English
He designates it as a dead person's robe for the one to whom it was sent. It is doubly designated. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "I give this robe to so-and-so." He takes it with confidence for the one who sent it. It is ill-taken. He takes it with confidence for the one to whom it was sent. It is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "I 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 doubly designated. He takes it with confidence for the one to whom it was sent. It is well-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "I 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 well-designated. He takes it with confidence for the one who sent it. It is ill-taken. A bhikkhu sends a robe by the hand of another bhikkhu, "I 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 doubly designated. He designates it as a dead person's robe for the one to whom it was sent. It is well-designated. Having given up, given again. Angered for some reason, he is not allowed to make it be brought back. Indeed, if one snatches back a robe given by oneself, perceiving it as one's own, it is an offense of relinquishment. If one snatches back any other requisite, even a needle, it is an offense of wrong-doing. But if he himself gives it, saying, "Venerable sir, this is suitable for you," it is allowable to take it. But then, if he is told such things as, "Friend, we gave you the robe thinking, 'He will perform duties and services, he will take a preceptor from us, he will learn the Dhamma,' but now you do not perform duties, you do not take a preceptor, you do not learn the Dhamma," and he says, "Venerable sirs, I suppose you are speaking for the sake of the robe; here is your robe," and gives it, even so, it is allowable. Or if a young monk departing for another direction is told, "Turn back!" but he does not turn back, then one says, "Take his robes and restrain him!" If he turns back thus, it is good. If he says, "I suppose you are speaking for the sake of the bowl and robe; take them!" and gives them, even so, it is allowable. Or seeing one who is straying, one says, "We gave you the bowl and robe thinking, 'He will perform duties,' but now you are straying and wandering about." If the other says, "Take your bowl and robe!" and gives them, even so, it is allowable. But to give thus: "I will give only to one who takes a preceptor from me, I will not give to one who takes it elsewhere; I will give only to one who performs duties, I will not give to one who does not; I will give only to one who learns the Dhamma, I will not give to one who does not; I will give only to one who does not stray, I will not give to one who strays"—is not allowable. If one gives, it is an offense of wrong-doing. But it is allowable to make it be brought back. One who snatches back what has been given and relinquished should be made to pay the value of the goods. This much is the decision regarding giving. 70. But the characteristic of taking with confidence should be known by this Sutta: "I allow, monks, for one endowed with five factors to take with confidence: he is seen, he is associated with, he is spoken to, he is alive, and he is pleased with what is taken." (Mahāvagga 356) Therein (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.131) "Sandiṭṭha" means a mere acquaintance. "Sambhatta" means a close friend. "Ālapita" means one who has said, "Whatever you wish of mine, you may take it; there is no need to ask permission to take it." "Jīvati" means even if lying in a state of inactivity, one does not reach the cutting off of the faculty of life. "Gahite ca attamano" means one is pleased in mind when it is taken. It is proper to take knowing, "He will be pleased if his property is taken." These five factors are stated in terms of complete appropriation. However, taking by trust is established by three factors: one is an acquaintance, is alive, and is pleased when taken; or is a close friend, is alive, and is pleased when taken; or has given permission, is alive, and is pleased when taken. But if one is not alive, and is not pleased when taken, what was taken by trust from that person must be returned. And when returning, the property of the deceased should be given to those who are the owners of that property, whether householders or monastics. The property of one who is not pleased should be returned to that person. But one who, having first approved by a change of speech or by a mere thought, saying, "You did very well by taking my property," and later, being angry for some reason, cannot make it be returned. And one who does not wish to give, but mentally endures it and says nothing, that person also cannot make it be returned. But one who, when it is said, "I have taken or consumed your property," says, "Whether it was taken or consumed, I had set it aside for some purpose, it is proper to make it as it was originally," that person can make it be returned. This is the decision on taking by trust. 71. "Lābhassa pariṇāmanaṃ" means this refers to the dedication of gain that has ripened for others' benefit, or one's own, or another's. Here is the decision (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.659-660): If one says, "Give me this," referring to something dedicated to the Sangha, or to fellow monastics, or to laypeople, or even to one's mother's property, Knowing its dedicated nature, for one who dedicates it to himself and takes it, there is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. For one who dedicates it to another, saying, "Give it to this bhikkhu," there is an offense of pure expiation. Therefore, even if at the time of the rain-cloak, in his mother's house, knowing a rain-cloak is dedicated to the Sangha, he dedicates it to himself, there is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. If he dedicates it to another, there is an offense of pure expiation. People bring ghee, oil, and so on, saying, "We will make a meal for the Sangha." Even if a sick bhikkhu, knowing its dedicated nature to the Bhikkhu-Sangha, asks for something, it is indeed an offense of relinquishment and expiation. If, however, he asks, "Do you have ghee and so on brought?" and when told, "Yes, we do," he says, "Give some to me too," it is permissible. Or if, when he hesitates, the lay followers say, "The Sangha also receives what is given by us. Take it, venerable sir," even so, it is permissible. Something dedicated to the Sangha in one monastery, pointing to another monastery, he dedicates it saying, "Give it to the Sangha in such and such a monastery," or he dedicates it to a cetiya, saying, "What is the use of giving to the Sangha? Make an offering to the cetiya," there is an offense of wrong-doing. Something dedicated to a cetiya, if he dedicates it to another cetiya, or to the Sangha, or to a group, or to an individual, it is indeed an offense of wrong-doing. From a flower-plant planted specifically for another cetiya, it is not permissible to place even a flower on another cetiya. But having seen an umbrella or a banner placed on one cetiya, it is permissible to have the rest given to another cetiya. Even something dedicated to a dog, if he dedicates it to another person, saying, "Don't give it to this dog, give it to that one," there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, however, the donors say, "We wish to make a meal for the Sangha, we wish to make an offering to a cetiya, we wish to give requisites to a bhikkhu. We will give according to your preference. Tell us where we should give," when this is said, that bhikkhu should say, "Give it where you wish." If, however, merely "Where shall we give?" they ask. "Where your offering might be used, or might be repaired, or might last long, or where your mind is pleased, there you should give," it is proper to say. Thus, in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha, The chapter on the determination of the characteristics of giving, etc., is concluded. 14. The chapter on the determination of digging the earth. 72. Earth (pathavī) is of two kinds: born earth (jātā pathavī) and unborn earth (ajātā pathavī). Therein, born earth is purely dusty, purely clayey, with few stones, few pebbles, few hard lumps, few sandy mounds, few sands, mostly dusty, mostly clayey. Even unburnt earth is called "born earth." And also a heap of dust or a heap of clay that has been left for more than four months, that too is called "born earth." Unborn earth is purely stony, purely pebbly, purely hard-lumped, purely sandy-mounded, purely sandy, with little dust, little clay, mostly stony, mostly pebbly, mostly hard-lumped, mostly sandy-mounded, mostly sandy. Even burnt earth is called "unborn earth." And also a heap of dust or a heap of clay that has been left for less than four months, that too is called "unborn earth" (Pāci. 84-86). Therein, for one who digs or causes to dig born earth, there is an offense of expiation (pācittiya). Here is the determination (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 86): If one digs oneself, for each stroke, there is an offense of expiation. If one orders another, even if the ordered person digs for the whole day after being ordered once, for the one who ordered, there is only one offense of expiation. But if he is lazy, he should be ordered again and again. For one who orders him and causes him to dig, for each word (of ordering), there is an offense of expiation. If one says, "Dig a pond," it is permissible. For a pond is indeed something that is dug. Therefore, this is a permissible expression. This rule applies to "dig a tank, a pool, a pit," and so on. But to say, "Dig this place," or "Dig a pond in this place," is not permissible. "Kand "Dig a root, dig a root," it is allowable to say without specifying. "Dig this creeper,