English
How is designation in the presence of the owner made? Knowing whether the bowls are one or many, and whether they are near or not near, one should say, "This bowl," or "These bowls," or "That bowl," or "Those bowls," and then say, "I designate it/them for you." This is one designation in the presence of the owner. By this much, it is proper to store it, but it is not proper to use it, or to dispose of it, or to resolve it. However, if it is said, "Use what belongs to me, or dispose of it, or do with it as you see fit," then it is called an un-designation, and from then on, its use and so on are permissible. Another method – just as before, knowing the bowls' singularity or plurality, their proximity or non-proximity, and saying to that bhikkhu, "this bowl" or "these bowls" or "that bowl" or "those bowls", and taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists, whom one prefers, one should say, "I designate this for the bhikkhu Tissa" or "for the bhikkhuni Tissa, the female trainee, the novice, the female novice Tissa," this is another direct designation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store. But not even one of the uses, etc., is permissible. However, when that bhikkhu says, "Use Tissa's bhikkhu's property... to Tissa's female novice's property, or dispose of it, or do with it as appropriate," that is called a 're-declaration', from then on, the uses, etc., are also permissible. How is an indirect designation made? Just as before, knowing the bowls' singularity or plurality, their proximity or non-proximity, and saying, "this bowl" or "these bowls" or "that bowl" or "those bowls", one should say, "I give this for your designation." Then he should be asked, "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then the other should say, in the previous manner, "the bhikkhu Tissa" or... "the female novice Tissa." Again, that bhikkhu should say, "I give this to the bhikkhu Tissa" or... "to the female novice Tissa," this is an indirect designation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store, but not even one of the uses, etc., is permissible. However, when that bhikkhu says, in the manner stated for the second direct designation, "Use the property of so-and-so, or dispose of it, or do with it as appropriate," that is called a 're-declaration', from then on, the uses, etc., are also permissible. This is the method for designation. 50. Having thus determined and designated, when one is using a bowl, and it breaks, what should be done? bind? If a crack is less than two finger-breadths below the rim of the bowl, nothing needs to be done with it. But if there is even one such crack, one should pierce it with a bowl-borer at the lower end of that crack, boil it, and bind it with thread, rope, or leather straps, or with tin wire. And that binding should be covered with a tin plate or some other material with a strong adhesive, so that food does not stick to it. And that bowl should be determined and used. Or it should be bound after making a small hole. However, it is not permissible to bind it with pure honey, wax, lac, or resin. It is permissible to bind it by burning molasses and mixing it with stone powder. But if it is pierced with a bowl-borer near the rim, it breaks due to the thickness of the bowl. Therefore, it should be pierced lower down. If there are two cracks, or one crack four finger-breadths long, two bindings should be applied. If there are three, or one six finger-breadths long, three bindings. If there are four, or one eight finger-breadths long, four bindings. If there are five, or one ten finger-breadths long, even if bound or unbound, it is not a bowl. Another should be requested. This is the decision for clay bowls. In the case of iron bowls, even if there are five or more holes, and they are bound with iron powder, or nails, or iron plates, and are smooth, that very bowl should be used. Another should not be requested. But if even one hole is large, and even if bound with an iron plate, it is not smooth, and food sticks to the bowl, it is not permissible. This is not a bowl. Another should be requested. When requesting, it is permissible to request another bowl with a five-binding bowl in a place where one has been invited in the manner of the Sangha. But in a place where one has been invited in the manner of an individual, it is permissible even with a bowl of fewer than five bindings. And when one has received a bowl and is using it, it should not be used for non-consumable purposes such as cooking gruel, dyeing, or boiling. On the way, When illness arises, if there is no other vessel, it is not proper to smear it with clay and cook gruel or heat water. It should not be placed in improper places like couches, chairs, umbrellas, or elephant-tusk pegs. Indeed, the place for placing the bowl is already stated in the Khandhaka section, by the method beginning with "I allow, monks, a bowl-stand" (Cūḷavagga 254). Thus, in the Pāḷimuttaka Vinaya Vinicchaya Saṅgaha, The discourse on the determination of Adhiṭṭhāna and Vikappana is concluded. 9. The discourse on the determination of being without robes 51. Being without a robe means separation from any one of the three robes that have been determined as the three robes. Indeed, when the three robes are thus determined, it is not proper to dwell without even one. For one dwelling (without a robe) with the rising of dawn, the robe becomes nissaggiya (requiring relinquishment). Therefore, at the time of dawn, one should dwell with the robe kept within arm's reach, a measure of two and a half cubits. But in village settlements, deserted places, half-story buildings, palaces, mansions, boat-dwellings, fields, granaries, parks, monasteries, at the root of trees, or in the open air, there is this distinction (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.477-8) – if there is a village belonging to one king or a village chief, and it is enclosed by some wall, fence, or ditch, in such a village, having placed the robe, it is proper to let the dawn rise anywhere inside the village, in a place as one wishes. But if it is not enclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed, or one should dwell within arm's reach, a measure of two and a half cubits, all around that house. Having exceeded that measure, even if a bhikkhu with psychic powers lets the dawn rise in the sky, the robe indeed becomes nissaggiya. If there is a village belonging to many kings or chiefs, like Vesālī, Kusinārā, etc., and it is enclosed, in such a village, one should dwell in the house where the robe is placed. If one is unable to dwell there due to noise or crowds, one should dwell in the town hall or at the city gate. Or, if unable to stay there, having stayed in some suitable place, having come before dawn, one should stay within arm's reach of those very assembly halls or city gates. But for the house or the robe, there is nothing to be said about being within arm's reach. If, not having placed it in the house, [thinking] "I will place it in the assembly hall," going to the assembly hall, having stretched out his hand, [saying] "Here, place this robe," he places the robe in some shop that is easily accessible, within arm's reach; then, in the same manner as before, he should stay in the assembly hall, or at the city gate, or within arm's reach of them. If a city has many gates and many assembly halls, it is not proper to stay in all of them. But in whichever street the robe is placed, whichever assembly hall and gate are in front of it, one should stay within arm's reach of that assembly hall and gate. For in this way, it is possible to know the condition of the robe. But if, when going to the assembly hall, it was placed in the hands of a certain shopkeeper, if he takes that robe away and places it in his house, the arm's reach of the street does not protect it; one must stay within arm's reach of the house. If there is a large house standing across two streets, one should let the dawn break within arm's reach, either in front or behind. But having placed it in the assembly hall, one should let the dawn break in the assembly hall, or in front of it, or at the city gate, or within arm's reach of them. But if the village is unfortified, in whichever house the robe is placed, one should stay in that house or within arm's reach of that house. If (Pārā. 480) there is a dwelling belonging to one family, and it is enclosed, with various rooms and various inner chambers, having placed the robe within the dwelling, one should stay within the dwelling. If it is unenclosed, in whichever room the robe is placed, one should stay in that room or within arm's reach of the room. If there is a dwelling belonging to different families, and it is enclosed, with various rooms and various In a small room, where the robe is placed, one should dwell in that room, or at the common house-door, or at the door of the room, or within arm's reach. If it is not enclosed, where the robe is placed, one should dwell in that room, or within arm's reach of the room. In half-finished houses, upper-storied houses, and mansions, the decision should be known in the manner stated. If a boat belongs to one family, having placed the robe inside the boat, one should dwell inside the boat. If a boat belongs to various families, with various compartments, various small rooms, where the robe is placed, one should dwell in that small room, or within arm's reach of the small room. If a caravan belongs to one family, having placed the robe in that caravan, one should not be separated by seven lengths in front or behind. One should not be separated by a length to the side. One length is twenty-eight cubits. If a caravan belongs to various families, having placed the robe in the caravan, one should dwell within arm's reach of the robe. If a moving caravan stops, having encompassed a village or a river, and stands connected as one with those who have entered, extending from one bank to the other,