeling it”—

“Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I, having completed the parivāsa, asked the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I am observing the mānatta. I make it known, venerable sir. Let the Saṅgha consider me as one who is making it known.”

“Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted me a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed probation, I asked the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted me a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. I am undergoing rehabilitation. I inform you, venerable sir, that I am undergoing rehabilitation. May the Saṅgha remember me as one who is undergoing rehabilitation.”

Evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Imañca pana atthaṃ gahetvā yāya kāyaci vācāya ārocetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.

It should be announced thus. Taking this meaning, it is indeed allowable to announce it in any words.

Thus he should inform. And taking this meaning, it is appropriate to inform in any way of speech.

He should inform in this way. And taking this meaning, it is appropriate to inform by any means of speech.

Ārocetvā sace nikkhipitukāmo hoti, “mānattaṃ nikkhipāmi, vattaṃ nikkhipāmī”ti saṅghamajjhe nikkhipitabbaṃ. Māḷakato bhikkhūsu nikkhantesu ekassapi santike nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati. Māḷakato nikkhamitvā satiṃ paṭilabhantena sahagacchantassa santike nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace sopi pakkanto, aññassa yassa māḷake nārocitaṃ, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ārocentena pana avasāne “vediyatīti maṃ āyasmā dhāretū”ti vattabbaṃ. Dvinnaṃ ārocentena “āyasmantā dhārentū”ti, tiṇṇaṃ ārocentena “āyasmanto dhārentū”ti vattabbaṃ. Nikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya pakatattaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Sace appabhikkhuko vihāro hoti, sabhāgā bhikkhū vasanti, vattaṃ anikkhipitvā antovihāreyeva rattiyo gaṇetabbā. Atha na sakkā sodhetuṃ, vuttanayeneva vattaṃ nikkhipitvā paccūsasamaye catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā mahāmaggato okkamma gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ, antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayena vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetabbaṃ. Sace añño koci bhikkhu kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ āgacchati, sace esa taṃ passati, saddaṃ vāssa suṇāti, ārocetabbaṃ. Anārocentassa ratticchedo ceva vattabhedo ca, atha dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ okkamitvā ajānantasseva gacchati, ratticchedo hoti eva, vattabhedo pana natthi. Ārocitakālato paṭṭhāya ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā sesehi sati karaṇīye gantumpi vaṭṭati, aruṇe uṭṭhite tassa bhikkhussa santike vattaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace sopi kenaci kammena pure aruṇeyeva gacchati, aññaṃ vihārato nikkhantaṃ vā āgantukaṃ vā yaṃ paṭhamaṃ passati, tassa santike ārocetvā vattaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ayañca yasmā gaṇassa ārocetvā bhikkhūnañca atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāva vasi, tenassa ūne gaṇe caraṇadoso vā vippavāso vā na hoti. Sace na kañci passati, vihāraṃ gantvāpi yaṃ paṭhamaṃ passati, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Ayaṃ nikkhittavattassa parihāro.

Having announced it, if he wishes to lay it aside, “I lay aside mānatta; I lay aside the duties” should be said in the midst of the Saṅgha. When the monks leave the māḷaka, it is allowable to lay it aside in the presence of even one monk. Having left the māḷaka and regained mindfulness, it should be laid aside in the presence of one going with him. If that one has departed, it should be announced and laid aside in the presence of another to whom it was not announced in the māḷaka. When announcing, at the end, “May the venerable hold me as feeling it” should be said. To two, “May the venerables hold me”; to three, “May the venerables hold me” should be said. From the time of laying it aside, he stands as a natural person. If the monastery has few monks and suitable monks dwell there, without laying aside the duties, the nights should be counted within the monastery itself. If it cannot be purified, laying aside the duties as stated, at dawn, with four or five monks, going beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of an enclosed monastery or the boundary-worthy place of an unenclosed monastery, stepping off the main road, he should sit in a concealed place like a thicket or enclosure; before dawn, undertaking the duties as stated, it should be announced. If another monk comes there for some purpose and he sees him or hears his sound, it should be announced. Not announcing incurs both a break in the night and a breach of duties; if he enters the twelve-handspan vicinity unknowingly and leaves, there is a break in the night but no breach of duties. From the time of announcing, leaving one monk aside, it is allowable to go with the others if there is a task; when dawn rises, the duties should be laid aside in that monk’s presence. If that monk departs for some task before dawn, it should be announced and laid aside in the presence of the first monk seen, whether leaving the monastery or a visitor. Since he dwells having announced to the group and considered the monks’ presence, there is neither fault in an incomplete group nor separation. If he sees no one, even going to the monastery, it should be announced and laid aside to the first monk seen. This is the exemption for one who has laid aside the duties.

Having informed, if he wishes to suspend it, he should suspend the mānatta in the midst of the Saṅgha, saying, “I suspend the mānatta, I suspend the practice.” When the bhikkhus are leaving the precinct, it is appropriate to suspend it in the presence of even one. Having left the precinct, when one regains mindfulness, one should suspend it in the presence of the one going along with him. If he too has departed, having informed another to whom it was not informed in the precinct, it should be suspended. And when informing, at the end, it should be said, “Let the venerable one consider me as one who is making it known.” If informing two, it should be said, “Let the venerable ones consider.” If informing three, it should be said, “Let the venerable sirs consider.” From the time of suspension, he stands in the position of a pure one. If the monastery has few bhikkhus, and bhikkhus of the same class live there, the nights should be counted within the monastery itself without suspending the practice. Then, if it is not possible to purify, having suspended the practice in the aforementioned manner, at dawn, with four or five bhikkhus, having gone beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of the bounded monastery, or from the place suitable for a boundary of an unbounded monastery, having stepped off the main road, one should sit in a place concealed by a thicket or a fence. Right at dawn, having undertaken the practice in the aforementioned manner, one should inform. If any other bhikkhu comes to that place for some business, if this one sees him or hears his voice, he should inform. For one who does not inform, there is both a break in the night and a break in the practice. Then, if he goes beyond the twelve-hand-span vicinity without knowing, there is a break in the night indeed, but there is no break in the practice. From the time of informing, having left one bhikkhu, it is appropriate for the rest to go if there is a need. When dawn has arisen, the practice should be suspended in the presence of that bhikkhu. If he too goes for some business before dawn, whatever other one he sees first, leaving the monastery or arriving as a visitor, in the presence of that one, having informed, the practice should be suspended. And since he lived having informed the group and having ascertained the presence of bhikkhus, there is no fault of observing with an incomplete group or of being away for him. If he does not see anyone, even going to the monastery, whatever one he sees first, having informed him, it should be suspended. This is the observance for one who has suspended the practice.

After informing, if he wishes to relinquish it, he should relinquish it in the midst of the Saṅgha by saying, “I relinquish rehabilitation, I relinquish the observance.” If the monks leave the māḷaka, it is permissible to relinquish it in the presence of even one monk. If he leaves the māḷaka and regains mindfulness, he should relinquish it in the presence of a monk who is accompanying him. If that monk has also departed, he should relinquish it after informing any monk in the māḷaka who has not been informed. When informing, at the end, he should say, “May the venerable one remember me as one who is undergoing rehabilitation.” If informing two, he should say, “May the venerable ones remember me.” If informing three, he should say, “May the venerable ones remember me.” From the time of relinquishment, he stands in a state of purity. If the monastery has few monks and fellow monks are residing together, the nights should be counted within the monastery without relinquishing the observance. If it is not possible to purify, the observance should be relinquished as described, and at dawn, sitting in a concealed place such as a bush or a thicket, beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of an enclosed monastery or from the boundary-worthy area of an unenclosed monastery, after stepping off the main road, the observance should be undertaken at dawn as described and then informed. If another monk comes to that place for some business, and if he sees him or hears his voice, he should inform him. If he does not inform him, there is an interruption of the night and a breach of the observance. If he approaches within twelve hands’ breadth and departs without knowing, there is an interruption of the night, but no breach of the observance. From the time of informing, it is permissible to go for business, leaving one monk behind. At dawn, the observance should be relinquished in the presence of that monk. If that monk departs for some business before dawn, he should relinquish it after informing any monk he first meets. If he goes to the monastery, he should relinquish it after informing the first monk he sees. This is the procedure for one who has relinquished the observance.

239. Evaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ akhaṇḍaṃ caritvā yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho, tattha so bhikkhu abbhetabbo. Abbhentehi ca paṭhamaṃ abbhānāraho kātabbo. Ayañhi nikkhittavattattā pakatattaṭṭhāne ṭhito, pakatattassa ca abbhānaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmā vattaṃ samādāpetabbo, vatte samādinne abbhānāraho hoti. Tenapi vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetvā abbhānaṃ yācitabbaṃ. Anikkhittavattassa puna vattasamādānakiccaṃ natthi. So hi chārattātikkameneva abbhānāraho hoti, tasmā so abbhetabbo. Abbhentena ca –

239. Having undergone a six-night mānatta fully, where there is a Saṅgha of twenty monks, that monk should be reinstated. Those reinstating should first make him worthy of reinstatement. For, having laid aside the duties, he stands as a natural person, and it is not allowable to reinstate a natural person; thus, he should be made to undertake the duties. Having undertaken and announced the duties, he should request reinstatement. For one who has not laid aside the duties, there is no need to undertake them again. He becomes worthy of reinstatement by exceeding six nights; thus, he should be reinstated. When reinstating—

239. Thus, having observed the six nights of mānatta without interruption, wherever there is a Saṅgha of twenty bhikkhus, that bhikkhu should be rehabilitated there. And when rehabilitating, first he should be made worthy of rehabilitation. For he stands in the position of a pure one because of the practice being suspended, and it is not appropriate to perform rehabilitation for a pure one, therefore the practice should be made to be undertaken. When the practice has been undertaken, he is worthy of rehabilitation. He too, having undertaken the practice and having informed, should ask for rehabilitation. For one who has not suspended the practice, there is no need to undertake the practice again. For he is worthy of rehabilitation by the very passing of the six nights, therefore he should be rehabilitated. And when rehabilitating,

239. In this way, having completed an unbroken six-day rehabilitation, wherever there is a Saṅgha of twenty monks, that monk should be reinstated. When reinstating, he should first be made worthy of reinstatement. For having relinquished the observance, he stands in a state of purity, and it is not appropriate to reinstate one who is in a state of purity. Therefore, he should be made to undertake the observance. When the observance is undertaken, he becomes worthy of reinstatement. He should undertake the observance, inform the Saṅgha, and then request reinstatement. For one who has not relinquished the observance, there is no need to undertake it again. He becomes worthy of reinstatement simply by the passing of the six days. Therefore, he should be reinstated. When reinstating:

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ, bhante, ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ ciṇṇamānatto dutiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ ciṇṇamānatto tatiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmī”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed mānatta, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for reinstatement. Venerable sirs… for the second time… for the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for reinstatement”—

“Venerable sir, I have committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I, having completed the parivāsa, asked the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. I, venerable sir, having observed the mānatta, ask the Saṅgha for rehabilitation. Venerable sir…(as before)… I, having observed the mānatta, for the second time, venerable sir, ask the Saṅgha for rehabilitation. Venerable sir…(as before)… I, having observed the mānatta, for the third time, venerable sir, ask the Saṅgha for rehabilitation.”

“Venerable sir, I have committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. I asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted me a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed probation, I asked the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted me a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Venerable sir, having completed rehabilitation, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement. Venerable sir… For the second time, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement. Venerable sir… For the third time, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, so ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ abbheyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, he requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha reinstate this monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so has committed a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave a one-day parivāsa to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He, having completed the parivāsa, asked the Saṅgha for six nights of mānatta for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave six nights of mānatta to the bhikkhu named so-and-so for a number of offenses, concealed for one day. He, having observed the mānatta, asks the Saṅgha for rehabilitation. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should rehabilitate the bhikkhu named so-and-so. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed numerous offenses of concealment for a day. He asked the Saṅgha for a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted him a one-day probation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed probation, he asked the Saṅgha for a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. The Saṅgha granted him a six-day rehabilitation for these numerous offenses of concealment for a day. Having completed rehabilitation, he asks the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may reinstate the monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, so ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācati, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ abbheti, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno abbhānaṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, he requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. The Saṅgha reinstates this monk named so-and-so. Whoever agrees with the reinstatement of this monk named so-and-so should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the parivāsa, he asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for the several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the mānatta, he asks the Saṅgha for abbhāna. The Saṅgha reinstates the bhikkhu named Itthannāma. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones for the reinstatement of Itthannāma bhikkhu, let them remain silent. Whoever does not find it acceptable should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several offenses concealed for one day. He has requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha has granted him a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, he has requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha has granted him the six-day penance for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the penance, he now requests the Sangha for rehabilitation. The Sangha rehabilitates the monk named so-and-so. If the venerable ones approve of the rehabilitation of the monk named so-and-so, let them remain silent. If anyone disapproves, let them speak.”

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“I speak this matter a second time…(as before)… I speak this matter a third time…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…”

“Abbhito saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“This monk named so-and-so has been reinstated by the Saṅgha; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“The bhikkhu named Itthannāma has been reinstated by the Saṅgha. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. I will remember it this way.”

“The monk named so-and-so has been rehabilitated by the Sangha. The Sangha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.”

Evaṃ tāva ekāhappaṭicchannāya āpattiyā paṭicchannaparivāso mānattadānaṃ abbhānañca veditabbaṃ. Imināva nayena dvīhādipaṭicchannāsupi tadanurūpā kammavācā kātabbā.

Thus, the paṭicchannaparivāsa, giving of mānatta, and reinstatement for an offense concealed for one day should be understood. By this same method, the kammavācā should be performed appropriately for offenses concealed for two days and so forth.

Thus, the parivāsa for concealing, the giving of mānatta, and the reinstatement (abbhāna) should be understood for an offense concealed for one day. In the same manner, for offenses concealed for two or more days, a formal act (kammavācā) should be performed accordingly.

Thus, for an offense concealed for one day, the concealed probation, the granting of penance, and the rehabilitation should be understood. In the same manner, for offenses concealed for two days, etc., the appropriate motion should be recited.

240. Sace pana appaṭicchannā āpatti hoti, parivāsaṃ adatvā mānattameva datvā ciṇṇamānatto abbhetabbo. Kathaṃ? Mānattaṃ dentena tāva –

240. If an offense is unconcealed, without giving parivāsa, mānatta alone should be given, and having completed mānatta, he should be reinstated. How? When giving mānatta—

240. If, however, the offense is unconcealed, after giving only the mānatta without giving the parivāsa, the bhikkhu who has completed the mānatta should be reinstated. How? First, the one giving the mānatta –

240. If, however, the offense is unconcealed, without granting probation, only the penance should be granted. After completing the penance, he should be rehabilitated. How? When granting the penance, first—

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ appaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… dutiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ , bhante…pe… tatiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācāmī”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, unconcealed; I, venerable sirs, request the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. Venerable sirs… for the second time… for the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses”—

“Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. Therefore, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sir…(as before)… a second time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sir…(as before)… a third time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses.”

“Venerable sirs, I have committed several unconcealed offenses. I request the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sirs… For the second time, venerable sirs, I request the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sirs… For the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji appaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha give this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asks the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. This is the motion (ñatti).

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several unconcealed offenses. He has requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha grant him the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. This is the motion.”

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. The Saṅgha gives this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. Whoever agrees with giving this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asks the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. The Saṅgha gives Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to give mānatta for six days to Itthannāma bhikkhu for the several unconcealed offenses, let them remain silent. Whoever does not find it acceptable should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several unconcealed offenses. He has requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. The Sangha grants him the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. If the venerable ones approve of granting the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses to the monk named so-and-so, let them remain silent. If anyone disapproves, let them speak.”

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“I speak this matter a second time…(as before)… I speak this matter a third time…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…”

“Dinnaṃ saṅghena itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“A six-night mānatta has been given by the Saṅgha to this monk named so-and-so for many unconcealed offenses; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“The Saṅgha has given mānatta for six days to Itthannāma bhikkhu for the several unconcealed offenses. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. I will remember it this way.”

“The Sangha has granted the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses to the monk named so-and-so. The Sangha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.”

Kammavācāpariyosāne ca vattasamādānaṃ vattanikkhepo mānattacaraṇañca sabbaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Ārocentena pana –

At the conclusion of the kammavācā, the undertaking of duties, laying aside of duties, and undergoing mānatta—all should be understood as stated before. When announcing—

And at the conclusion of the formal act (kammavācā), the undertaking of the practice (vattasamādāna), the setting aside of the practice (vattanikkhepo), and the observance of mānatta (mānattacaraṇa) should all be understood in the manner already stated. However, when informing,

At the conclusion of the motion, the undertaking of duties, the relinquishment of duties, and the observance of penance should all be understood in the manner previously described. When informing, however—

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, unconcealed; I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. I am undergoing mānatta; I feel it, venerable sirs; may the Saṅgha hold me as feeling it”—

“Venerable sirs, I have committed several unconcealed offenses. I requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. The Sangha granted me the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. I am now observing the penance. I inform you, venerable sirs, that I am observing it. May the Sangha take note of me.”

Ekassa dvinnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā ārocentena paṭicchannamānatte vuttanayeneva ārocetabbaṃ. Ciṇṇamānatto ca yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho, tattha so abbhetabbo. Abbhentena ca –

To one, two, or three, it should be announced as stated for the concealed mānatta. Having completed mānatta, where there is a Saṅgha of twenty monks, he should be reinstated. When reinstating—

When informing one, two, or three [bhikkhus], it should be informed in the manner stated for concealed mānatta. And when the mānatta has been completed, where there is a Saṅgha of twenty bhikkhus, there he should be reinstated. And the one being reinstated –

When informing one, two, or three monks, it should be informed in the same manner as for concealed penance. After completing the penance, wherever there is a Sangha of twenty monks, he should be rehabilitated. When rehabilitating—

“Ahaṃ , bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ appaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ ciṇṇamānatto dutiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmi. Ahaṃ, bhante…pe… sohaṃ ciṇṇamānatto tatiyampi, bhante, saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmī”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, unconcealed; I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. Having completed mānatta, I request the Saṅgha for reinstatement. Venerable sirs… for the second time… for the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for reinstatement”—

“Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. Therefore, I asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. The Saṅgha gave me mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the mānatta, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement (abbhāna). Venerable sir…(as before)… Having completed the mānatta, a second time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement. Venerable sir…(as before)… Having completed the mānatta, a third time, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement.”

“Venerable sirs, I have committed several unconcealed offenses. I requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. The Sangha granted me the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the penance, I now request the Sangha for rehabilitation. Venerable sirs… For the second time, venerable sirs, I request the Sangha for rehabilitation. Venerable sirs… For the third time, venerable sirs, I request the Sangha for rehabilitation.”

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha reinstate this monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the mānatta, he asks the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should reinstate the bhikkhu named Itthannāma. This is the motion (ñatti).

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several unconcealed offenses. He requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. The Sangha granted him the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the penance, he now requests the Sangha for rehabilitation. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha rehabilitate the monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.”

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for many unconcealed offenses. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. The Saṅgha reinstates this monk named so-and-so. Whoever agrees with the reinstatement of this monk named so-and-so should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for the several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the mānatta, he asks the Saṅgha for reinstatement. The Saṅgha reinstates the bhikkhu named Itthannāma. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones for the reinstatement of Itthannāma bhikkhu, let them remain silent. Whoever does not find it acceptable should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several unconcealed offenses. He requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. The Sangha granted him the six-day penance for those several unconcealed offenses. Having completed the penance, he now requests the Sangha for rehabilitation. The Sangha rehabilitates the monk named so-and-so. If the venerable ones approve of the rehabilitation of the monk named so-and-so, let them remain silent. If anyone disapproves, let them speak.”

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“I speak this matter a second time…(as before)… I speak this matter a third time…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…”

Abbhito saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“This monk named so-and-so has been reinstated by the Saṅgha; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“The bhikkhu named Itthannāma has been reinstated by the Saṅgha. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. I will remember it this way.”

“The monk named so-and-so has been rehabilitated by the Sangha. The Sangha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.”

Evaṃ kammavācaṃ vatvā abbhetabbo. Evaṃ appaṭicchannāya āpattiyā vuṭṭhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Reciting the kammavācā thus, he should be reinstated. Thus, rehabilitation from an unconcealed offense should be understood.

After reciting the formal act (kammavācaṃ) in this way, he should be reinstated. Thus, the arising from an unconcealed offense should be understood.

Having recited the motion in this way, he should be rehabilitated. Thus, the procedure for an unconcealed offense should be understood.

241. Sace kassaci ekāpatti paṭicchannā hoti, ekā appaṭicchannā, tassa paṭicchannāya āpattiyā parivāsaṃ datvā parivutthaparivāsassa mānattaṃ dentena appaṭicchannāpattiṃ paṭicchannāpattiyā samodhānetvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kathaṃ? Sace paṭicchannāpatti ekāhappaṭicchannā hoti –

241. If someone has one concealed offense and one unconcealed, after giving parivāsa for the concealed offense, when giving mānatta to one who has completed parivāsa, it is allowable to combine the unconcealed offense with the concealed one. How? If the concealed offense is concealed for one day—

241. If someone has one concealed offense and one unconcealed offense, after giving the parivāsa for the concealed offense, when giving the mānatta to the one who has completed the parivāsa, it is permissible to give it by combining the unconcealed offense with the concealed offense. How? If the concealed offense is one that has been concealed for one day –

241. If someone has one offense concealed and another unconcealed, after granting probation for the concealed offense, when granting penance to the one who has completed probation, it is permissible to combine the unconcealed offense with the concealed offense and grant penance. How? If the concealed offense is concealed for one day—

“Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. Therefore, I asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. I have completed the parivāsa. Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. Therefore, venerable sir, I ask the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji appaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, this monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha give this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. He has completed the parivāsa. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asks the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. This is the motion (ñatti).

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several offenses concealed for one day. He requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted him a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, this monk named so-and-so has also committed several unconcealed offenses. He requests the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha grant him the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. This is the motion.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji appaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yācati, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ deti, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattassa dānaṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, this monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gives this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Whoever agrees with giving this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed, should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. He has completed the parivāsa. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asks the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gives Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones to give mānatta for six days to Itthannāma bhikkhu for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed, let them remain silent. Whoever does not find it acceptable should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several offenses concealed for one day. He requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted him a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, this monk named so-and-so has also committed several unconcealed offenses. He requests the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Sangha grants him the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. If the venerable ones approve of granting the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed, to the monk named so-and-so, let them remain silent. If anyone disapproves, let them speak.”

“Dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi…pe….

“For the second time, I say this matter… for the third time, I say this matter…

“I speak this matter a second time…(as before)… I speak this matter a third time…(as before)….

“For the second time, I speak on this matter… For the third time, I speak on this matter…”

“Dinnaṃ saṅghena itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti –

“A six-night mānatta has been given by the Saṅgha to this monk named so-and-so for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”—

“The Saṅgha has given mānatta for six days to Itthannāma bhikkhu for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha; therefore, it is silent. I will remember it this way.”

“The Sangha has granted the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed, to the monk named so-and-so. The Sangha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.”

Kammavācāpariyosāne ca vattasamādānādi sabbaṃ vuttanayameva. Ārocentena pana –

At the conclusion of the kammavācā, the undertaking of duties and so forth—all should be as stated before. When announcing—

And at the conclusion of the formal act (kammavācā), the undertaking of the practice, etc., are all as previously stated. However, when informing –

At the conclusion of the motion, the undertaking of duties, etc., should all be done in the manner previously described. When informing, however—

“Ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso, ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ appaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ, bhante, saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ mānattaṃ carāmi, vediyāmahaṃ, bhante, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, unconcealed; I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. I am undergoing mānatta; I feel it, venerable sirs; may the Saṅgha hold me as feeling it”—

“Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. Therefore, I asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. I have completed the parivāsa. Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. Therefore, venerable sir, I asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gave me mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. I am observing the mānatta. I make it known, venerable sir. May the Saṅgha consider me as one who is making it known.”

“Venerable sirs, I have committed several offenses concealed for one day. I requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted me a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, I have also committed several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sirs, I requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Sangha granted me the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. I am now observing the penance. I inform you, venerable sirs, that I am observing it. May the Sangha take note of me.”

Samādinnamānattena ca anūnaṃ katvā vuttanayena chārattaṃ mānattaṃ caritabbaṃ. Ciṇṇamānatto ca yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho, tattha so abbhetabbo. Abbhentena ca –

Having undertaken mānatta without deficiency, the six-night mānatta should be undergone as stated. Having completed mānatta, where there is a Saṅgha of twenty monks, he should be reinstated. When reinstating—

And having undertaken the mānatta, the mānatta should be observed for six days without reduction, in the manner already stated. And when the mānatta has been completed, where there is a Saṅgha of twenty bhikkhus, there he should be reinstated. And the one being reinstated –

Having undertaken the penance, he should observe the six-day penance without omission, as previously described. After completing the penance, wherever there is a Sangha of twenty monks, he should be rehabilitated. When rehabilitating—

“Ahaṃ , bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ parivutthaparivāso, ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ appaṭicchannāyo, sohaṃ, bhante, saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassa me saṅgho tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, sohaṃ, bhante, ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācāmī”ti –

“Venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, concealed for one day; I requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave me a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, venerable sirs, I committed many offenses, unconcealed; I requested the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed; the Saṅgha gave me a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed mānatta, venerable sirs, I request the Saṅgha for reinstatement”—

“Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. Therefore, I asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave me a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. I have completed the parivāsa. Venerable sir, I have fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. Therefore, venerable sir, I asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gave me mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Venerable sir, having completed the mānatta, I ask the Saṅgha for reinstatement (abbhāna).”

“Venerable sirs, I have committed several offenses concealed for one day. I requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted me a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, I have also committed several unconcealed offenses. Venerable sirs, I requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Sangha granted me the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed the penance, I now request the Sangha for rehabilitation.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji appaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannāñca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, so ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ abbheyya, esā ñatti.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, this monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha reinstate this monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. He has completed the parivāsa. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed the mānatta, he asks the Saṅgha for reinstatement. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should reinstate the bhikkhu named Itthannāma. This is the motion (ñatti).

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several offenses concealed for one day. He requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted him a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, this monk named so-and-so has also committed several unconcealed offenses. He requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Sangha granted him the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed the penance, he now requests the Sangha for rehabilitation. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha rehabilitate the monk named so-and-so. This is the motion.”

“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji ekāhappaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannānaṃ ekāhaparivāsaṃ adāsi, so parivutthaparivāso, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu sambahulā āpattiyo āpajji appaṭicchannāyo, so saṅghaṃ tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ yāci, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno tāsaṃ sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ paṭicchannānañca appaṭicchannānañca chārattaṃ mānattaṃ adāsi, so ciṇṇamānatto saṅghaṃ abbhānaṃ yācati, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ abbheti, yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno abbhānaṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.

“Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, concealed for one day; he requested the Saṅgha for a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a one-day parivāsa for many offenses concealed for one day. Having completed parivāsa, this monk named so-and-so committed many offenses, unconcealed; he requests the Saṅgha for a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed; the Saṅgha gave this monk named so-and-so a six-night mānatta for those many offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed mānatta, he requests the Saṅgha for reinstatement. The Saṅgha reinstates this monk named so-and-so. Whoever agrees with the reinstatement of this monk named so-and-so should remain silent. Whoever does not agree should speak.

“Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha listen to me. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that have been concealed for one day. He asked the Saṅgha for a parivāsa of one day for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu a parivāsa of one day for the several offenses concealed for one day. He has completed the parivāsa. This bhikkhu named Itthannāma has fallen into several offenses that are unconcealed. He asked the Saṅgha for mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Saṅgha gave Itthannāma bhikkhu mānatta for six days for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed the mānatta, he asks the Saṅgha for reinstatement. The Saṅgha reinstates the bhikkhu named Itthannāma. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones for the reinstatement of Itthannāma bhikkhu, let them remain silent. Whoever does not find it acceptable should speak.

“Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me. This monk named so-and-so has committed several offenses concealed for one day. He requested the Sangha for a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. The Sangha granted him a one-day probation for those several offenses concealed for one day. Having completed the probation, this monk named so-and-so has also committed several unconcealed offenses. He requested the Sangha for the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. The Sangha granted him the six-day penance for those several offenses, both concealed and unconcealed. Having completed the penance, he now requests the Sangha for rehabilitation. The Sangha rehabilitates the monk named so-and-so. If the venerable ones approve of the rehabilitation of the monk named so-and-so, let them remain silent. If anyone disapproves, let them speak.”