English
which is clear to all. Therefore, this statement also should be understood as not proving the donor's ownership. Let it be so, yet because it is said in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.538-539): "If, knowing that it has been given up by the bhikkhus, the owner, or his sons and daughters, or anyone else born in his lineage, gives it again with a proper transaction, it is permissible." Therefore, the authority of the donor, who was the owner of the monastery, or of his sons, daughters, and others born in his lineage, to give it, is indeed established. It is not established. Why so? Was it not said: "knowing that it has been given up by the bhikkhus"? Therefore, what has been given up by the bhikkhus, being improper, is given again by the donors and others with a proper transaction to make it proper; then it is permissible. Just as, because it has not been received and has not been consumed by the bhikkhus, the food and edibles belonging to the bhikkhus are made to be received by the donors and others for the purpose of freeing from an offense, not what has been consumed. And just as what belongs to the category of seeds... To free what belongs to bhikkhus from being seed-produce and earth-produce, stewards and others make it allowable, not what is not included. Similarly, for what is unallowable, like ponds, already relinquished by bhikkhus, donors and others give it again to make it allowable, not what is not relinquished. Therefore, this statement also proves the act of making allowable, not ownership, it is understood. Even so, they might say this: "In Jātibhūmi, the lay followers of Jātibhūmi expelled the venerable Thera Dhammika from the seven Jātibhūmi monasteries," by this statement, "the donor is understood to be the owner of the monastery. Indeed, by being owners, they could expel the Thera, not if they were not owners." But this should not be seen this way. Why? Indeed, it is said "lay followers of Jātibhūmi," not "donors of the monastery." Therefore, many lay followers living in that region expelled the venerable Thera Dhammika from all seven monasteries due to his improper conduct, not by their ownership as monastery donors. Therefore, this example also does not indicate ownership, but rather indicates the act of doing what is appropriate to the offense. This should be understood. Thus, when a donor establishes and gives a monastery, from the time of giving, having reached his intention of relinquishment, neither he, nor one born in his lineage, nor kings who are lords of the country, nor others, are able to be owners or to manage it. The recipient, whether the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, only that one is able to be owner or to manage it. This should be understood. If it is asked, "How is it understood that donors and others are unable to be owners there?" "Because giving is characterized by the relinquishment of an object, and because it is improper to take back an object like land, once relinquished," by the statement in the Vimativinodanī, and because it was said by the Blessed One: "I allow, bhikkhus, that which falls when being given, to be taken and consumed by oneself. That, bhikkhus, has been relinquished by the donors." (Cūḷava. 273) By the statement "That, bhikkhus, has been relinquished by the donors," It is understood because it is stated in the commentary: "Here, the absence of property belonging to others is explained." If it is asked, "How is it known that one cannot be the master of the Sangha and so on?" It is known from the fact that a Sanghika monastery is given and dedicated to the Sangha, and from the Pacittiya Pāli text which states: "If one perceives as personal what belongs to a person, one commits a dukkata offense with regard to another's personal property; there is no offense with regard to one's own personal property." And from the Samantapāsādikā, which states: "Even a four-finger-high pedestal made by village boys playing in sand-houses, from the moment it is given to the Sangha, becomes heavy property." And from the commentary on the second Pārājika, which states: "Even if one attempts to claim a monastery, a dwelling, or a residence, whether large or small, given to the Sangha of the four directions for the bhikkhus, the claim does not stand, and one cannot seize it. Why? Because not all can lay down the burden. For not all bhikkhus of the four directions lay down the burden here. But if one attempts to seize what belongs to a group such as the Dīghabhāṇakas, or to an individual, one can make them lay down the burden." If it is asked, "How is it known that donors and others cannot manage it?" It is known from the fact that even though there were donors like those of the Veḷuvana monastery, their management was not allowed, and it was permitted to appoint a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities as a lodging-assigner, saying: "I allow, bhikkhus, to appoint a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities as a lodging-assigner." And when the quarrelsome Kosambī bhikkhus came to Sāvatthī, and Anāthapiṇḍika and Visākhā the great laywoman, who were the donors of the Jetavana monastery and the Pubbārāma monastery respectively, reported to the Venerable Sāriputta Thera, saying: "How, Venerable Sir, should I act with regard to those bhikkhus?" Without speaking of their management of the lodgings, the Venerable Sāriputta Thera said: "How, Venerable Sir, should one act with regard to the lodgings of those bhikkhus?" When it was reported, saying, "In that case, Sāriputta, a secluded lodging should be given." When it was said, "But if, venerable sir, it is not secluded, how should one proceed?" (He said,) "In that case, it should be given even if it has to be made secluded. But I do not say, Sāriputta, that a lodging should be denied to an elder bhikkhu by any means. Whoever denies it, incurs an offense of wrong-doing." (Mahāva. 473) And thus it is understood that the arrangement of the elder's lodging itself is permitted. How then is it understood that the Saṅgha and others are allowed to arrange lodgings? "And thus, monks, it should be appointed – First, a bhikkhu should be asked, Having asked, the Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu –" "May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me... (etc.)... Such-and-such a bhikkhu has been appointed by the Saṅgha as the lodging-distributor. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent, thus I hold this." (Cūḷava. 317) Having thus had the lodging-distributor appointed by the Saṅgha, again, I allow, monks, that the method of taking lodgings be permitted by that lodging-distributor appointed by the Saṅgha: first, to count the bhikkhus, having counted the bhikkhus, to count the beds, having counted the beds, to take them by the seniority of beds. From this saying, it is understood that the Saṅgha is allowed to arrange Saṅgha-property lodgings. And from the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.102) stating: "If one takes a monastery, etc., given to a group such as the Dīghabhāṇakas, or to an individual, by seizing it, there is a possibility of a pārājika due to the removal of responsibility." And from the Pāli (Pāci. 117) stating: "No offense in one's personal property." And from the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 112) stating: "Where trust arises, that property becomes like one's own personal property, as stated in the Mahāpaccari and other texts." Therefore, a monastery given to a group, which is group property, is arranged by the group itself, not by donors or others. And a personal monastery given to an individual is also arranged by the individual recipient himself, not by donors or others. is understood. Thus, in the Vinaya texts, in the commentaries and sub-commentaries, since a monastery is spoken of as being of three kinds: belonging to the Sangha, belonging to a group, or belonging to an individual, and since the management of the monastery is permitted only to these Sangha, groups, and individuals, and since a monastery belonging to a donor is not mentioned separately, and since the management of a monastery by donors is not permitted, the Sangha and others are the owners of the monastery, and they alone are allowed to manage it. This should be understood. So be it. Among these recipients, the Sangha, groups, and individuals, to whom does that monastery belong, and by whom should it be managed? It is said: In the case of a Sangha-owned monastery, since it was given with the words, "I give this to the Sangha of the four directions, both present and future," even if the recipients have passed away, another Sangha of the four directions, and the future Sangha, are the owners. It belongs to them, and by them it should be managed. In the case of a group-owned monastery, as long as even one person remains in that group, it remains group-owned, and by that remaining bhikkhu it should be managed. If all have passed away, and if the entire group or the remaining individual belonging to that group, while still alive, gave it to someone, and it was received by someone through a bond of trust, that person is the owner. Even if the entire group, while still alive, gives it to another group, or to the Sangha, or to an individual, those other groups, Sangha, or individuals become the owners. In the case of an individual-owned monastery, if the owner of that monastery, while still alive, gives it to the Sangha, or to a group, or to an individual, they become the owners. Or if someone, while he is still alive, receives it through a bond of trust, that person alone becomes the owner. This should be understood. How is it understood? If it is a Sangha-owned monastery, since it is a heavy property, it is not to be alienated, it is not to be divided, it should not be given to anyone. In the case of group-owned and individual-owned monasteries, since they are their owners, giving and receiving through trust are valid. Therefore, if he, while still alive, renounced all his requisites and gave them to someone,