English
direct assignment and indirect assignment. How is direct assignment done? Knowing whether the robes are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, having said "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe" or "those robes," one should say "I assign it to you." This is one direct assignment. By this much, it is permissible to store it. But it is not permissible to use it, or dispose of it, or determine it. But when it is said, "It is mine, they are mine; use them or dispose of them or do as you please with them," that is called 'taking back'. From then on, usage and so forth are also permissible. Another method: just as before, knowing whether the robes are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, in the presence of that same monk, "this robe..." or saying "these robes," or "this robe," or "these robes," and taking the name of any one of the five fellow Dhamma-practitioners who is agreeable to oneself, saying "I designate for the monk Tissa," or "for the nun Tissa, for the female trainee Tissa, for the novice Tissa, for the female novice Tissa, I designate." This is another direct designation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store it, but not even one of the uses is permissible. But when that monk says, "This belonging to the monk Tissa... this belonging to the female novice Tissa, use it, or give it away, or do with it as appropriate," that is called a re-declaration. From then on, uses are also permissible. How is an indirect designation made? Knowing the robes' singular or plural nature, and whether they are present or not, saying "this robe," or "these robes," or "this robe," or "these robes," it should be said, "I give for your designation." Then he should say, "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then the other should say, in the same way as before, "the monk Tissa," or... "the female novice Tissa." Again, that monk should say, "I give to the monk Tissa," or... "I give to the female novice Tissa." This is an indirect designation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store it, but not even one of the uses is permissible. But when that monk, in the manner stated for the second direct designation, says, "This belonging to so-and-so, use it, or give it away, or do with it as appropriate," that is called a re-declaration. From then on, uses are also permissible. What is the difference between the two designations? In a direct designation, one designates oneself, and has another re-declare it. In an indirect designation, one has another designate it, and has that other re-declare it. This is the difference here. aṇaṃ. But if to whom one designates, he is not skilled in designation, does not know how to revoke, that robe taking, to another skilled person going, again designating, by another it should be caused to be revoked. Designation of a designated item, this is permissible. Thus far, the method of designating and specifying robes should be understood. 48. But regarding bowls, this is the method – by one designating a bowl, one of the highest, middle, or lowest (sizes) should be designated as appropriate to the measure. Its measure, by the method beginning "it holds half an āḷhaka of rice" (Pārā. 602), is stated in the Pāli text. Herein is the determination (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602 onwards) – of unblemished old rice grains, well-pounded and purified, taking two Magadhan nāḷis, with those rice grains, not too hard, not too soft, not lumpy, very clear, like a heap of jasmine buds, cooking rice without draining the water, putting it all without remainder into the bowl, a measure of one-fourth of that rice, not too thick, not too thin, easily handled, a mung bean soup prepared with all ingredients should be put in, then, suitable for each mouthful, sufficient for the last mouthful, fish, meat, and other condiments should be put in, but ghee, oil, jaggery, sour gruel, etc. are not included in the count. For they follow the rice, they can neither decrease nor increase. If all this, thus put in, stands level with the lower rim of the bowl's mouth, or if, cutting with a thread or hair, it touches the lower end of the thread or hair, this is called the highest bowl. If it stands heaped up, exceeding that rim, this is called the highest-lowest bowl. If it does not reach that rim, but is contained within, this is called the highest-highest bowl. Half the measure of the highest is called the middle bowl. Half the measure of the middle is the lowest. Therefore, if all that is put in, such as rice from a Magadhan nāḷi, stands level with the lower rim, in the manner described, this is the mi... is a medium bowl. If it stands piled up, exceeding that line, this is a medium-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line, but is contained within it, this is a medium-superior bowl. If all the rice, etc., half a nāḷi by the Magadhan nāḷi, is put in and stands level with the lower line, this is an inferior bowl. If it stands piled up, exceeding that line, this is an inferior-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line, but is contained within it, this is an inferior-superior bowl. Thus there are these nine bowls. Among them, two are not bowls: the superior-superior and the inferior-inferior. Therefore, these should be used for eating as vessels, they are not suitable for determination, nor for relinquishment. The other seven, however, should be used after determining or relinquishing them. Even for these of proper measure, their suitability for determination and relinquishment should be understood thus: An iron bowl, fired five times, a clay bowl, fired two times, is suitable for determination. Both, only when the price to be given has been paid. If even one firing is lacking, or even a kākaṇika's worth of the price is unpaid, it is not suitable for determination. If the owner of the bowl says, "When you have the price, then give it; determine it and use it," it is still not suitable for determination. For, due to the lack of firing, it does not count as a bowl; due to the whole or a part of the price being unpaid, it does not become one's own property; it belongs to another. Therefore, only when the firing and the price are fully completed is it suitable for determination. That which is suitable for determination is also suitable for relinquishment. Whether it has come into hand or not, it should be determined or relinquished. If the bowl-maker, having received the price, or wishing to give it himself, says, "Venerable sir, I will make your bowl, fire it, and put it aside on such-and-such a day," and the bhikkhu exceeds ten days from the day specified by him, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. But if the bowl-maker The potter says, "I will make and fire your bowl, and send a message." He does so. But the monk he sent does not inform that monk. Another, seeing or hearing, informs him, "Venerable sir, your bowl is finished." This information is not valid. But when the one sent by him himself informs him, from the day he hears that word, if he exceeds ten days, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. If the bowl-maker says, "I will make and fire your bowl, and send it by someone's hand," and does so. But the monk who brings the bowl, places it in his own dwelling, and does not inform him. Another says, "Venerable sir, the bowl brought just now is beautiful." "Where, friend, is the bowl?" "It was sent by the hand of so-and-so." Even this word is not valid. But when that monk gives the bowl, from the day he receives it, if he exceeds ten days, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. Therefore, without exceeding ten days, it should be determined or offered. There are two ways of determining a bowl: one determines it by body, or one determines it by speech. By these, one who determines it, saying, "I relinquish this bowl," or "I relinquish that bowl," relinquishes the old bowl that is present or absent, or gives it to another. Then, touching the new bowl wherever it may be, making a mental intention, "I determine this bowl," and making a bodily gesture, it should be determined by body. Or, breaking the speech, it should be determined by speech. There are two kinds of determination: if it is within reach, the speech "I determine this bowl" should be broken. If it is inside a room, or on an upper story, or in a nearby monastery, noting the place where it is kept, the speech "I determine that bowl" should be broken. One who determines it may determine it alone. it is proper to resolve it oneself, and it is proper to resolve it with another. This is the advantage of resolving it with another: if doubt arises in him, "Is it resolved by me, or not?" the other will remind him and cut off the doubt. If someone obtains ten bowls and wishes to use all of them himself, not all should be resolved. One bowl should be resolved, and on the next day, that one should be un-resolved, and another one resolved. By this method, it is possible to maintain them for a hundred years. How might a resolution be abandoned for one who is heedful? It might. For if he himself gives the bowl to another, or it is lost, or he renounces the training, or he passes away, or his gender changes, or he un-resolves it, or there is a hole in the bowl, the resolution is abandoned. And it has been said: "Given, lost, renounced, and by passing away; And by gender change, un-resolving, and by a hole, it becomes the seventh." It is also abandoned by being seized by thieves or by being taken by a trusted person. By how large a hole is the resolution broken? By one through which a grain of millet both exits and enters. This is the smallest grain of the seven grains. If a patch is made over that hole with iron filings or a nail, it must be resolved again within ten days. This is the decision regarding resolution here. 49. As for designation, there are two designations: designation in the presence of the owner, and designation in the absence of the owner.