English
by an unskilled but conscientious bhikkhu, even if it is suitable in reception, due to being mixed with what arose from the bhikkhu's use, it becomes difficult to separate, like a poisoned alms-food, or food mixed with unsuitable meat broth, and is unsuitable for everyone. If, however, one considers only the water, saying: "There is space for water, the pond's embankment is firm, make it so that it holds much water, make water near the bank," it is permissible. They do not light a fire in the hearth. It is permissible to say: "Let water work be obtained, lay followers." But it is not permissible to say: "Having made crops, bring them." If, seeing too much water in a pond, whether in front or behind, one has a watercourse dug out; or has a forest cut down and fields made; or in old fields, not taking the usual share, takes an excess; or for new crops or out-of-season crops, for an unmeasured share, demands "give so many kahāpaṇas," and raises kahāpaṇas; it is improper for all. But whoever, without saying "cultivate and sow," establishes land thus: "for this much land, this much is the share"; or when farmers say, "we have grown crops on this much land, take this much share," measures the land with a rope or a stick to ascertain its extent; or stands in the threshing floor and guards it; or has it removed from the threshing floor; or stores it in a granary; for him alone it is improper. If farmers bring kahāpaṇas and say, "these are brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain bhikkhu, perceiving "the Saṅgha does not consume kahāpaṇas," says, "bring robes with these kahāpaṇas, prepare gruel and so forth with these kahāpaṇas." What they bring, is improper for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas were dealt with. If they bring grain and say, "this is brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain bhikkhu, in the same way as before, says, "bring this and that with these grains." What they bring, is improper for him alone. Why? Because the grain was dealt with. If they bring husked rice or other pulses and say, "this is brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain bhikkhu, in the same way as before, says, "bring this and that with these husked rice." What they bring, is proper for all. Why? Because proper things like husked rice were dealt with. Even in buying and selling, there is no offense, because it was told to a proper agent. Formerly, however, at Cittalapabbata, a certain bhikkhu at the four-hall entrance, thinking, "Oh, if only tomorrow they would cook so many cakes for the Saṅgha," made a circle on the ground to indicate to the monastery attendants. Seeing that... Or the clever attendant, having done likewise, on the second day, when the drum was beaten and the Sangha had assembled, taking a cake, he said to the Sangha elder: ‘‘Venerable sir, we have never heard such a thing before, neither from our fathers nor our grandfathers, that one venerable one made a sign for a cake at the four-gabled hall. From now on, let the venerable ones speak according to their own minds, and we too will have a comfortable dwelling.’’ The Great Elder turned back from there. Not even one monk took a cake. Thus, in the past, they did not even consume what arose there. Therefore – By a monk who practices austerity, who is diligent; even what is allowable should not be done, out of greed for material gain. And what was said concerning the pond, the same rule applies to lotus ponds, water channels, and so on. When someone says, "I give any field or plot of land where grains, pulses, sugarcane, fruits, or other produce grow," it should be rejected, saying, "It is not allowable." But when, in the same manner as stated for the pond, one speaks in an allowable way, saying, "I give it for the use of the four requisites," then it should be accepted. However, if one says, "I give a forest, I give a wilderness," it is allowable. If people, without being instructed by the monks, cut down trees there and prepare pulses and so on, and give a share 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 it, and they do not give anything to the monks, they should be stopped. If they say, ‘‘Venerable sirs, did not people in the past also cultivate crops here?’’ then they should be told, ‘‘They gave such and such allowable goods to the Sangha.’’ If they say, ‘‘We too will give,’’ then it is allowable. Referring to some land area where crops grow, if they say, ‘‘We give a boundary,’’ it is allowable. However, for marking the boundary, pillars or stones should not be placed by oneself. Why? Land is invaluable; even with a small amount, one could incur a pārājika offense. But the attendants should be told, ‘‘By this place, for us...’’ the boundary is reached.” Even if they take more, since it is said by way of analogy, there is no offense. But if kings, royal ministers, and the like, themselves set up pillars and give, saying, “Enjoy the four requisites,” it is indeed permissible. If someone digs a pond within the boundary, or leads a water channel through the middle of the monastery, and the cetiya enclosure, bodhi tree enclosure, etc., are defiled, he should be stopped. If the Sangha, having received something, does not stop him due to attachment to gain, and one bhikkhu stops him, that bhikkhu is the authority. If one bhikkhu does not stop him, and says, “Take it, you all,” thus taking their side, and the Sangha stops him, the Sangha is the authority. For in Sangha affairs, whoever performs the righteous act, that one is the authority. If he still does it even when being stopped, the earth taken from below should be put back below, and the earth taken from above should be put back above, and it should be filled up. If someone, desiring to give sugarcane or other grains, or gourds, pumpkins, etc., or vine fruits, just as they grow, says, “I give this whole sugarcane field, this other grain plot, this vine fruit garden,” since it is associated with the land itself, Mahāsumatthera said, “It is not permissible.” But Mahāpadumatthera said, “This is merely a verbal expression; that piece of land belongs to the owners themselves, therefore it is permissible.” If he says, “I give a slave,” it is not permissible. If it is said, “I give a monastery attendant, I give a steward, I give a kappiya-kāraka (preparer of requisites),” it is permissible. If that monastery attendant does work for the Sangha both before and after meals, all medicinal care should be provided for him, just like for a novice. If he does work for the Sangha only before meals, and does his own work after meals, supper should not be given. Even those who do work for the Sangha on a five-day rotation or a half-month rotation, and do their own work at other times, for them too, food and supper should be given only during the time of their work. If there is no work for the Sangha, and they live by doing their own work, and if they are Bringing the capital for the work, they give, it should be accepted. If they do not give, nothing should be said. Whatever, even a washerman's slave, or a weaver's slave, it is allowable to accept in the name of a monastery attendant. If they say, "We give cows," it should be refused, saying, "It is not allowable." When it is said, "From where are these cows given by the wise for the enjoyment of the five cow-products?" If it is said, "We also give for the enjoyment of the five cow-products," it is allowable. The same method applies to goats and so on. If they say, "We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, a chicken, a pig," it is not allowable to accept. If some people take them, saying, "Venerable sirs, be free from worry, we will take these and give you suitable requisites," it is allowable. It is allowable to release chickens and pigs in the forest, saying, "May they live happily." When it is said, "We give this pond, this field, this land, to the monastery," it is not possible to refuse. The rest here is clear in meaning. Among the origins and so on, this too is an act of six origins, not a release by perception, without intention, an offense by designation, an act of body and speech, with three intentions, with three feelings. The explanation of the rule concerning kings is finished. The first chapter on robes is finished. 2. The Chapter on Kosiya 1. The explanation of the Kosiya rule 542. "At that time" refers to the Kosiya rule. There, "made by spreading" means it is made by spreading Kosiya threads one above the other on a level ground, and sprinkling with gruel and so on. "Mixed with even one Kosiya thread" means, let alone mixed by one's own will, even if the wind brings and drops one Kosiya thread at the place of its making, even so, it is considered made by mixing. The rest is clear in meaning. Six origins, an act, not a release by perception, without intention, an offense by designation, an act of body and speech, With three intentions, with three feelings. The explanation of the Kosiya rule is finished. 2. The explanation of the Suddhakāḷaka rule 547. "At that time" refers to the Suddhakāḷaka rule. There, "pure black" "Pure black" means pure black, black unmixed with others. The rest is of obvious meaning. The origins, etc., are similar to the Kosiya training rule. The explanation of the Pure Black Training Rule is finished. 3. Explanation of the Two-Parts Training Rule 552. At that time, the Two-Parts training rule. There, "taking from the end" means showing as if along the warp at the end of the rug, and attaching the white. "Two parts" means two portions. "Should be taken" means should be acquired. "For the cow-colored" means for the tawny-colored. "Two measures should be taken" is said with reference to one who wishes to make it with four measures. But in meaning, it should be understood that whatever amount of sheep's wool one wishes to make it with, of that, two portions are for the black, one for the white, and one for the tawny-colored.