English
and annually three robes worth ten or twenty (coins), and suitable requisites should be given. If, however, while he is receiving that, anything there is lost through negligence, all is his responsibility. If it was stolen by force after being tied up, it is not his responsibility. There, it is permissible to have the property of the cetiya guarded by means of the property of the cetiya or the Sangha, but it is not permissible to have the property of the Sangha guarded by means of the property of the cetiya. But if the property of the Sangha is placed together with the property of the cetiya, then when the cetiya's property is guarded, it is considered guarded, and thus it is permissible. Even if one guards the Uposatha hall and so on by turns of the fortnight, if anything is lost through negligence, it is still his responsibility. Thus, in the Compendium of Decisions on Vinaya Outside the Pāli, the Discourse on Decisions Regarding the Management of Requisites is concluded. 11. Discourse on Decisions Regarding Engaging in Buying and Selling 57. "Engaging in buying and selling" means entering into buying and selling. Indeed, by the method of "Give this for this" and so on (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.595), one who takes another's suitable requisite engages in buying, and one who gives one's own suitable requisite engages in selling. But this buying and selling is not permissible with laypeople or monastics, apart from the five co-dhamma-followers, not even with one's parents. Here is the decision – whether cloth for cloth, or food for food, whatever suitable thing one says, "Give this for this," it is a dukkaṭa (offence of wrong-doing). Having said this, if one gives one's own requisite even to one's mother, it is a dukkaṭa, or if one is told, "Give this for this," "Give this, I will give you this," having said that, or if he takes his mother's goods himself, it is a dukkaṭa. If his own goods reach another's hand, or another's goods reach his hand, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. To a mother or father, saying "Give this," is not a request. To one who gives, saying "Take this," there is no squandering of a gift of faith. To an unknown person, saying "Give this," is a request. To one who gives, saying "Take this," there is a squandering of a gift of faith. To one who engages in buying and selling, saying "Give this for this," it is a nissaggiya. Therefore, when exchanging permissible goods, one should exchange with parents, avoiding buying and selling. With unknown persons, one should exchange, avoiding the three offenses. Here is the method of exchange: A bhikkhu has travel rice. He sees a man with food on the way. He says, "We have rice, and we have no need for these, but we have need for food." The man takes the rice and gives food. It is permissible. The three offenses do not arise. Not even a mere hint of a transaction arises. Why? Because there is a basis (for the exchange). But if one does not do so, and exchanges saying "Give this for this," it is just as stated in the case. Seeing a scavenger, he says, "Eat this rice, and bring dye or firewood." According to the count of dye-bark, or the count of firewood, it is nissaggiya. Saying, "Eat this rice, and do this thing," he has artisans like dentists make various requisites like a water-strainer, or has washermen wash clothes. It is just as stated in the case. He has a barber cut hair. He has laborers do new construction. It is just as stated in the case. But if he does not say, "Eat this food and do this," but says, "Eat this food. You have eaten, you will eat. Do this thing," it is permissible. And here, whether in washing clothes, or cutting hair, or new construction like cleaning the ground, another's goods... There is nothing to be given up from one's own hand. But because it is strongly stated in the Great Commentary, it cannot be rejected. Therefore, just as one declares an offense when a nissaggiya item is consumed or lost, so too should it be declared here. It is permissible to ask the price of any suitable item one wishes to take. Therefore, when asked, "What is the price of this bowl of yours?" one says, "This much." If one's own suitable item is expensive, one replies to him thus: "Lay follower, this item of mine is expensive; give your bowl to another." Hearing that, the other says, "I will give another plate too." It is permissible to take it. If that bowl is expensive, and the monk's item is inexpensive, and the owner of the bowl does not know its inexpensive nature, the bowl should not be taken. It should be told, "My item is inexpensive." Indeed, even one who takes it deceptively, knowing its expensive nature, incurs the obligation to have the item valued. If the owner of the bowl gives it, saying, "Let it be, venerable sir, the rest will be my merit," it is permissible. But it is permissible to tell a suitable attendant, "Take this and give that." Therefore, excluding the one from whose hand one takes the item, one makes another, even his son or brother, a suitable attendant and tells him, "Take this and give that." If he is clever, repeatedly removing and arguing, he takes it, one should remain silent. If he is not clever, does not know how to take it, and the merchant deceives him, it should be said, "Do not take it." If it is said, "We have this received oil or ghee, and we need another unreceived one," and if he takes that and gives another, one's own oil should not be measured first. Why? For there is remaining oil in the measure, and measuring it later would spoil the unreceived (oil). And this buying and selling, in terms of suitable items, is said to be... Indeed, for one who exchanges what is allowable for what is allowable, a forfeiture is declared by the rule of buying and selling. But for one who exchanges what is unallowable for what is unallowable, or what is allowable for what is unallowable, or what is unallowable for what is allowable, a forfeiture is declared by the rule of dealing in money. Therefore, when both or one of them is unallowable, it is called a dealing in money. 58. And to show the gravity of dealing in money, this fourfold bowl case should be understood. Indeed, one who receives money, and with it causes iron ore to be produced, has it smelted, and with that iron has a bowl made, this bowl is called greatly unallowable. It cannot be made allowable by any means. Even if one destroys it and makes a plate, that too is unallowable. If one makes a knife, even a toothpick cut with it is unallowable. If one makes a fishhook, even fish caught with it are unallowable. If one heats water or milk by heating the knife, that too is unallowable. But one who receives money and with it buys a bowl, this bowl too is unallowable. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya: "It is not allowable even for the five fellow monks." But it can be made allowable. Indeed, when the money is given to the owners of the money, and the bowl to the owners of the bowl, it becomes allowable. It is permissible to use it after giving and receiving allowable goods. And one who has money received, goes with an allowable agent to a blacksmith's house, sees a bowl and says, "This pleases me," and the allowable agent gives that money and informs the blacksmith, this bowl, even though taken through an allowable transaction, is just like the second bowl case, being unallowable due to the acceptance of the money. Why is it not allowable for others? Because the money has not been relinquished. But one who, not having accepted money, goes with a sent allowable agent to a blacksmith's house, having said, "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it," sees a bowl and says, "Take these coins and give this," and has the coins given and takes it, this bowl is not allowable for that bhikkhu himself. because of his bad conduct, but for others it is allowable because the root was not accepted. It is said that the preceptor of Elder Mahāsumma was named Elder Anuruddha. He filled such a bowl of his own with ghee and offered it to the Saṅgha. The co-residents of Elder Tipiṭakacūḷanāga had such a bowl. The Elder also had it filled with ghee and offered to the Saṅgha. This is the fourfold case of unallowable bowls. However, if, without accepting money, one goes to a smith's house with a steward sent with the message, "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it," and seeing the bowl, says, "This pleases me," or "I will take this," and the steward gives the money and satisfies the smith, this bowl is entirely allowable, fit even for Buddhas to use. But in making this transaction involving money, it is not allowable to even tell the steward, "Take this with this and give it." Thus, in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha, The chapter on the determination of buying and selling is concluded. 12. The Chapter on the Determination of Accepting Money, etc. 59. Accepting money, etc., is the acceptance of gold, etc. Therein (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-4), gold, silver, gold coins, silver coins— these are four kinds of objects entailing forfeiture. A metal coin made from copper, iron, etc. A wooden coin made by cutting a shape from hard wood or a bamboo strip, or even a palm leaf. A lac coin made by forming a shape from lac or resin. Whatever, wherever, in whatever country, whenever it is used in transactions, even if made of bone, or made of leather, or made of fruit seeds, or with an established shape, or without an established shape— all of this is included under silver coins. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch shells, stones, coral, red arsenic, crystal, seven kinds of grains, male and female slaves, fields, land, flowers, monasteries, fruit orchards, etc.— these are objects entailing a dukkata offense. Therein, an object entailing forfeiture, for oneself, or for the Saṅgha, group, individual, or cetiya, It is not proper to accept for the sake of three. For one who accepts for his own sake, there is an offense of relinquishment and expiation;