English
included therein. Regarding boundaries of provinces, countries, kingdoms, islands, and world-systems, the decision is the same as stated for village boundaries and so on. If, however, one standing in Jambudīpa says, "I give to the Saṅgha in Tambapaṇṇidīpa," even one person coming from Tambapaṇṇidīpa can take for all. Even if there one kindred bhikkhu takes the share for kindred ones, he should not be prevented. Thus far, the decision regarding the gift of one who refers to a boundary should be understood. But if one does not know how to say "in such-and-such a boundary," knowing only the mere word "boundary," comes to the monastery and says, "I give within the boundary," or "I give to the Saṅgha within the boundary," he should be asked, "Boundaries are of many kinds; which boundary do you mean?" If he says, "I do not know 'such-and-such a boundary'; let the Saṅgha within the boundary divide and take it," by which boundary should it be divided? The Great Elder Sīva, it is said, said, "By the non-separation boundary." Then they said to him, "The non-separation boundary can be three yojanas. If that is the case, those standing three yojanas away will take the acquisition. Standing three yojanas away, one will have to fulfill the duties of a visitor and enter the monastery. A traveler, having gone three yojanas, will ask for lodging. For one who has undertaken reliance, reliance will be relaxed upon exceeding three yojanas. A probationer will have to let the dawn rise after exceeding three yojanas. A bhikkhunī will have to ask for entry to the monastery while standing three yojanas away. All of this is the precinct boundary. should be done only by way of delimitation, therefore it should be divided by the boundary of the vicinity.” 200. Here, in “Katikāya detīti” (gives by agreement), “katikā” means an agreement for equal gains. There, such an agreement should be made: the bhikkhus assembled in one monastery, who wish to include a monastery and make its gains equal, should take its name and say, “Such and such a monastery is ancient,” or “inhabited by the Buddha,” or “has few gains,” or state any reason, and then say three times, “It pleases the Sangha to make that monastery have equal gains with this monastery.” By this much, one sitting in that monastery is considered as sitting here. In that monastery too, the Sangha should do likewise. By this much, one sitting here is considered as sitting there. When gains are being distributed in one monastery, it is proper for one staying in the other to receive a share. In this way, many residences can be made to have equal gains with one monastery. And when this is done, what is given in one residence is considered as given everywhere. 201. “Bhikkhāpaññatti” (declaration of alms) is the place for declaring one’s donation, where permanent arrangements are made for the Sangha. Here, in which monastery the donor of robes has a permanent arrangement for the Sangha’s cooked food, or in which monastery bhikkhus, taking it upon themselves, always feed at home, or where he has built a residence, or where ticket-meals and the like are established—these are called permanent arrangements. And for one who has established the entire monastery, there is nothing to be said. Therefore, if he says, “I give where my permanent arrangements are made,” or “Give there,” and even if there are permanent arrangements in many places, it is considered as given everywhere. If, however, in one monastery there are many bhikkhus, they should say, “In your permanent arrangements, in one place there are many bhikkhus, in another few.” If he says, “Take by the number of bhikkhus,” it is proper to divide and take in that way. Here, as for requisites and medicines, Even a little is easily divided. But if there is only one couch or chair, having asked to which monastery, or even in one monastery, to which lodging it belongs, it should be given there. Even if he says, "Let such-and-such a monk take it," it is permissible. Then, if he says, "Give it to my permanent residence," and goes without considering, it is permissible for the Sangha to consider it. But it should be considered thus: it should be said, "Give it to the residence of the Sangha's elder." If the lodging there is full, it should be given where it is not sufficient. If one monk says, "There are no lodging requisites in my residence," it should be given there. 202. Here, regarding "gives to the Sangha," if one enters a monastery and gives, saying, "I give these robes to the Sangha," they should be divided by the Sangha standing within the boundary, having struck the bell and announced the time. Even if a boundary-dweller has not arrived, he should not be prevented from taking his share. The monastery is large; when robes are being given, starting from the elder's seat, lazy great elders arrive late. It should not be said, "Venerable sirs, it is given to those of twenty years; your time has passed." Setting aside the time limit, having given to them, it should then be given according to the time limit. Hearing, "Indeed, many robes have arisen in such-and-such a monastery," monks come even from a monastery a yojana away. It should be given to those who have arrived, starting from their established place. Even to those who have not arrived but have entered the boundary, it should be given when their disciples, etc., take it. If they say, "Give to those standing outside the boundary," it should not be given. But if, having entered the boundary, they are united as one, either at their monastery gate or within the monastery itself, the boundary is said to have expanded by virtue of the assembly, therefore it should be given. Even if given to a new monk of the Sangha, it should be given to those who arrive later. But in the second division, for those who arrive when the elder's seat has been taken, the first share is not due, the second... By share, by seniority, it should be given. In one monastery there are ten monks. They give ten robes, saying, "We give to the Sangha." They should be divided individually. If they take them, saying, "All belong to us," and go, they are badly acquired and badly taken. Wherever they go, they remain Sangha property. But having taken out one, having assigned it to the senior monk, saying, "This belongs to you," it is permissible to take the rest, saying, "The rest belong to us." They bring only one robe, saying, "We give to the Sangha." Without dividing it, they take it, saying, "It belongs to us." It is badly acquired and badly taken. Having made a mark with a knife or turmeric, etc., having assigned one part to the senior monk, saying, "This part belongs to you," it is permissible to take the rest, saying, "The rest belong to us." But as for the flower or fold of the robe itself, it is not permissible to make a division by that. If having pulled out one thread, having given it to the elder, saying, "This part belongs to you," they take the rest, saying, "The rest belong to us," it is permissible. If it is divided by cutting it into pieces, it is certainly permissible. In a monastery with one monk, when robes for the Sangha arise, if that monk takes them, in the manner previously stated, saying, "All belong to me," they are well-taken, but the fixed rule does not stand. If he takes them, having taken out each one, saying, "This belongs to me," the fixed rule stands. In that case, with the fixed rule not standing, when another robe arises again, if one monk comes, it should be cut in the middle and taken by both. With the fixed rule standing, when another robe arises again, if a younger monk comes, the fixed rule descends. If an older monk comes, the fixed rule ascends. If there is no other, it should be assigned to oneself again and taken. Saying, "We give to the Sangha," or "We give to the community of monks," but that which is given by touching the Sangha in any way, is not for the rag-robe wearers. It is allowable, because it is said: "I reject a householder's robe, I undertake the practice of a rag-robe wearer." But not because it is unsuitable. Even if given by the community of bhikkhus after informing them, it should not be taken. But that which a bhikkhu gives from his own possession, that is called a bhikkhu's gift, and is allowable, but it is not a rag-robe. Even so, the ascetic practice is not broken. But when it is said: "We give to the bhikkhus, we give to the elders," it is allowable even for rag-robe wearers. And even if it is given with the words: "We give this cloth to the Saṅgha, let them make sandal-bags, bowl-bags, shoulder-straps, and so forth, with it," it is allowable. Many things given for the purpose of bowl-bags and so forth are sufficient even for robes; it is allowable to make a robe from them and wear it. But if the Saṅgha divides the surplus cloths, cuts them up, and allots them for the purpose of sandal-bags and so forth, it is not allowable to take from them. Indeed, only that which has been considered by the owners is allowable, not otherwise. Even if it is said to a rag-robe wearer: "We give for the purpose of the Saṅgha's water-strainers, mats, and so forth," it is allowable to take it, for requisites are desirable even for rag-robe wearers. What is surplus there, it is allowable to apply even to a robe. They give thread to the Saṅgha; it should be taken even by rag-robe wearers. This, then, is the decision regarding things given by entering a monastery and saying: "I give these robes to the Saṅgha." But if, seeing bhikkhus on a journey outside the boundary of the precinct, one informs the senior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha or the junior bhikkhu of the Saṅgha, saying: "I give to the Saṅgha," even if the assembly is spread out for a league, if they are connected as one, it reaches all of them. But those who are not reached by the assembly within twelve cubits, it does not reach them. 203. Here, regarding "gives to both Saṅghas": even if it is said: