English
The middle case of the three jewel cases. I am not sick, I am not ill, is the meaning. The rest is clear. 153. In the two stories of the boar: Although for the first monk, seeing his hunger, he was released out of compassion, so there is no offense. But if the owners do not consent, goods must be given, either a large dead boar must be brought and given, or goods of equal value. If he does not see the owner of the snare anywhere, he must go, leaving a robe or a saffron cloth or a bowl of equal value near the snare, in such a place that they will see it when they come. But for one who releases with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika offense. Here, some boar, having dragged the snare with its foot, stands in its place, not moving from its position, once the snare is cut, like a boat tied in a strong current. Some stand by their own nature, some lie down, some are tied by a trick-snare. A trick-snare is one to whose end a bow or a hook or some other stick is tied, which, clinging to trees and so on here and there, prevents the boar's movement. For one standing, having dragged the snare, the snare-binding is the only position; for as soon as it is released or cut from the snare, it flees. For one standing by its own nature, the binding and the four feet are five positions. For one lying down, the binding and the lying are two positions. For one tied by a trick-snare, wherever it goes, that is its position. Therefore, ten, twenty, even a hundred monks, releasing it from those various places, incur a pārājika offense. Like one driving away a single slave who has come here and there. But for the former three, the positions of struggling and not moving from the place should be understood in the manner stated in the story of the quadruped. For one releasing a boar bitten by a dog, if with an intention of compassion, goods must be given; if with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika offense. But if one goes to the snare's location, or goes on the opposite path, not reaching the dogs, and drives it away first, there is no carrying away. And whoever gives food and drink to a bound boar Having made it take strength, he shouts, "It will flee, being frightened!" If it flees, it is a pārājika offense. Having made the snare weak, the same rule applies to one who makes it flee with a loud cry. But if one gives food and drink and goes, thinking, "It will take strength and flee," if it flees, it is an offense of appropriation. Having made the snare weak, the same rule applies to one who goes. One places a weapon or fire near the snare, thinking, "It will flee if cut or burned." If the boar, moving the snare, flees when cut or burned, it is an offense of appropriation. One causes the snare to fall with the stick; afterwards, the boar goes trampling it, it is an offense of appropriation. If a boar is pressed by crushing stones, for one who wishes to make it flee, lifting the crushing stone out of compassion is an offense of appropriation; with the intention of theft, it is a pārājika offense. If it does not go immediately upon being lifted, but goes afterwards, it is an offense of appropriation. Having lifted and placed the crushing stone, one causes it to fall; afterwards, the boar goes trampling it, it is an offense of appropriation. Even for a boar fallen into a pit, lifting it out of compassion is an offense of appropriation; with the intention of theft, it is a pārājika offense. One fills the pit and destroys it; afterwards, the boar goes trampling it, it is an offense of appropriation. Lifting out one pierced by a stake out of compassion is an offense of appropriation; with the intention of theft, it is a pārājika offense. Having pulled out the stake and thrown it away, it is an offense of appropriation. But in the monastery grounds, those setting snares or crushing stones should be stopped: "This is a refuge for animals; do not do such things here." If they say, "Have them removed, venerable sir," it is proper to have them removed. If they remove them themselves, that is excellent. But if they neither remove them nor allow them to be removed, it is proper to ask for protection and have them removed. During the time of protecting crops, people set snares and crushing stones in the fields, thinking, "We will protect the crops by eating the meat." When the crop season has passed, and those without attachment have departed, it is proper to release whatever is caught or fallen there. In both cases concerning animals... The decision is just like what was said in the cases of pigs. In both cases of fish, this is the rule. But this is the distinction – for one who opens the mouth of the fish-trap, or releases the back flap, or makes a hole in the side, or drives the fish out of the fish-trap, causing them to flee, it is a pārājika offense. For one showing rice grains and causing them to flee thus, it is a pārājika offense. For one who lifts it up together with the fish-trap, it is a pārājika offense. Merely one opens the mouth of the fish-trap, releases the back flap, or makes a hole, but the fish flee by their own nature, it is an offense of confiscation. Having done thus, one shows rice grains, the fish come out for food and flee, it is just an offense of confiscation. Without opening the mouth, without releasing the back flap, without making a hole in the side, merely one shows rice grains, but the fish, being hungry, having struck with their heads and made an opening, come out for food and flee, it is just an offense of confiscation. For an empty fish-trap, one opens the mouth, or releases the back flap, or makes a hole, the fish that come, having reached the opening, flee through the flap-holes, it is just an offense of confiscation. Having taken an empty fish-trap, one throws it into a bush, it is just an offense of confiscation. Goods in a vehicle are like a bag on a seat. In the case of a piece of meat – if one takes it in the air, the place where it was taken is the place. Having defined that in six ways, the moving from the place should be understood. The rest here, in the cases of wood, cowherds, washermen's clothes, and in cases like mango thieves, etc., should be decided according to the method stated. 155. In the case of the pot – whoever, having taken ghee, oil, etc., which are not worth a quarter (of a coin), having stood in the resolve "I will not do this again," and even on the second day or later, when the thought arises again, having made such a renunciation of the burden, consumes all of it, there is no pārājika offense. A dukkata offense, or a thullaccaya offense is incurred, but it is an offense of confiscation. This monk also did just so. Therefore it was said – "Monk, there is no pārājika offense." Renunciation of the burden. But not having done that, thinking "I will consume it day by day," consuming even a little by little, on whichever day the quarter-value is completed, on that day, it is a pārājika offense. The cases of joint-theft are in joint-theft. The cases of handfuls are in cases like rice-houses, etc. The two cases of gleanings are in cases like mango-theft, etc., to be understood by the method of decision stated. The two cases of grass are just obvious. 156. In cases like the division of mangoes, etc., those bhikkhus went to a village dwelling with a fixed number of bhikkhus. There, even though the bhikkhus were consuming fruits, when those [new bhikkhus] arrived, they did not tell the stewards, "Give fruits to the elders." Then those bhikkhus, thinking "Why does the Sangha's property not reach us?" struck the bell and had it divided, and giving a share to them according to seniority, they themselves also consumed it. Therefore, the Blessed One said to them, "Bhikkhus, there is no offense for the purpose of consumption." Therefore, even now, where the resident bhikkhus do not give to the visiting bhikkhus, and when the fruit season arrives, seeing that others have them, they secretly consume them themselves, there, it is permissible for visiting bhikkhus to strike the bell, have it divided, and consume it. But where the resident bhikkhus protect the trees, and when the fruit season arrives, divide and consume them, and properly provide the four requisites, there, visiting bhikkhus have no authority. And even the trees designated and given for robes, visiting bhikkhus have no authority over them. The same method applies to those designated and given for other requisites. But those not so designated, and the resident bhikkhus protect and guard them, and secretly consume them, in those cases, the agreement of the resident bhikkhus should not be upheld. Those given for the consumption of fruits, and the resident bhikkhus protect and guard them, and properly provide them, in those cases, their agreement should be upheld. But in the Mahāpaccari, it is said – "One who consumes with a thieving mind that which is designated and given for the four requisites, should be made to pay for the goods after valuation. For one who divides and consumes it merely for consumption, it is a debt for the goods. What... but if it is designated for a dwelling, and one divides it and uses it by way of consumption, there is a grave offense and a fine of the goods. What is given specifically for robes should be applied to robes. If there is a famine, and monks are distressed by lack of almsfood, but robes are abundant, after making an announcement to the Sangha for its well-being, it is permissible to apply it to almsfood. If they are distressed by lack of dwellings or medicines, after making an announcement to the Sangha for its well-being, it is permissible to apply it for that purpose. The same rule applies to what is given specifically for almsfood or medicines. But what is given specifically for a dwelling is heavy property; it must be protected and guarded and applied only for that purpose. However, if there is a famine, and monks cannot sustain themselves with almsfood.