English
for the sake of others, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one who accepts for the sake of all, there is only an offense of wrong-doing. Herein is the decision: If someone brings gold and silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha, make a monastery or a shrine or a refectory or any other,” it is not proper to accept this. But if, when it is refused with, “It is not proper for monks to accept this,” he says, “It will be in the hands of carpenters or workers, you just know what is well-done and ill-done,” and gives it into their hands and departs, it is proper. Or if he says, “It will be in the hands of my people, or it will be in my own hands, you just send it for whatever purpose it should be given,” even so, it is proper. But if, without addressing the Sangha or a group or an individual, they say, “We give this gold and silver to the shrine, we give it to the monastery, we give it for new construction,” it is not proper to refuse it; it should be told to the stewards, “These people are saying this.” But if it is said, “You take and keep it for the sake of the shrine, etc.,” then it should be refused with, “It is not proper for us to take it.” If someone brings much gold and silver and says, “I give this to the Sangha, use the four requisites,” and if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both acceptance and use. If one monk there refuses, “This is not proper,” and the lay follower, saying, “If it is not proper, it will be mine,” takes it and goes away. That monk should not be told anything by anyone, “You have caused an obstruction to the Sangha’s gain.” Indeed, whoever reproaches him, he himself is guilty of an offense. But by that one, many have been made innocent. But if, when it is refused by the monks with, “It is not proper,” or it will be in the hands of the stewards, or in the hands of my men, or in my hands, you just use the requisites,” he says, it is allowable. And what is given for the four requisites, whatever requisite is needed, that should be applied to that purpose. What is given for robes should be applied to robes only. If there is no such need for robes, and the Sangha suffers from lack of almsfood, etc., having announced it for the well-being of the Sangha, it may be applied to that purpose too. This is the same for what is given for almsfood and medicines for the sick. But what is given for dwellings, because dwellings are heavy property, should be applied to dwellings only. However, if the dwellings are destroyed when the bhikkhus have abandoned them and gone, in such a case, it is permitted for bhikkhus to use the dwellings by disposing of them. Therefore, for the maintenance of the dwellings, without cutting off the root, it should be used for mere sustenance. 60. If someone says, “I have a great pond that yields three harvests, I give it to the Sangha,” and if the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense in both acceptance and use. But whoever rejects it, according to the previous method, nothing should be said to anyone. For whoever blames him, he himself is guilty of an offense. But by that one person, many were made blameless. But if someone, having said, “I give such a pond,” and being rejected by the bhikkhus saying, “It is not allowable,” says, “The Sangha has such and such a pond, how is that allowable?” He should be told, “It must have been given by making it allowable.” “How is a gift made allowable?” “By saying, ‘Use the four requisites,’ and then giving it.” If he then says, “Very well, venerable sirs, use the four requisites,” and gives it, it is allowable. Or if, having said, “Take the pond,” and being rejected as “not allowable,” he asks, “Is there a steward?” and when told “No,” he says, “So-and-so will manage this, or it will be in the hands of so-and-so, or in my hands…” it will be, may the Sangha use suitable things,” if he says, it is allowable. Even if he is refused, “It is not allowable,” and he says, “They will use the water, they will wash the things, birds and animals will drink,” even so, it is allowable. Then, if he is refused, “It is not allowable,” and he says, “Take it with a suitable head,” “Good, lay follower, the Sangha will drink water, will wash things, birds and animals will drink,” having said this, it is allowable to use. Then, if it is said, “I give my pond or lotus pond to the Sangha,” having said, “Good, lay follower, the Sangha will drink water,” and so on, it is indeed allowable to use. If, however, having requested manual labor from the bhikkhus, and having dug suitable ground with their own hands, a pond has been made for the purpose of using water, and relying on that, people cultivate crops and give suitable things to the monastery, it is allowable. Then, if people themselves, for the benefit of the Sangha, dig Sangha land and give suitable things from the crops produced relying on that, this too is allowable. And when it is said, “Appoint one suitable worker for us,” it is also permissible to appoint one. Then, if those people, oppressed by royal taxes, depart, and others take their place, and they give nothing to the bhikkhus, it is permissible to restrict the water, but only during the time of cultivation, not during the time of harvest. If they say, “Indeed, Venerable Sir, did not people in the past cultivate crops relying on this?” then it should be said, “They did this and that service for the Sangha, they gave these and those suitable things.” If they say, “We too will give,” even so, it is allowable. If, however, some ignorant person receives or makes a pond with an unsuitable expression, that should not be used by the bhikkhus; suitable things obtained relying on that are also unsuitable. If, knowing that it has been relinquished by the bhikkhus, the owner, or his sons and daughters, or someone else, If it is produced in the lineage, and then given by means of a proper transaction, it is allowable. When the family lineage is cut off, whoever is the lord of that district, he, without seizing it, gives it again by means of a proper transaction, like the chief queen of the Nāga king Aḷa, who brought forth water from Cittalapabbata for the bhikkhunīs; even so, it is allowable. Even in a proper transaction, in a pond received for the sake of water, it is allowable to have pure-hearted people remove mud, build embankments, and so forth. But seeing them cultivating crops relying on it, it is not allowable to appoint a manager. If they themselves give proper requisites, they should be accepted. If they do not give, they should not be urged. In a pond received for the sake of requisites, it is allowable to appoint a manager, but it is not allowable to have mud removed, embankments built, and so forth. If the managers themselves do it, it is allowable. But in things caused to be done by an unskilled but conscientious bhikkhu, even though the reception is proper, because it is mixed with what arises from the bhikkhu's effort, it becomes difficult to distinguish, like a poisoned alms-food, or like food mixed with improper meat-broth; it is improper for all. 61. If there is space for water, and the pond's embankment is firm, and one considers only the water, saying, "Make it so that it holds much water," "Make water near the bank," it is allowable. They do not light a fire in the hearth. It is allowable to say, "Let water work be obtained, lay followers." But it is not allowable to say, "Cultivate crops and bring them." But if, seeing much water in the pond, whether in front or behind, one has a channel dug out, or has a forest cleared and fields made, or takes an excess share from old fields without taking the usual share, or in new crops with an undefined share, one raises money, saying, "Give so many kahāpaṇas," it is improper for all. But if, without saying, "Plow, sow," one establishes land, saying, "Such and such a share for such and such a land," or says, "We have cultivated crops on such and such a portion of land, so much..." When farmers say, "What share will you take?" and he measures the land with a rope or a stick to take its measure, or stands in the threshing floor and guards it, or has it removed from the threshing floor, or stores it in a granary, that is improper for him. If farmers bring coins and say, "These are for the Sangha," and a certain bhikkhu, perceiving, "The Sangha does not consume coins," says, "Bring robes with so many coins, prepare gruel and so forth with so many," what they bring is improper for all. Why? Because the coins were dealt with. If they bring grain and say, "This is for the Sangha," and a certain bhikkhu, in the same way as before, says, "Bring this and that with so much paddy," what they bring is improper for him. Why? Because the grain was dealt with. If they bring husked rice or other pulses and say, "This is for the Sangha," and a certain bhikkhu, in the same way as before, says, "Bring this and that with so much husked rice," what they bring is proper for all. Why? Because the proper husked rice and so forth were dealt with. Even in buying and selling, there is no offense, because it was explained to the proper agent. 62. But formerly, at Cittalapabbata, a certain bhikkhu at the door of the four-hall building thought, "Oh, if only tomorrow they would cook so many cakes for the Sangha!" and made a circle on the ground to give a sign to the monastery attendants. Seeing that, a clever monastery attendant did likewise, and on the second day, when the drum was beaten and the Sangha had assembled, he took a cake and said to the Sangha's elder: "Venerable sir, we have never heard such a thing before, neither from our fathers nor our grandfathers, that a certain venerable one made a sign for cakes at the door of the four-hall building. From now on, let the venerable ones speak according to their own minds, and it will be comfortable for us too." The Great Elder turned away from that, and not even one bhikkhu took a cake. Thus, formerly, such an occurrence