English
with novices and attendants, enters the storeroom and sits and lies down, whatever goods are lost, all of it is his neck. But the storekeeper should be friends with the remaining elders. Then, if the storekeeper himself, takes greedy novices and attendants, and sits and lies down in the storeroom, whatever is lost there, all of it is his neck. Therefore, only the storekeeper should live there. As for the others, they might as well live at the foot of a tree, and not in the storeroom. But those who place their requisites in the dwelling rooms of their own fellow monks, if the requisites are lost, it is the neck of those who placed them. But the others should be friends. If, however, the Sangha has gruel and food given to the storekeeper right in the monastery, and he goes to the village for alms, what is lost is his neck. Even for the monastery-turn monk appointed to guard extra robes when entering for alms, if he receives gruel and food or provisions, and goes for alms, whatever is lost there, all of it is his neck. And not only this much, the storekeeper's vi Whatever is lost by him due to his negligence, all that is his responsibility. If the monastery is large, and one goes to guard another area, and what was placed in another area is stolen, it is not his responsibility, because it is beyond his scope. But in such a monastery, one should sit in the middle, at a place where all can gather, having placed the requisites there. Or two or three monastery-guards should be appointed. If, while they are vigilant and guarding here and there, something is lost, it is not their responsibility. Even if the monastery-guards are bound and the stolen goods are carried away, and the thieves go by a different path when others are on their way, even then the stolen goods are not their responsibility. If there is no gruel-meal or provisions to be given to the monastery-guards in the monastery, it is permissible to set aside two or three extra gruel-tickets from the alms they receive, and enough meal-tickets for them. But they should not be set aside permanently, for people become resentful, thinking, "The monastery-guards themselves are eating our food." Therefore, they should be rotated and set aside. If they bring and give their share of ticket-meals, that is good; if they do not give, they should be made to take turns and be removed. If a monastery-guard, while receiving two or three gruel-tickets and four or five meal-tickets, goes on alms-round, everything lost is his responsibility, like that of a storekeeper. If there is no meal or provisions to be given to the monastery-keepers of the Sangha, and the bhikkhus take turns guarding the monastery and look after their own dependents, they are not allowed not to take their turn; it should be done as other bhikkhus do. But a turn should not be given to a bhikkhu who is without a companion, or with only one companion, or one who has no fellow bhikkhu to bring and give him food. Whatever they place in the monastery for the purpose of cooking, one should stay there, living on that. He who does not live on that should not be made to take a turn. They also place a bhikkhu in the monastery for the purpose of fruits and produce, to guard and protect the fruits. They divide by turns and eat. Whoever eats them, by him it must be stood. One who does not live there, should not be made to take it. Even for the protection of dwellings, beds, chairs, and coverings, they appoint turns, by one living in the dwelling, it must be stood. But one who lives in the open, or at the foot of a tree, should not be made to take it. One may be a novice, but if learned, he teaches Dhamma to many, gives answers to questions, explains the Pāli, delivers Dhamma talks, carries the burden of the Sangha, even while enjoying gains, even while living in the dwelling, he should not be made to take a turn. They say, "A special person should be known." But to the caretaker of the Uposatha hall and image house, double gruel and food, a nāḷi of rice daily, three robes annually, and permissible requisites worth ten or twenty, should be given. But if, while he is receiving that, anything there is lost through negligence, all is his responsibility. But if it is stolen by force, having been tied up, it is not his responsibility. There, it is permissible to have the cetiya's property protected by means of the cetiya's or Sangha's property. It is not permissible to have the Sangha's property protected by means of the cetiya's property. But if the Sangha's property is placed together with the cetiya's property, then when the cetiya's property is protected, it is considered protected. Thus, it is permissible. Even if one protects the Uposatha hall and so on by turns, what is lost through negligence is still his responsibility. The section on Deposits is finished. The section on Toll-evasion 113. "They destroy the toll from there" is toll-evasion; this is a designation for a toll-station. For since, from there, those taking out goods liable to toll without paying toll, destroy and ruin the king's toll, therefore it is called toll-evasion. "Having entered there" means having entered the toll-station established by the king, having made a boundary, in places like mountain passes. "Goods of the king" means goods worthy of the king; that is, goods for which a toll worth five māsakas or more than five māsakas must be given to the king, that is the meaning of "goods". There is also the reading "Rājakanta", the meaning is the same. With the intention of theft, thinking, "I will not give tax to the king from this," having generated that intention of theft, he touches that item: it is a dukkaṭa. Having taken it from its placed location, he puts it in a bag, or binds it with his thigh in a concealed place: it is a thullaccaya. Because it is delimited by the customs post, there is no moving from its place. If he crosses the second boundary of the customs post: it is a pārājika. He causes it to fall outside the customs boundary. Seeing the royal officers distracted, standing inside, he throws it for it to fall outside. If it is certain to fall (outside), as soon as it leaves his hand: it is a pārājika. If it strikes a tree or a stump, or is thrown back by a strong gust of wind, and falls back inside: it is protected. If he takes it again and throws it: it is a pārājika, in the manner stated before. If it falls on the ground, rolls, and re-enters: it is still a pārājika. But in the Kurundīsaṅkhepaṭṭhakathā it is said: "If it falls outside, stops, and then rolls back in: it is a pārājika. If it rolls back in without stopping: it is protected." Standing inside, he rolls it with his hand, or foot, or a stick, or has another roll it. If it goes rolling without stopping: it is a pārājika. Standing inside, he protects it from going outside. If it was placed inside, thinking "it will roll and go" or "another will roll it," and later it rolls out by itself or is rolled out by another: it is protected. But if it was placed with a pure intention and goes out that way: there is nothing to say. He makes two bundles bound together and places them within the customs boundary. Although the outer bundle is worth a quarter (of the tax), because it is bound together with it, the inner bundle is protected. But if he turns it around and places the inner one outside: it is a pārājika. The same rule applies if a carrying pole is placed with one item bound to it. But if it is merely placed on the end of the carrying pole without being bound: it is a pārājika. He places it on a moving vehicle or on a horse's back, etc., "to take it outside..." Even if taken out with the thought, "I will carry it away," there is no carrying away (theft). Nor is there a forfeiture of goods. Why? Because it was said, "Let them collect tax from one who has entered here," and this was placed outside the tax-post, and not taken by him. Therefore, there is neither forfeiture of goods nor a pārājika offense. If placed in a standing vehicle, etc., and they go without his use, even with a thieving mind, there is no carrying away. But if, having placed it, he drives the vehicle, etc., and crosses the boundary, or, being familiar with elephant ropes, etc., he stands in front and calls out, "Come, hey!", upon crossing the boundary, it is a pārājika. In the sheep's wool training rule, if he causes another to carry it away in this situation, there is no offense; here, it is a pārājika. There, if he places it in another's vehicle or goods without their knowledge and crosses three yojanas, they become nissaggiya (requiring forfeiture), and it is a pācittiya. Here, there is no offense. At the tax-post, it is proper to go only after paying the tax. One goes with the thought, "If they say, 'Give tax,' I will give it; if they don't say it, I will go." Seeing him, one tax collector says, "That monk is going, collect tax from him." Another says, "Whence tax for a renunciant? Let him go." It is considered permitted; he may go. But if it is said, "It is not proper for monks to go without paying tax, collect it, lay followers," and then it is said, "If they collect tax from a monk, they will have to take his bowl and robes; what's the point of that? Let him go," it is still considered permitted. Even if the tax collectors are sleeping, or gambling, or have gone somewhere, and he calls out, "Where are the tax collectors?" but does not see them, it is still considered permitted. Even if, having reached the tax-post, he is preoccupied, thinking of something, or reciting, or engaging in mental attention, or suddenly pursued by thieves, elephants, lions, tigers, etc., or seeing a great cloud arisen, wishing to enter a hall ahead, and he crosses that place, it is still considered permitted. Here, regarding "evading tax," even if one enters the vicinity and evades... is a theft, a carrying away. It is stated in the Kurundi Commentary.