English
makes it its own, and then places it near, outside the boundary, the Sangha that made it is the owner, and likewise for attendants. If the deceased's requisites were placed as a deposit, that person is the owner. If it is very valuable, the Sangha is the owner of the rest. The way of saying "by some attendant of the sick" is shown by this. Furthermore, when there are many attendants, the Buddha, showing the act of giving to all, said "to the attendants of the sick" in the kammavācā. In the novice's section, the reading is "robe." "I give this to you, I give, I bestow, I offer, I abandon, I release, I relinquish," or "I give to so-and-so...pe...I relinquish," he says, "whether said in person or not, it is given." And for the characteristic of giving, and for the characteristic of taking, "When 'take it for yourself' is said, he says 'I take it for myself,' 'well-given, well-taken'" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469) Since these are stated, "My property and yours and mine should be," by such a statement, it is permissible to make it common property, say the teachers, it is written. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, having elaborated excessively, again This is the teachers' conclusion here – If many, or two, wish to make a common provision, all of them give their own existing property, along with what will arise, to one trustworthy person, he then gives it back to them, by this much they become those with common provision. This characteristic of common provision, by falling into the characteristics stated in the Pāli and so on, becomes unshakable, nevertheless, it should be rejected because it goes against the ancient custom, "It should be done according to the teachers' opinion by one who wishes to do it," thus it is said by others, "A novice who has spent the rains, having transgressed one of the five training rules, and is taken back, does not receive the gain, he is said to have fallen into a final offense," so they say. Explanation of the story of robes not arisen for those who have spent the rains 375. Here, concerning "when robes have arisen but not been distributed, he departs," even if it is announced, "The Saṅgha agrees to give each bhikkhu so much rain-residence-robe from what has arisen there," if he wanders away, then he does not receive it. Even if he re-ordains and re-receives ordination and expects a share of robes, he does not receive it, because he has fallen from his previous status. "But if he wanders away after it has been brought to him, he receives it," so it is said. Explanation of the story of the arising of robes when the Saṅgha is split 376. "Beyond the ocean" means in Jambudīpa. Explanation of the story of the eight robe categories 379. Since the place suitable for enclosure, if unenclosed, is difficult to know, therefore "furthermore" and so on is said. There, even a place of permanent assembly should be taken as being within the boundary. "In the Mahāpaccariya, however, even among bhikkhus... (etc.)... it reaches," refers to what is given with the thought, "We give it within the boundary of the vicinity," thus it is written. When "within the boundary of common residence" is said, it does not reach those who are in fragmented boundaries and so on, because those have separate boundaries of common residence. This is the difference between boundaries of common residence and boundaries of non-separation – what is given with "I give it within the boundary of non-separation" does not reach a village area. Why? Because "excluding the village and the village vicinity" is said. It is heated. But that which is given "within a shared dwelling boundary," where there is a non-separation boundary, reaches those who are there and those who are elsewhere. It is said, "Having stood in a partial boundary, if one says, 'I give to the assembly within the boundary,' it should be given by defining it only within the approach boundary." Some say, "If, standing in a partial boundary, one gives, saying, 'We give within a non-separation boundary,' it reaches only there." Regarding "they sit filling even a hundred yojanas," some say the approach is by hand-reach within the monastery precincts, and by twelve cubits in outer villages and so on. Some say, "If one says, 'to the assembly in this monastery,' it does not reach those who, though united, stand beyond the area suitable for enclosure." They say, "If, standing anywhere outside a nunnery, one says, 'to the assembly,' the assembly of monks alone is the owner." Regarding "even one going," either it should be made to reach all and then one goes, or it should be brought and made to reach, otherwise, it does not reach the one who went. A pact for equal shares might exist if there is a main dwelling; with the destruction of the main dwelling, the pact also perishes. The phrase "equal shares" is appropriate for two or many. Therefore, it is our opinion that it is appropriate when one remains. "By temporary time, or by way of root-cutting; The act of others for another would not be an assembly of dwellings." — The Teacher. They say, "It is given everywhere," meaning "it is an equal share." They say, "If one says, 'each one reaches us,' it is valid," because a division has been made. They say, "When robes are given to the assembly of monks, it is not valid for the rag-robe wearers." When "to both assemblies" is said, because "to the assembly of monks" is not said, because it is mixed with the assembly of nuns, and because it is not included therein, the individual receives separately. If so, "When I give to the assembly of monks and to the assembly of nuns" is said, does this contradict "it is considered given to both assemblies"? It does not contradict; that merely shows the state of being given to two assemblies, not the designation of both assemblies. It exists, therefore the phrase "to the community of monks and to the community of nuns and to you" is not stated. Or else, the commentary's statement itself is the authority, not (our own) reasoning, say some. Because one (monk) is not of two kinds like one who takes a journey, therefore by the inclusion of both communities, a single monk is not included. When it is said "to all residences and to the shrine and to the Dhamma," they say that in all monasteries, a share should be given to each and every monk for the shrines and the Dhamma. If it is said "to the community of monks and to the shrine," would it not be contradictory? No, because "to the community of monks" is stated there, and here it is connected with the monastery, therefore a single share must be received in each and every monastery, they explain. Having brought it to oneself, because it is not to be used at the wrong time, would all of it be permissible? Because "bring it to the community of monks" is stated, and because it was taken by him (with the intention) "I will bring it," it is not permissible. In "even for those who have spent the last rains retreat," the word "even" here has an emphatic meaning; the meaning is "only for those who have spent the last rains retreat." Otherwise, if taken in the sense of conjunction, the statement "the experts say" would be meaningless. Starting with "Why?", they elaborate. What is the point of that? Because it is established later by "from the robe month onwards... (etc.)... it reaches only those who have spent the past rains retreat," it is not discussed (further). Therefore, "the experts" is said in an unshakeable sense. But if one stands outside the boundary of the precinct... (etc.)... it reaches all who have arrived, the intention is "for those who have spent the rains retreat anywhere," because it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (commentary on the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, Akālacīvarasikkhāpada-vaṇṇanā) "it reaches all who have arrived, who have spent the rains retreat anywhere." But if it is said "from the first day of summer onwards," because they are considered to have spent the immediately preceding winter, not the rains, therefore it is said "the list should be drawn up." Or those who were sent by the elders, the meaning is that it reaches them. The commentary on the Robe Chapter is finished. 9. The commentary on the Campeyya Chapter Description of the Expulsion, etc. 395. Here, "expulsion not due" means expulsion is allowed only for those who corrupt families. But this one is not a family-corrupter, therefore he is called "not due." If so, how is he well-expelled? Because it is said in the Cūḷavagga, "If the Saṅgha wishes, it may perform the act of banishment." And from the saying, "They perform the act of Tassapāpiyasika for one who deserves the Tassapāpiyasika act," it should be understood that they set the wheel in motion. Description of Upāli's Question 400. It is written, "After Upāli's question." In the Dosārita Pāḷi, it is said, "One under twenty years old does not come, because the matter is confused." In this Campeyya Khandhaka, it should be known that unlawful acts are divided into two, and five have come. Therefore, in the Parivāra, it is said in this Khandhaka, "Five unlawful acts." By "the blind, mute, and deaf one was expelled," it is established that ordination can be conferred even on one who has not gone forth. The description of the Campeyya Khandhaka is finished. 10. Description of the Kosambaka Khandhaka Description of the Kosambaka Dispute 451. Here, "Suttantika" although it is said, "a Vinaya-holder, a Mātikā-holder," it is said with reference to the Ubhatovibhaṅga, not that he is a Khandhaka-reciter. The saying, "Friends, here is an offense," is taken as the basis for saying, "He has the view of an offense regarding that offense." Later, the Vinaya-holder, having regained his mindfulness, thinking, "The basis is the measure, not the promulgation," had the view of an offense regarding that offense. Therefore, it is said at the end, "Other bhikkhus have the view of an offense regarding that offense." 455. They write, "As I declared,"