English
through reflection. I ask the Saṅgha, Sirs, does the Saṅgha approve of lifting the brahmadaṇḍa for that monk?” Having said this up to three times, the brahmadaṇḍa should be lifted by means of an announcement. The fifth is the characteristic of the act itself, that which the Blessed One in the chapter on monks said: “At that time, the group of six monks splashed the nuns with muddy water, thinking, ‘Perhaps they will become infatuated with us.’ They exposed their bodies to show the nuns, they exposed their thighs to show the nuns, they exposed their private parts to show the nuns. They spoke to the nuns, they engaged with the nuns, thinking, ‘Perhaps they will become infatuated with us.’ For these actions, having prescribed a dukkaṭa for those monks, [he said,] ‘I allow, monks, to perform an act of punishment for that monk.’ Then it occurred to the nuns: ‘What kind of act of punishment should be performed?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. [He said,] ‘Monks, that monk should be made not to be saluted by the Saṅgha of nuns.’” Thus, the act of not saluting was permitted. That very characteristic of the act is the fifth basis for this act of announcement. For its characteristic is the act itself, not the acts of expulsion and so on. Therefore, “the act is called "disrespectful". The reason for it is stated there. Moreover, to show it in detail along with its cessation, we speak of it here too. A competent nun, with the permission of the assembly of nuns gathered in the nuns' dwelling, should announce: "Venerable sirs, a certain venerable one shows disrespect to the nuns. I ask the assembly of nuns if it is agreeable to make this venerable one unworthy of veneration. A second time... A third time, I ask the assembly of nuns." Having announced this three times, the act of making him unworthy of veneration should be performed by an act of declaration. From then on, that monk should not be venerated by the nuns. If, being not venerated, he feels shame and moral dread and conducts himself properly, he should ask forgiveness from the nuns. When asking forgiveness, without going to the nuns' dwelling, but in his own monastery, he should approach the Sangha, or a group, or a single monk, sit on his haunches, raise his joined hands, and say: "Venerable sirs, I reflect and will abide in restraint in the future. I will not again show disrespect. May the assembly of nuns forgive me." He should ask forgiveness thus. Then, the Sangha, or the group, or a single monk, should send a monk, or a single nun should go herself, and say to the nuns: "This monk, having reflected, now abides in restraint for the future. He has confessed his fault and asked forgiveness from the assembly of nuns. May the assembly of nuns make him worthy of veneration." He should be made worthy of veneration. And it should be done thus: A competent nun, with the permission of the assembly of nuns gathered in the nuns' dwelling, should announce: "Venerable sirs, this venerable one, a certain venerable one, was made unworthy of veneration by the assembly of nuns because he showed disrespect to the nuns. He has now entered into the state of shame, reflected, and abides in restraint for the future. He has confessed his fault and asked forgiveness from the assembly of nuns. I ask the assembly of nuns if it is agreeable to make this venerable one worthy of veneration." This should be said three times. Thus, by an act of declaration, he should be made worthy of veneration. This is the method. There is no determination of the characteristic of action even in the Pāli texts beyond this. Indeed, this characteristic of action is laid down as originating from the community of bhikkhunīs, and it is also obtained by the community of bhikkhus. Indeed, when the community of bhikkhus performs an announcement action at the head of the distribution of tickets, at the head of the distribution of gruel, at the head of the distribution of meals, at the head of the Uposatha, this too is a characteristic of action. Indeed, for robes that are not cut, for old robes, for lost robes, having assembled the Saṅgha, having had it announced by a competent bhikkhu up to three times, having performed an announcement action, it is proper to give the robe. However, for one making a robe with a small amount of material, needles and so forth, of the kinds mentioned in the description of the chapter on lodgings, may be given even without announcement. In the giving of these, he himself is the master. When giving more than that, it should be given with announcement. Indeed, in the giving of more than that, the Saṅgha is the owner. Medicine for the sick, too, of the kind mentioned there, may be given by oneself. For one desiring more, it should be given with announcement. And whoever is weak, or whose posture is broken, or whose alms-round path is cut off, or who is very sick, for him, from the produce in large monasteries, daily a nāḷi or half a nāḷi, or for one day only, five or ten nāḷis of rice, should be given only after performing an announcement action. For a virtuous bhikkhu, from the produce, even a debt burden; for a learned bhikkhu who discharges the burden of the Saṅgha, even a lodging that cannot be maintained; for those performing Saṅgha duties, such as stewards, even their food allowance, it is proper to give by an announcement action. From the produce given for the four requisites, it is proper to maintain a Saṅgha dwelling. However, to cut off the talk "This bhikkhu manages as if he were master," it should be maintained only after asking the Saṅgha at the head of the ticket distribution and so forth, or at an intermediate assembly. From the produce given specifically for robes and alms-food, the dwelling should be maintained with announcement. It is proper even without announcement. To cut off such talk that arises, "Indeed, this bhikkhu is brave, he maintains the dwelling from what was given for robes and alms-food." It should be looked after only by making an announcement. At a shrine, an umbrella, or a railing, or a Bodhi-tree house, or a seat-house, when making what is not made, or repairing what is old, or doing plastering work, it is proper to have it done by engaging people. If there is no doer, it should be done from the shrine's deposit. Even if there is no deposit, having made an announcement, it should be done from what arises there, even by the Sangha. Indeed, by the Sangha, having announced, it is proper to do shrine work. But having announced, it is not proper to do Sangha work with the shrine's property. However, it is proper to take it temporarily and make it normal. However, by those doing plastering work etc. at a shrine, who do not obtain enough for sustenance from alms-round or from the Sangha, it is proper for them to take enough for sustenance from the shrine's property and consume it, doing their duty. But it is not proper to make a Sangha meal with fish, meat, etc., saying, "We are doing our duty." Those fruit trees planted in the monastery, which are appropriated by the Sangha, and receive care, whose fruits are divided and consumed after ringing a bell, in their case, the act of informing should not be done. But those not appropriated, in their case, the act of informing should be done. However, that can be done even at gatherings for distribution of tickets, gruel, or meals, or at intermediate assemblies, but it is certainly proper at the Uposatha assembly. For there, even the purity of consent of those who have not come is brought, therefore, it is well purified. And it should be done thus: by a competent bhikkhu, with the permission of the Sangha of bhikkhus, it should be announced – "Venerables, whatever Sangha property within the boundary of this monastery, such as roots, bark, leaves, sprouts, flowers, fruits, edibles, etc., exists, whether it is agreeable for all arriving bhikkhus to consume it as they wish, I ask the Sangha" – this should be asked three times. What is done by four or five bhikkhus is well done. In a monastery where two or three people reside, what is done by them sitting together is like what is done by the Sangha. In a monastery where In a certain monastery there is one monk. By that monk, on Uposatha day, having done the preliminary duties, and having sat down, the agreement made is just like one made by the Sangha. When making it, regarding the fruit harvest, it is permissible to make it by defining it as four months, six months, or one year, or without defining it. If defined, having enjoyed according to the definition, it must be made again. If undefined, it is valid as long as the trees stand. Even if other trees are planted from the seeds of those trees, the same agreement applies to them. But if they are planted in another monastery, the Sangha is the owner in the monastery where they are planted. Even if seeds are brought from elsewhere and later planted in the former monastery, a different agreement must be made for them. When an agreement is made, they stand as personal property; it is permissible to enjoy the fruits etc. as one wishes. If, however, they enclose those specific areas, make enclosures, and maintain them, they stand as personal property for those monks. Others are not allowed to enjoy them, but they must be enjoyed after giving a tenth share to the Sangha. Even for one who protects a tree in the middle of the monastery by surrounding it with branches, the same rule applies. To a venerable monk who has gone to an old monastery, they bring fruits and produce, saying, "The elder has arrived." If, at its root, there was a learned monk who mastered all the scriptures, it should be enjoyed without compunction, thinking, "Surely a long-term agreement must have been made here." Fruits and produce in the monastery are also permissible for alms-gatherers; it does not violate their ascetic practice. Novices give many fruits to their teachers and preceptors;