English
Thus do I hold this." (Pārā. 585) 68. By that appointed monk (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.585), without making a mark, with eyes closed, into a river, or a precipice, or a dense forest, like excrement, without attachment, without considering the place where it falls, it should be discarded. If he discards it after making a mark, he incurs a dukkata offense. Even with such detestable money, the Blessed One, by implication, declared its use for monks. However, for the receiver of money, the use of requisites arisen from it, by any implication, is not allowable. Just as this is not allowable for him, so too, by way of improper acquisition, or by actions that corrupt families, or by deceit, etc., Requisites are not for him, nor for another. Even if rightly gained, they are not proper to consume without reflection. Indeed, there are four kinds of consumption: consumption as a thief, consumption as a debt, consumption as an inheritance, consumption as a master. Among these, the consumption of an immoral person, even sitting in the midst of the Sangha and consuming, is called consumption as a thief. The consumption of a virtuous person without reflection is called consumption as a debt. Therefore, robes should be reflected upon at each use, at each use. Almsfood, at each mouthful, at each mouthful. If one is unable to do so, then before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch, middle watch, and last watch of the night. If dawn breaks for him without reflection, it stands in the place of consumption as a debt. Lodgings too should be reflected upon at each use, at each use. For medicine, mindfulness is proper both at acceptance and at consumption. Even so, if one is mindful at acceptance but does not consume, there is an offense. But if one is not mindful at acceptance but consumes, there is no offense. Indeed, there are four kinds of purity: purity by confession, purity by restraint, purity by search, purity by reflection. Among these, purity by confession is the morality of Pātimokkha restraint. For it is called "purity by confession" because it is purified by confession. Purity by restraint is the morality of sense-faculty restraint. For it is called "purity by restraint" because it is purified by the restraint of mental resolve: "I will not do so again." Purity by search is the morality of purified livelihood. For it is called "purity by search" because it is purified by the search of one who, having abandoned improper search, obtains requisites by Dhamma, by right means. Purity by reflection is the morality connected with the consumption of requisites. For it is called "purity by reflection" because it is purified by reflection, as stated in the manner beginning with: "Reflecting wisely, I use the robe." Therefore it was said: "But if one is not mindful at acceptance but consumes, there is no offense." For those in training, the use of requisites is called 'inheritance use'. For they are the Buddha's sons, therefore, being heirs to the father's possessions, they use those requisites. But do they use the Buddha's requisites, or do they use the requisites of householders? Even if given by householders, because they are permitted by the Buddha, they become the Buddha's property. Therefore, it should be understood that they use the Buddha's requisites. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta (MN 1.29 onwards) is evidence for this. The use by those whose defilements are destroyed is called 'master's use'. For they, having gone beyond the slavery of craving, use as masters. Thus, among these uses, the master's use and the inheritance use are permissible for all. Debt-use is not permissible. Regarding theft-use, there is no discussion at all. There are also four other uses: use by the conscientious, use by the shameless, righteous use, and unrighteous use. Among these, the use by a shameless person together with a conscientious person is permissible; he should not be made to incur an offense. For a conscientious person together with a shameless person, it is permissible as long as he does not know. For there is no such thing as a shameless person from the outset. Therefore, when one knows his shamelessness, then one should say: "You commit transgressions by way of body and speech. That is improper. Do not do so." If he disregards this and continues to do it, and if one uses with him, then that one also becomes shameless. And whoever uses with a shameless person who is a burden to oneself, that one also should be stopped. If he does not desist, this one also becomes shameless. Thus, one shameless person makes even a hundred shameless. But for a shameless person using with another shameless person, there is no offense. The use by a conscientious person together with another conscientious person is like two warrior princes eating from a golden bowl. Righteous and unrighteous use should be understood solely in terms of requisites. In that case, if the person is shameless, and the almsfood is unrighteous, both are detestable. If the person is shameless, and the almsfood is righteous... Having despised the person, almsfood should not be accepted. But in the Mahāpaccari, it is said: "An immoral person, having received assigned meals and so forth from the Sangha, gives them to the Sangha itself; these are permissible because they were received as given." The person is conscientious, the almsfood is unrighteous, the almsfood is despicable, it should not be accepted. The person is conscientious, the almsfood is also righteous, it is permissible. Further, there are two kinds of support and two kinds of use: support for the conscientious, support for the unconscientious, use of Dhamma, use of material things. There, it is permissible for the unconscientious to support the conscientious; he should not be made liable for an offense. But if a conscientious person supports an unconscientious one, invites him for an anumodanā, invites him for a Dhamma talk, supports him among families, and the other (unconscientious one) speaks praise of him in the assembly, saying "Our teacher is such and such," this should be understood as causing the Dispensation to decline and disappear. But regarding the use of Dhamma and the use of material things, where the use of material things is permissible, the use of Dhamma is also permissible there. But one who stands at the peak (of knowledge), and the text (knowledge) will be lost with the passing of that person, it is said that it is permissible to learn from him for the sake of the Dhamma. Here is a story – it is said that during a great danger, only one bhikkhu had mastered the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of Catunikāyikatissatthera, named Mahātipiṭakatthera, said to Mahārakkhitatthera: "Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him." "He is said to be wicked, venerable sir, I will not learn." "Learn, friend, I will sit near you." Having agreed, "Very well, venerable sir, I will learn while you are seated," he studied continuously day and night. On the last day, seeing a woman under the bed, he said, "Venerable sir, I had heard it before; if I had known this, I would not have learned the Dhamma from such a person." But from him, many great elders learned and established the Mahāniddesa. Thus in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha, (Chapter on) Money. The decision-making discussion on the initial acceptance is concluded. 13. The Decision-making Discussion on the Characteristic of Giving, etc. 69. "The turning over of gain through giving, trust, and acceptance." Here, "giving" means the giving of one's own requisites, such as robes, to any of one's co-residents or others. Here is the characteristic of giving: when one says, "I give this to you, I bestow, I offer, I dedicate, I renounce, I release," or "I give this to so-and-so... I release," it is considered given, whether in person or not. If, when told, "Take it for yourself," one says, "I take it for myself," it is well-given and well-taken. If, when told, "Make it yours, let it be yours, it is yours," one says, "I make it mine, let it be mine, I will make it mine," it is ill-given and ill-taken. Neither the giver knows how to give, nor the other how to take. But if, when told, "Make it yours," one says, "Very well, venerable sir, I take it for myself," and takes it, it is well-taken. If one says, "Take this robe," and the other says, "I will not take it," and then the first one says, "I have given it to you, take it," and the other says, "I have no need for this," then the first one lets ten days pass saying, "I have given it," and the second one says, "I have rejected it." Whose offense is it? No one's. But whoever desires it should determine it and use it. What is given with the words, "Give this to so-and-so," belongs to the sender until it reaches the other's hand. But what is given with the words, "I give this to so-and-so," belongs to the one to whom it is sent. Therefore, a bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, saying, "Give this robe to so-and-so." If the one who sends it takes it on the way out of trust, it is well-taken. If the one to whom it is sent takes it out of trust, it is ill-taken. A bhikkhu (Mahāva. 378-379) sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, saying, "This robe give this robe to so-and-so." He hears on the way, "The one who sent it has died." He designates it as a dead person's robe for him. It is well-designated. He takes it with confidence for the one to whom it was sent. It is ill-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "Give this robe to so-and-so." He hears on the way, "The one to whom it was sent has died." He designates it as a dead person's robe for him. It is doubly designated. He takes it with confidence for the one who sent it. It is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "Give this robe to so-and-so." He hears on the way, "Both have died." He designates it as a dead person's robe for the one who sent it. It is well-designated.