English
and a debt for the goods." What is given specifically for robes should be used only for robes. If there is a famine, and bhikkhus are distressed by lack of almsfood, but robes are easily available, it is allowable to make an announcement for the well-being of the Sangha and use it even for almsfood. With lodging, and requisites for the sick, Nor is it proper to make a declaration for the excellence of the Sangha when they are not tired, and to use it for that purpose. Given specifically for almsfood, or for requisites for the sick, the same rule applies. But what is given specifically for dwellings is heavy property. It must be guarded and protected, and used only for that purpose. But if there is a famine, and bhikkhus cannot sustain themselves with almsfood, and monasteries are ruined by royal fear, disease, or thieves, or by those going elsewhere, and palm trees, coconut trees, etc., are destroyed, but it is possible to sustain oneself by relying on dwelling requisites, in such a time, even by giving up the dwelling, the use of it for the upkeep of dwellings has been permitted by the Blessed One. Therefore, setting aside one or two excellent dwellings, it is proper to dispose of the others, of lesser quality, for almsfood. But it should not be used by destroying the original substance. But if a park is given specifically for the four requisites, no declaration should be made there. But for whichever requisite there is a deficiency, it is proper to use it for that purpose. The park must be maintained. It is proper to have it maintained even by paying wages. But those who, having received wages, live in the park, having built a house there, and guard it, if they give coconuts or palm fruits to visiting bhikkhus, they are allowed to give only what has been permitted to them by the Sangha, saying, "Eat so much each day." It is not proper for them to give, nor for others to take, more than that. But one who takes the park on lease, and gives only suitable requisites for the Sangha's four requisites, that person is allowed to give much. A park given for lamps for a cetiya, or for repairing broken and fallen parts, must also be maintained. It must be maintained even by paying wages. And here, it is proper to pay wages from the cetiya's property, or from the Sangha's property. And the giving of fruits grown there, to those who live there and guard this park for wages, and to those who take it on lease and give suitable requisites, has been stated. This should be understood thus. 19. When asking for protection according to the Dhamma (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 679), it is not proper to speak specifically, referring to the past or the future. For, referring to the past, there is speaking specifically, and there is speaking non-specifically. Referring to the future also, there is speaking specifically, and there is speaking non-specifically. How is there speaking specifically, referring to the past? When village boys or rogues or anyone else commits misconduct in the bhikkhus' monastery, or cuts down trees, or steals fruits and vegetables, or seizes requisites, a bhikkhu approaches the lay officials and says, "Such and such was done in our monastery." When asked, "By whom?" he says, "By so-and-so and so-and-so." Thus, there is speaking specifically, referring to the past; that is not proper. If, having heard that, those lay officials punish them, the entire responsibility falls on the bhikkhu. Even if there is an intention that "they will be punished," it is still the bhikkhu's responsibility. If, however, he says, "Punish him," and even a mere five māsaṃs are taken, it is a pārājika offense. But when asked, "By whom?" one should say, "It is not proper for us to say 'by so-and-so.' You yourselves will know. We merely ask for protection; please give us that, and have the stolen goods brought back." Thus, there is speaking non-specifically; that is proper. If, even when spoken to in this way, those lay officials investigate the perpetrators and punish them, even if all their property is taken, there is no responsibility for the bhikkhu, and no offense. Seeing them stealing requisites, it is not proper to say "Thief! Thief!" with the intention of harming them. For, even if spoken to in this way, whatever punishment they inflict, the entire responsibility falls on the bhikkhu. However, it is proper to say to one's own attendant, "My requisite was taken by this one; have it brought back, but do not punish him." Making a fuss for the sake of male or female slaves, etc., this is called an improper fuss; it is not proper. How is there speaking specifically, referring to the future? It is said In this way, when others commit misdeeds, the bhikkhu says to the lay officials: "They do this and that in our monastery, give us protection so they won't do it again in the future." And when asked, "Who did this?" he reveals, "So-and-so and so-and-so." Thus, revealing specifically with regard to the future is not permissible. For if they are punished, all the blame falls on the bhikkhu, just as before. The rest is similar to before. If the lay officials, after proclaiming with a drum, "We will punish those who commit such misdeeds in the bhikkhus' monastery," search for those who do not obey the order and punish them, then there is no blame for the bhikkhu, and no offense. Taking axes and hatchets from those cutting trees and so on within the monastery boundary, and smashing them with stones, is not permissible. If the blade breaks, it must be repaired and returned. Rushing up and seizing their belongings should also not be done. For the mind is easily swayed; if a thought of theft arises, it could even lead to expulsion. 20. Feces, or urine, or rubbish, or food scraps, it is not permissible to throw or cause to be thrown over a wall or over a fence. If one throws all four items with a single action, there is only one dukkaṭa offense. If one throws them individually, there are dukkaṭa offenses according to the number of items. The same rule applies to causing them to be thrown. Even throwing a toothbrush stick is a dukkaṭa offense. If one throws feces and so on after looking, or into a ditch, there is no offense. Even if it is a cultivated field for human use and enjoyment, or a coconut grove and so on, it is not permissible to throw these items anywhere in a cultivated green area. The distinction of offenses for throwing them should be understood in the same way as before. While sitting and eating in a field or a grove, or eating sugarcane and so on while walking, if one throws leftover water, food particles, and so on onto a green area, or even throws a coconut husk after drinking the water from a cut-off top, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Placed in a cultivated area even if seeds sprout or do not sprout, it is a dukkaṭa offense. But it is permissible to discard them in corners of fields where seeds have not been sown, or in field boundaries where saplings have not been planted, or in places where people discard rubbish. When people have harvested the crop and left, it is called a discarded field, there it is permissible. But where they protect it, thinking, "even the reaped early crop will grow again," there it is not permissible. 21. "Monks, a bhikkhu who is bathing should not rub his body against a tree. Whoever rubs it, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." According to this, while bathing, one's body should not be rubbed against a tree, or against a pillar set up at a bathing place, or against a wall made of bricks, stones, wood, or plaster. "Monks, one should not bathe at an aṭṭāna. Whoever bathes, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." According to this, it is not permissible to bathe at an aṭṭāna. An aṭṭāna is a tree trunk carved like a plank, with lines cut in an octagonal shape, and set up at a bathing place. People sprinkle powders there and rub their bodies. "Monks, one should not bathe with a gandhabbahatthaka. Whoever bathes, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." According to this, people take powders with a wooden hand placed at the bathing place and rub their bodies. It is not permissible to bathe with that. "Monks, one should not bathe with a kuruvindakasutti. Whoever bathes, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." According to this, it is not permissible to bathe with a kuruvindakasutti. A kuruvindakasutti is said to be a bundle of small balls made by binding kuruvindaka stone powder with lac, which people hold at both ends and rub their bodies. "Monks, one should not have one's body rubbed by another in contention. Whoever has it rubbed, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." According to this, it is not permissible to rub one another's bodies. "Monks, Monks, if one bathes with a mallaka, whoever bathes (with it), there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, for the sick, an 'akatamallaka'." (Cūḷava. 243-244) Having cut off the makara-sticks, that which is made in the shape of a mallaka-root is called a "mallaka". This is not allowable even for the sick. An 'akatamallaka' is that which is made without cutting off the twigs. This is not allowable for one who is not sick. But a piece of brick or a piece of potsherd is allowable. "I allow, monks, an 'ukkāsika' and a 'puthupāṇika'." (Cūḷava. 244) An 'ukkāsika' and a 'puthupāṇika' are allowable. An 'ukkāsika' is a strip of cloth. Therefore, for one who is bathing, it is allowable to rub the back with anyone's bathing-robe-strip. A 'puthupāṇika' is called a hand-rubbing. Therefore, for everyone, it is allowable to do back-rubbing with the hand. Herein is the bathing-duty: Having gone to the water's edge, having laid down the robe wherever it may be, one should not descend quickly while standing. But having looked in all directions, having known the solitude, having arranged stumps, bushes, vines, etc., having coughed three times, standing bent over, the upper robe should be removed and spread out. Having untied the body-band, it should be placed right on the robe.