English
with the intention of dropping it into his own portion, he is innocent at the taking up, and innocent at the dropping. But if he takes up his own blade of grass from his own portion, he is innocent at the taking up. For him who, having taken it up, drops it into another's portion, at the very moment it leaves his hand, it is a pārājika. But if he makes the fallen blades of grass in both portions disappear, then, when the remaining bhikkhus have left, the other (bhikkhu says), "Venerable sir, my blade of grass is not seen." "Friend, mine is not seen either." "But Venerable sir, which is my share?" "This is your share," and he shows his own share. When that one, having disputed or not disputed, takes it and leaves, the other (bhikkhu)... He takes out a share. In taking out, it is a pārājika offense. Even if he says, "I do not give my share to you. You, knowing your own share, take it." And the other, knowing "this is not mine," Still takes that very share. In taking out, it is a pārājika offense. But if the other, thinking, "What is this dispute about? 'This is your share, this is my share'?" Says, "Let it be received by me, or by you. You take whichever is the better share." Then it is considered as given. There is no theft here. Even if that dispute-fearing bhikkhu, Being told, "Take what you like," Leaves his own received better share. And takes only the inferior one and goes. Then even for the other who takes the remaining chosen portion, There is no theft. But in the Commentaries it is said: "In this place, Due to the transfer of kusa grass, Only one division of robes has come up. But the origin and division of all four requisites Should be brought out and shown." And having said this, In the Robe Chapter, Starting with this Jīvaka story: "May the Blessed One, Venerable Sir, Accept a pair of Sīveyyaka cloths from me. And may he permit householder's robes For the community of bhikkhus" (Mahāva. 337), There is the discourse on robes that have arisen. In the Alms-food Chapter, Starting with this Sutta: "Now at that time, Rājagaha was experiencing a famine. People were unable to offer meals to the Sangha. They wished to offer designated meals, Invited meals, ticket meals, Fortnightly meals, Uposatha meals, And first-day-of-the-fortnight meals" (Cūḷava. 325), There is the discourse on alms-food. And in the Dwelling Chapter itself, Starting with this Chabbaggiyā story: "Now at that time, The group of seventeen bhikkhus Were repairing a certain great monastery In a border region – 'Here we shall reside during the rainy season.' Then the group of six bhikkhus saw The group of seventeen bhikkhus Repairing the monastery" (Cūḷava. 316), There is the discourse on dwellings that has come. And at the end of that, The discourse on medicines such as ghee. It has been told in detail. But we will tell all of that in its respective place; the reason for telling it thus has been stated before. The story of the Kusasaṅkāmana incident is finished. 139. Hereafter, the story of the hot-bath house is straightforward. 140. In the five stories of leftover food, those bhikkhus had it made allowable by an unordained person and consumed it. But one taking leftover food should take what is discarded after eating. If one is able to make them discard it while eating and then take it, that too is permissible. But for one's own protection and out of compassion for others, it should not be taken. 141. In the stories of rice, edibles, cakes, sugarcane, figs, and rusaka fruit, he said to a non-existent person, "Give a portion to another." "He took it without basis," when the owners gave it, he took it thus. "There is no offense, bhikkhu, of pārājika," because he took what was given by the owners; therefore, his non-offense was stated. "There is an offense of pācittiya for intentional false speech," he said there is a pācittiya for the intentional false speech spoken by him; like in the later story of the three-ingredient gruel. But regarding taking, this is the decision: what belongs to the Saṅgha, given by those authorized or by those commanded like monastery attendants, and what belongs to householders, given by the owner or by one commanded, if one takes it saying, "Give a portion to another," it is a gift of goods. One who takes what is given by another should be made to pay the value of the goods. If it is given by one unauthorized or uncommanded, and one takes it saying, "Give another portion," or by counting false years, one should be made to pay the value of the goods for its purification, just as in the four bowls. What is given by others, if taken thus, is a gift of goods. But what is caused to be given by the owner saying, "Give to this one," or given by oneself, is well-given; this is the essence here according to the decision of all commentaries. 142-3. In the stories of the rice-house and so forth: A rice-house is a house where rice for sale is cooked. A slaughterhouse is a house where meat for sale is cooked. A cake-house is a house where cakes for sale are cooked. Sesame Here, it is clear in the case of requisites. 144. In the case of a stool – that bhikkhu, having made a plan, thought, ‘‘I will take this place when it is available,’’ and moved it. In his moving it, there is no offense. But having moved it, if he takes it from the planned place, a pārājika is stated. If, when carrying it thus, there is no intention of theft regarding the stool, he should be made to pay for the bag after it has been valued. If there is also an intention regarding the stool, he should be made to pay for both after they have been valued. The three cases of cushions and so forth are clear. 146. In the three cases of taking by trust and so forth, there is no offense in taking, but in making them bring it, the goods must be paid for. For one who has entered for alms, it is permissible to take a share only if he is standing within the boundary of the inner precinct. But if the donors say, ‘‘Venerable Sirs, please take a share even from outside the precinct; they will come and consume it,’’ then it is permissible to take it even from within the village area. The rest here is straightforward. 148-9. In the seven cases of mango thieves and so forth, there is no offense in taking with the perception of a rag-robe, but in making them bring it, the goods must be paid for, and in consuming it with the intention of theft, it is a pārājika. Here is the determination: if the owners are attached, and the thieves are also attached, for one who eats with the perception of a rag-robe, the goods must be paid for; for one who takes with the intention of theft, the offense is only in the removal, and he must be made to pay for the goods after they have been valued. If the owners are attached, and the thieves are unattached, the same rule applies. If the owners are unattached, and the thieves are attached; if they have thrown it in some hidden place, thinking, ‘‘We will take it again,’’ and have gone, the same rule applies. If both are unattached, for one who eats with the perception of a rag-robe, there is no offense; for one who takes with the intention of theft, it is a dukkaṭa. However, regarding mangoes and so forth belonging to the Saṅgha, whether they grew in the monastery or were brought and given, for one who takes away something worth five māskas or more than five māskas, it is a pārājika. In the border regions, when villages are abandoned due to bandit attacks, bhikkhus also leave the monasteries, going with the hope that ‘‘we will return when the region is settled again.’’ Bhikkhus who come to such a monastery, seeing ripe mangoes and so forth as ‘‘abandoned,’’ with the perception of a rag-robe If they consume without awareness, there is no offense. If one consumes with a thieving mind, it is an act of theft. He should be made to pay for the goods after they are valued. However, in the Mahāpaccariya and Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathā, it is stated without distinction: "If one consumes fruits and vegetables in an abandoned monastery with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika offense. Why? Because it belongs to those who have come and those who will come." But for communal and personal property, mere exertion is the measure. If one gives ripe mangoes etc. from there for the support of a family, it is an offense of corrupting a family. If one gives with a thieving mind, he should be made to pay the value. The same rule applies to Saṅgha property. Giving that which is designated for lodgings for the support of a family is a dukkaṭa offense. Doing so with a sense of authority is a thullaccaya offense. Doing so with a thieving mind is a pārājika offense. If the item is not available, he should be made to pay its value. If one sits outside the precinct boundary and consumes with a sense of authority, it is a gīvā offense. Eating after striking the bell and announcing the time, thinking "it belongs to me," is well-eaten. Announcing the time without striking the bell, or striking the bell without announcing the time, or neither striking the bell nor announcing the time, but knowing that others are not present and thinking "it belongs to me," that too is well-eaten. The two cases concerning flower gardens are clear. 150. In the three cases of "spoken and spoken of": "I am spoken of, I will speak" means "Having been spoken of by you, I will speak by your word." "There is no offense, monk, of pārājika" means there is no offense because it was given by the owners. "And, monks, one should not say 'I am spoken of, I will speak'" means that one monk should not say to another monk, "Having been spoken of by you, I will speak by your word." However, it is permissible to make a clear statement, saying, "I will take such-and-such by your word." "You are spoken of, speak" means "Having been spoken of by me, speak by my word." The rest is as stated. In these two cases too, it is permissible to make a clear statement. For by this, one is freed from reproach. 151-2.