English
it is said in the Kurundi and Mahāpaccarī. Here, it is permissible to obtain a permissible hut. By "householder" are meant people who, having made a dwelling, say: "We give a permissible hut, use it." This is called a householder's (hut). Even if it is said: "We give (it) to make a permissible hut," it is still permissible. In the Andha Commentary, however, it is said: "Since, apart from a bhikkhu, for all other co-religionists and all devas and humans, acceptance by hand and storage and what is kept inside belonging to them is permissible for a bhikkhu, therefore their houses or a permissible hut given by them is called a householder's (hut)." Again it is said: "Apart from a monastery of the Sangha, a nunnery, or a dwelling of monastery attendants, or of sectarians, or of devas, or of nāgas, or even a palace of Brahmās is a permissible hut." That is well said. For a house belonging to the Sangha or belonging to a bhikkhu is not a householder's hut. Designation is a motion- Having made known with the second motion, it is approved. And thus, monks, it should be approved. The competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha – ‘‘May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, may the Saṅgha approve the monastery named so-and-so as a permissible ground. This is the motion. ‘‘May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. The Saṅgha approves the monastery named so-and-so as a permissible ground. To which venerable one the approval of the monastery named so-and-so as a permissible ground is agreeable, let him be silent. To whom it is not agreeable, let him speak. ‘‘The monastery named so-and-so has been approved by the Saṅgha as a permissible ground. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold this.’’ (Mahāva. 295). Without reciting the motion, even if made known by way of a declaration, it is still approved. 102. Whatever food (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 295) is mentioned in these four permissible grounds, all of that does not fall into the category of "kept inside." For the purpose of avoiding "kept inside" and "cooked inside" for monks and nuns, permissible huts are allowed. But whatever is mentioned as belonging to the Saṅgha or to an individual monk or nun, placed even for one night in an impermissible ground, in a house large enough for co-sleeping, that is "kept inside." And what is cooked there is called "cooked inside." This is not permissible. However, what is for seven days and what is for life is permissible. Herein is the determination: If a novice brings food like rice to a monk, places it in a permissible hut, and cooks it and gives it on the next day, it is not "kept inside." If something is placed in ghee, etc., kept in an impermissible hut, and given, it is called "proximity to the mouth." But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, "it is 'kept inside'." There, the difference is merely in name. If a monk cooks together ghee kept in an impermissible hut and leaves for life, and consumes it, it is permissible for seven days without meat. If he consumes it mixed with meat, it is both "kept inside" and "cooked by oneself." By this method all mixtures should be understood. Whatever food it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to cook. If into his hot gruel basil leaves or ginger or salt are put, it is not allowable to stir it. But to stir it, saying, "I will cool the gruel," is allowable. Having received rice cooked with husks, it is not allowable to cover it. But if people cover it and give it, it is allowable. To cover it, saying, "May the rice not cool," is allowable. But for milk, buttermilk, and so on, once they have boiled, it is allowable to make a fire, because re-cooking is permitted. But when do these allowable huts become abandoned in their foundation? First, a hut made by digging into the tops of pillars or wall-bases, becomes abandoned in its foundation when all the pillars and wall-bases are removed. But if they replace the pillars or wall-bases, whichever remains, it stands there, and even if all are replaced, it is not abandoned in its foundation. A hut made of bricks and so on, placed on a mound for a wall, starting with a brick or a stone or a lump of clay, becomes abandoned in its foundation when it is destroyed. But if it is supported by bricks and so on, even if those are removed, it stands on others, so it is not abandoned in its foundation. A cow-shed, when enclosed by walls and so on, becomes abandoned in its foundation. Then, in that monastery, it is allowable to obtain an allowable hut. But if again the walls and so on are broken in places, and cows enter from there, it becomes an allowable hut again. The other huts, however, except for two rafters, when all the roofing is destroyed, become abandoned in their foundation. If even one side-rafter-circle is on top of the rafters, it preserves it. 103. But where these four allowable grounds do not exist, what should be done there? It should be given to an unordained person, made his property, and then consumed. Here is the story: It is said that the Elder Karavikatissa, the chief of Vinaya-holders, the Elder Mahāsīva's He went near. He, seeing a pot of ghee by lamplight, asked, "Venerable sir, what is this?" The elder said, "Friend, a pot of ghee has been brought from the village to eat with ghee on rough days." Then Elder Tissa said to him, "It is not allowable, Venerable sir." The elder had it placed in the front on the next day. Elder Tissa, having come again one day, seeing it, asked as before, and said, "Venerable sir, it is not allowable to place it in a place sufficient for co-sleeping." The elder had it taken out and placed outside on the next day; thieves took it. He then said to Elder Tissa, who had come again one day, "Friend, when you said 'it is not allowable,' that pot was placed outside and taken by thieves." Then Elder Tissa said to him, "Venerable sir, should it not have been given to an unordained person? For having given it to an unordained person, it is allowable to make it his property and consume it." Thus, in the Compendium of Vinaya Decisions from the Pāḷi-Muttaka, The Discourse on the Decision of Allowable Ground is concluded. 20. Discourse on the Decision of Acceptance 104. Acceptance of edibles, etc., is the acceptance of any edible or foodstuff that is to be consumed. Herein is the decision – acceptance is valid by five factors: it is within the reach of a man of average strength, the arm's length is discernible, the offering is discernible, a deva or a human or an animal gives it with their body, or with something attached to their body, or with something relinquished, and if the bhikkhu accepts it with his body or with something attached to his body. Thus, acceptance is valid by these five factors. Therein, the arm's length should be understood thus, according to whether one is standing, sitting, or lying down – if the bhikkhu is sitting, starting from the back edge of the seat; if standing, starting from the heel; if lying down, starting from the furthest edge of the side on which he is lying; and for the giver, whether sitting or standing or lying down, excluding the outstretched hand, from the nearest part of his body, from its inner edge. a cubit and a half, that is called a hand-reach. But if, among the giver and receiver, one is in the air, one is on the ground, and the one on the ground is by the head, and the one in the air is by the head, excluding the head, to give or to receive, the outstretched hand, whatever limb is closer, the measure of the hand-reach should be determined by its near end. Even if one is in a well, one is on the well's edge, or one is in a tree, one is on the ground, the measure of the hand-reach should be determined in the manner stated. Standing within such a hand-reach, even if a bird gives with its beak, or an elephant gives with its trunk, a flower or a fruit, the acceptance is valid. But if, seated on the shoulder of an elephant even eight and a half cubits tall, one receives what it gives with its trunk, it is indeed valid. In the case of elephants and so forth, whatever body part, even with a toe, what is given, is called given by the body. The same method applies to receiving. For whatever is received by any body part, is indeed received by the body. Even if a nasal medicine is given, and a sick person receives it with the nostril or with the mouth, intention is the measure here. 105. But in the case of ladles and so forth, whatever is given with any utensil, is called given connected to the body. The same method applies to receiving. For whatever is received by something connected to the body, like a bowl or a plate, is indeed received connected to the body. But what is given, having been separated from the body and from what is connected to the body, and is dropped onto the body or onto what is connected to the body of one standing within hand-reach, is called given by the Nissaggiya method. One, carrying many food and curry containers on his head, comes to the bhikkhu and stands there, saying, "Please take them," the offering is not yet evident, therefore it should not be taken. But if he bends down even slightly, the bhikkhu should stretch out his hand and receive even a part of the lowest container. By this much, all the containers are received. From then on, having put them down, or having lifted them up... Having opened, or whatever he wishes, it is allowable to take that. But in a rice-basket, etc., in a single vessel, there is nothing to be said (it's always allowed). Even when carrying rice on a carrying-pole, if he lowers the pole and gives it, it is allowable. There is a bamboo pole thirty cubits long, at one end a pot of molasses is tied, at the other a pot of ghee. If he receives it, all is received. From a sugar-cane press trough, as it flows out, he says, "Take the juice!" The act of bringing is not evident, so it should not be taken. But if he discards the dregs,