English
or if someone received them through trust, it belongs to the one to whom it was given, and by whom it was received. and "the property of two is undivided, when one dies, the other is the owner, and the same rule applies to the property of many," it is understood from what is said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 369). However, having given away what was not given, a gift saying, "May this be for so-and-so after my death," is not valid because it is a gift after death. For this is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 419): "If indeed, among five co-religionists, anyone dying says, 'After my death, may my requisites be for the preceptor, may they be for the teacher, may they be for the fellow-dweller, may they be for the pupil, may they be for the mother, may they be for the father, or may they be for anyone else,' they do not belong to them, they belong only to the Saṅgha. For a gift after death by five co-religionists is not valid, but it is valid for householders." And here, some Vinaya-holders, taking the word "gihīnaṃ" as the recipient, say that when monks' property is given to householders as a gift after death, it is valid, but when given to five co-religionists, it is not valid. If so, even giving to mother and father would be valid, because they are householders. But from the statement, 'If he says, "May it be for the mother, may it be for the father, or may it be for anyone else," it does not belong to them,' it is understood that it is not valid. Therefore, "but for householders" is not a word for the recipient, but rather it should be understood as a word for the owner. Thus, the connection should be made as: "but a gift after death of householders' property is valid." Furthermore – starting with "If indeed, among five co-religionists, anyone dying, my requisites after my death," and because it is said, "For a gift after death by five co-religionists is not valid, but it is valid for householders," the genitive plural in the sense of ownership is supported. If so, if the word "gihīnaṃ" is not the recipient, then what is the recipient? The word "yassa kassaci" (for anyone). For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 419): "May it be for the mother, may it be for the father, for any other..." or may it belong to anyone." This meaning should be explained by the story of Ajjuka (Parajika 158). Thus, the decision regarding those who died after giving while still alive is known by us. But how should the decision be known regarding those who died without giving to anyone? Even there, in the case of what belongs to the Sangha, as stated below, the Sangha itself is the owner. But in the case of what belongs to a group, in some instances, the remaining members are the owners; in all cases of death, the Sangha itself is the owner. For it is said in the commentary (Mahavagga Atthakatha 369): "In all cases of death, it belongs to the Sangha." But in the case of personal property, because a monastery is heavy property, it is inalienable, indivisible, and belongs to the Sangha. If it is asked, how is this understood? "When a bhikkhu, monks, passes away, the Sangha is the owner of his bowl and robes. Moreover, the attendants of the sick are of great help. I allow, monks, for the Sangha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants of the sick. Whatever light property, light requisites are there, let them be divided by the Sangha present. Whatever heavy property, heavy requisites are there, let them be inalienable and indivisible for the Sangha of the four directions, present and not present." (Mahavagga 369) It is understood because it was said by the Blessed One, the Knower, the Seer, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. Even so, the Blessed One said "heavy property, heavy requisites," not "monastery." Therefore, how is it understood that a monastery is heavy property? "A monastery, a monastery site, this is the second indivisible thing," in the Pali text, "Two are of two categories, the third is of four categories; The fourth has nine divisions, the fifth has eight distinctions. Thus, with these five aggregates, the one with five pure eyes; The Lord declared twenty-five kinds of heavy property." (Cullavagga Atthakatha 321) And it is understood because it is stated in the commentary. Thus, a donor, having made a monastery, gives it to a bhikkhu who frequents the family. Before the arising of the intention to relinquish it, the donor is the owner of the monastery. He is free to give it or to consider it. From the arising of the intention to relinquish, the bhikkhu who receives it is the owner. who is empowered to use or give to others. That person, while still alive, assigns and gives to his pupils and others. Then those pupils and others become the owners, empowered to use or give to others. But if he dies without giving to anyone, then the Saṅgha itself becomes the owner of that monastery, not the donor or any individual. An individual may use it only with the Saṅgha's permission, not by his own authority. This should be understood. Thus, a monastery that is Saṅghika, having been given to the Saṅgha from the very root, or a monastery that was originally given to a group or individuals, and thus belonged to a group or individuals, but later became Saṅghika because those group members or individuals died without assigning it to anyone else, must be managed by the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha, too, with the Buddha's permission, should appoint a bhikkhu to be the allocator of lodgings and have him allocate them. For it is said in the Chapter on Lodgings (Cūḷavagga 317): "Then it occurred to the bhikkhus: 'By whom, pray, should lodgings be allocated?' They reported this matter to the Blessed One. 'I allow, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities be appointed as the allocator of lodgings,'" and so on. In this passage, the teachers say: "The allocation of lodgings is of three kinds: allocation for the rainy season, allocation for the other seasons, and allocation for permanent residence. Among these, allocation for the rainy season is of two kinds: allocation for the first rainy season, and allocation for the later rainy season. Allocation for the other seasons is also of two kinds: allocation for those who come in between, and allocation for those who wish to retreat at that moment." This seems inconsistent with the Pāḷi and the commentaries. For in the Pāḷi (Cūḷavagga 318): "Then it occurred to the bhikkhus: 'How many kinds of lodging allocation are there?' They reported this matter to the Blessed One. 'These, bhikkhus, are three kinds of lodging allocation: the former, the latter, the intermediate.'" When Asalha has not passed, the early (vassa) should be taken. When Asalha has passed, the late (vassa) should be taken. When Pavarana has not passed, for future rains-residence, the intermediate (vassa) should be taken. "These, monks, are the three ways of taking lodgings," thus it is stated. And in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): "Among the three ways of taking lodgings, the early and the late, these two ways are fixed. Regarding the intermediate, this is the decision... (etc.). This, then, is the discourse on taking lodgings that appears in the Pāli, concerning the rains-residence, such as the commencement of the rains-residence. But this taking of lodgings is of two kinds: in the season and in the rains-residence," thus it is stated. Therefore, it should be considered by the one appointed by the Sangha to assign lodgings. Taking lodgings is of two kinds: taking lodgings in the season, and taking lodgings in the rains-residence. Therein, the season means eight months, according to the winter season and the hot season. During that time, monks are of unfixed residence. Therefore, whenever they come, lodgings should be given to them after making monks rise. There is no 'unseasonable time'. This is called taking lodgings in the season. But taking lodgings in the rains-residence is of three kinds, according to the way it appears in the Pāli: "the early, the late, the intermediate." For the intermediate (vassa), because it is taken for the purpose of future rains-residence, it falls under taking lodgings in the rains-residence itself. It is not taking lodgings in the season. For it was said by the Blessed One: "When Pavarana has not passed, for future rains-residence, the intermediate (vassa) should be taken." Taking lodgings for immediate seclusion is not mentioned separately in either the Pāli or the commentary. They say that taking lodgings in the season is itself taking lodgings for that specific purpose, or taking lodgings for immediate seclusion. Therefore, it should not be said that taking lodgings according to the season is also "of two kinds: taking lodgings as an intermediate (vassa) and taking lodgings for immediate seclusion." Even if they say, "Among the five ways of taking lodgings as stated, four ways of taking lodgings..." By a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities, appointed as allocator of lodgings, being within the precinct boundary, lodgings should be allocated to bhikkhus within the boundary, according to the Vinaya. But those allocations do not remain permanent for all time. Only the allocation for permanent residence remains permanent for all time. But that too cannot be said thus. Why? In the section on the allocator of lodgings, the phrase 'allocation of lodgings for permanent residence' is not found in the Pāli or commentaries. And the allocation for permanent residence is not to be made by the appointed allocator of lodgings. Rather, it is the giving by the harmonious Sangha by way of an 'announcement act' making it unremovable for a bhikkhu endowed with two qualities. Therefore, the harmonious Sangha, having appointed a bhikkhu endowed with two qualities, namely, being of great benefit and having excellent qualities, by way of an 'announcement act', gives him a suitable dwelling, making it unremovable for permanent residence.