English
What then of one who encircles it many times? Bringing it through the spaces of elephant-tusk-shaped projections, making it hang down, and again encircling the elephant-tusk-shaped projection, this too is called "pūrima". But it is proper to insert a flower ring into the elephant-tusk-shaped projection. They make a flower cloth with flower garlands. There too, it is proper to take only one flower garland. Bringing it back again, it becomes "pūrima". All that is not proper, in the same way as "pūrima". But having obtained a flower string made with many flower garlands, it is proper to tie it to the top of a seat and the like. But an excessively long flower garland, having taken it once and encircled it, it is proper to give it to another bhikkhu again. And it is proper for him to do likewise. "Vāyima" (weaving/intertwining) should be understood in flower nets, flower cloths, and flower figures. For one making a flower net at a shrine, there is an offense of wrong-doing for each net-hole. The same rule applies to walls, umbrellas, Bodhi trees, pillars, and the like. But a flower cloth, even if filled by others, it is not permitted to weave. They make figures of elephants, horses, and the like with woven flowers. These also stand in the category of "vāyima". All of it is not proper, in the same way as "pūrima". But in a section made by others... By arranging flowers, it is permissible to make figures even of elephants, horses, and so on. But in the Mahāpaccari, eight kinds of flower arrangements are mentioned, together with kaḷambaka and aḍḍhacandaka. 32. There, 'kaḷambaka' means a hanging string of bells between crescent shapes. 'Aḍḍhacandaka' means an encirclement of flower garlands in a crescent shape. Both of these are included in the former. But in the Kurundi, it is said, "Making flower garlands by combining two or three strings of flowers is also permissible." That too is included here in the former category. And not only flower garlands, garlands made of flour and spherical flower garlands are also mentioned in the Kurundi. Even garlands of rough leaves, because of the commonality of the training rule, for both monks and nuns, it is not permissible to make or to have made. But for the purpose of veneration, it is permissible to speak a suitable word everywhere. Actions for the purpose of indirect illumination are permissible. Whoever, having brought or having caused to be brought, or having called or having caused to be called, or to those who have come by themselves, gives any flower belonging to oneself for the purpose of family support, for him, it is a dukkaṭa. If he gives what belongs to others, it is a dukkaṭa indeed. If he gives with a thieving mind, he should be made to pay the price of the goods. This rule applies to what belongs to the Sangha as well. But this is the distinction: what is designated for lodgings, if given with authority, it is a thullaccaya. 33. To whom is it permissible to give flowers, and to whom is it not permissible? To parents, having brought or having caused to be brought, or having called or having caused to be called, it is permissible to give. To other relatives, only by having them called. And that, for the purpose of venerating objects. But for the purpose of adornment, or for the veneration of Shiva lingams, etc., it is not permissible to give to anyone. And when causing flowers to be brought for parents, it should be caused to be brought by relatives or novices. But if others themselves desire it, it is permissible. By a duly appointed flower distributor, it is permissible to give half a share to the novices who are present at the time of flower distribution. But in the Kurundi, "half a share to laypeople who are present," in the Mahāpaccari, "small..." "To whom is it proper to give?" it is said. It should be given after informing, without formal resolution. Novices, respectful to teachers, bring many flowers, make a pile and place them. Elders, to those arriving early, co-residents or lay followers, say, "You take this, you take that," and give them. This is not called a 'flower-gift'. Even those going, taking flowers, saying, "We will worship the shrine," even while worshipping, give them to those arriving, for shrine worship. This also is not called a 'flower-gift'. Seeing lay followers worshipping with Akka flowers, it is proper to say: "In the monastery are Kanikara flowers, lay followers, take those and worship." When monks, having worshipped with flowers, enter the village early, people ask, "Why, venerable sirs, have you entered so early?" They say, "Many flowers were in the monastery, we performed worship." People, thinking, "Indeed, many flowers in the monastery," the next day, take abundant food and edibles, go to the monastery, perform flower worship, and give donations. This is proper. 34. People, requesting a turn for flower worship, saying, "Venerable sirs, we will worship on such a day," arrive on the permitted day. Novices have already picked and placed the flowers. They, not seeing flowers on trees, say, "Where, venerable sirs, are the flowers?" (Monks reply) "Novices picked and placed them. You, however, worship and go. The Sangha will worship another day." They worship, give donations, and go. This is proper. But in Mahāpaccariya and Kurundi, it is said: "Elders are not allowed to have novices give them. If they themselves give those flowers, it is proper. But elders should only say, 'Novices have picked and placed them'." But if, having requested a turn, when flowers are not yet picked, they come, bringing gruel and rice, and tell the novices, "Pick and give them," it is proper for only the known novices to pick and give them. To unknown ones... having lifted, they place on a tree branch, it should not be taken down and run away with, it is permissible to pick and give. But if some Dhamma speaker says, "Many lay followers, having taken flowers, gruel, rice, etc., to the monastery, perform flower offerings," for him it is not permissible – so it is said in the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundi. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said without distinction, "This is not permissible, it is not proper." 35. Even one's own fruit, in the manner stated, is permissible to give to parents and other relatives. But for one who gives for the purpose of gathering families, in the manner stated, in the case of one's own property, others' property, Sangha property, and property designated for dwellings, dukkaṭa (wrongdoing) and so on should be understood. It is permissible to give one's own property to sick people, or to arriving rulers, or to those whose provisions are exhausted; it is not a gift of fruit. Even by a fruit distributor approved by the Sangha, at the time of distributing fruit, it is permissible to give half a share to people who have arrived, by one not approved, it should be given after informing. Even in a monastery, an agreement should be made by specifying the fruit or by specifying the trees, "From there, to sick people or to others who ask for fruit, four or five fruits should be given according to the specification, or trees should be pointed out, 'It is allowed to take from here.'" But it should not be said, "The fruits here are beautiful, take from here." If one gives one's own sirīsa powder or any other astringent for the purpose of gathering families, it is a dukkaṭa. The decision regarding others' property and so on should be understood in the manner stated. But this is a distinction – even tree bark guarded and protected by the Sangha is heavy property. Even regarding clay, tooth-sticks, bamboo leaves, knowing them to be akin to heavy property, the decision regarding powder should be understood in the manner stated. 36. "Jaṅghapesaniya" is called the act of carrying messages or errands for lay people, that should not be done. For one who goes carrying a message for lay people, there is a dukkaṭa at every step. Having obtained food by means of that act... Even when eating food by taking it in, by taking it in, there is a dukkaṭa. Even without taking the message at first, later thinking, “Now this is that village, come, I will announce the message to them,” at every step, as he deviates from the path, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who eats the food received after announcing the message, there is a dukkaṭa in the same way as before. But for one who came without taking a message, when asked, “Venerable sir, what is the news of so-and-so in that village?” it is permissible to tell; there is no fault in the question asked. However, it is permissible to carry a message for five co-religionists: parents, a sick person, and one's own attendant. And also a permissible message for laypeople. Therefore, in messages such as: “By my words, venerate the feet of the Blessed One,” or “Venerate the stupa, the image, the Bodhi tree, the elder of the Saṅgha,” or “Offer perfume to the stupa,” or “Offer flowers,” or “Assemble the bhikkhus, we will give alms, we will have the Dhamma taught,” no remorse should be felt for such messages. For these are permissible messages, not those connected with laypeople's lay duties. However, the requisites arising from these eight acts of corrupting families are not permissible even for the five co-religionists. They are similar to requisites arising from false reports and transactions involving money. But for one who has undergone the Pabbājanīya Kamma, in whichever village or town the act of corrupting families was done, and in whichever monastery he resides, he is not allowed to wander in that village or town, nor to reside in that monastery. And even after the act of reconciliation, the requisites arising from those families in which the act of corrupting families was previously done should not be accepted; they should not be accepted even by one who has attained the destruction of the defilements; they are impermissible. If, when asked, “Why do you not accept them?”