English
that donation is Saṅghika. And just as when 'I give a Kathina robe' is said, it is Saṅghika." In this regard, it should be considered thus: The statement (Pari. 408) "the Saṅgha is one root of the Kathina" shows the root of the Kathina, the cause of the Kathina. Just as when a root exists, a tree stands; when it does not exist, it does not stand. Therefore, the root is the cause of the tree, it is the support. In the same way, when the Saṅgha exists, there is Kathina; not when it does not exist. Therefore, the Saṅgha is called the root of the Kathina, the cause of the Kathina. How is there Kathina when the Saṅgha exists? By the Saṅgha, consisting of at least four bhikkhus, giving the Kathina robe to a bhikkhu worthy of spreading it, with a motion and a second declaration, only then is it called a Kathina spread with that robe, not if it is not given. Therefore, if a Saṅgha of four is not obtainable, even if it is said a thousand times, "I give Kathina," it is not called Kathina. Therefore, in a monastery delimited by a conventional boundary, if one, or two, or three, or four bhikkhus dwell, and a Kathina robe arises there, by seeking from elsewhere, when a Saṅgha of four, with one recipient, making five bhikkhus, is complete, one obtains to spread the Kathina; not if it is not complete. Thus, only when the Saṅgha exists, Kathina... It is a debt, not when it is non-existent. Therefore, referring to the Sangha as the root and cause of the Kathina, it is said, "The Sangha is one root of the Kathina." When "Kathina" is said, it is only for the Sangha, not for an individual—this meaning is not found in this passage. Just as, "The Sangha is one root of a legal question" (Cv. 219) here, a legal question, which consists of the acts of announcement, motion, motion with a second, and motion with a fourth, exists only when there is a Sangha of four or more, not when it is non-existent. Therefore, referring to the Sangha as the root and cause of a legal question, it is said, "The Sangha is one root of a legal question." This should be understood in the same way. Although it is said, "Just as in phrases like 'I give to the boundary,' 'I give to the dwelling,' that gift belongs to the Sangha, so too, when 'I give Kathina' is said, even if given to an individual, it belongs to the Sangha, it is for the Sangha," nevertheless, such a consideration should be made: In phrases like "I give to the boundary," "I give to the dwelling," the boundary and the dwelling are not the recipients of the gift. Therefore, it belongs to the Sangha that is at the boundary and at the dwelling. But an individual is indeed a recipient of a gift. Therefore, if this Kathina robe is given "to the monk named so-and-so" either in his absence, or placed at his feet in his presence, how could it belong to the Sangha, be the property of the Sangha? Thus, an individual's robe, not dedicated to the Sangha, would be dedicated to the Sangha. It would be one of the nine unrighteous gifts. The acceptance of that robe would be one of the nine unrighteous acceptances. The use of that robe would be one of the nine unrighteous uses. How is this understood, you ask? The nine unrighteous gifts are: dedicating to another Sangha, or to a cetiya, or to an individual, what was dedicated to the Sangha; dedicating to another cetiya, or to the Sangha, or to an individual, what was dedicated to a cetiya. Or he dedicates it to him. What is dedicated to a person, he dedicates to another person, or to the Sangha, or to a cetiya. Having looked at the Parivāra Pāli (pari. 329) where it says "nine unlawful uses," and the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 329) where it says "nine acceptances and uses, these are the acceptances and uses of these very gifts," it is understood. And also they say thus: A donor sends to the Sangha-thera, or to one known for his study of texts and ascetic practices, or to the food-distributor, saying, "Take eight bhikkhus and come for our meal." Even if sent by relatives or supporters, these three persons are not allowed to ask. Having established the rule, they must have eight bhikkhus designated by the Sangha and go, they themselves being the ninth. Why? Because for the community of bhikkhus, gain arises dependent on these bhikkhus. However, a resident bhikkhu not known for his study of texts and ascetic practices is allowed to ask. Therefore, he should establish the rule, saying, "Shall I take from the Sangha, or shall I go with those whom I know?" and act as the donors say (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325). In such instances, by referring to the statement "gain for the Sangha arises dependent on a person," it is understood that "gain for the Sangha arises dependent on a person, and the gain received by a person, when given by touching the Sangha, becomes subject to the Sangha." Even in this statement, such an investigation should be made: In that invitation, one does not invite merely a person, but rather a person with the Sangha. There, however, because "eight bhikkhus" was said instead of "the Sangha," an unknown person is allowed to ask, "Shall I take from the Sangha, or shall I go with those whom I know?" But for the Sangha-thera, having lived upholding the Sangha, when "eight bhikkhus" is said, there is no reason to take others apart from the Sangha, being known for his study of texts and ascetic practices. Even a person, being dependent on the Sangha for merit, when "eight bhikkhus" are mentioned, takes it as the Sangha itself. And for the food distributor, who daily arranges food for the Sangha, when "eight bhikkhus" are mentioned, there is no reason to take it as anyone other than the Sangha. Thus, because it was an invitation with the Sangha, "Come with eight bhikkhus," it was said, "These three people are not allowed to ask." It was not that even if only a person was invited, "You come," one had to bring the Sangha. Thus, because a person was invited with the Sangha, "Come with eight bhikkhus," the Sangha is to be taken. Not because only a person was invited, "You all come." Therefore, it cannot be said, "The gain of a person is dependent on the Sangha." Even in commentaries and other texts, it is said, "Gain arises for the Sangha dependent on a person," not, "The gain of a person is dependent on the Sangha." And in the eight categories that are fields for robe-gain, "gives to the Sangha" is separate, and "gives to a person" is separate. Giving to a person means either saying indirectly, "I give this robe to so-and-so," or placing it at the feet and saying directly, "Venerable sir, I give this to you." But now, laymen or laywomen who wish to give robes, even without coming themselves, instructing sons, servants, etc., say, "Give this robe to the elder so-and-so," and have it given to a person. Even when they go themselves and give, they place it at the feet, or place it in the hand, or have it touched by hand, and give it, saying things like, "Venerable sir, this robe was made for you, sacrificing so much money, and prepared with such and such handiwork; therefore, you wear it, put it on, use it." They wish for that person alone to use it, not a gift to the Sangha. Some even speak without satisfaction. Thus, only intending a person... There is no reason for the Sangha to claim a robe given to an individual. "However, if one says, 'I give this to you and your pupils,' then it reaches the elder and his pupils," as it is stated (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379), when given with such a statement, it reaches the teacher's pupils, but not one who is not a pupil. "One who comes to receive instruction and goes away after receiving it, it also reaches him," as it is stated, it reaches even a Dhamma-pupil outside the boundary. "When it is said, 'I give this to the bhikkhus who constantly wander with you,' it reaches all the Dhamma-pupils who perform the duties of pupils, and who wander having received instruction and inquiry," as it is stated (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379), when given with such a statement, it reaches the Dhamma-pupils who perform the duties and practices, and the pupils. Thus, since the giving proceeds according to the donors' words, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers say, "As the donors say, so it should be done" (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325). Thus, nowadays, donors mostly give to individuals. Among hundreds and thousands, only one wise and learned donor might give to the Sangha. And a personal robe, if not made for the purpose of a Sanghika dwelling, is not fit for a Natti or a Kammavācā. How is this understood? Because of the contradiction with the Natti and Kammavācā. How is there a contradiction? In the Natti and Kammavācā, the Sanghika nature of the Kathina robe is stated as, "This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha." But now, that robe, according to the meaning of the statement, "given to an individual is personal," becomes personal. Thus, there is a contradiction. "May the Sangha give this Kathina cloth to such-and-such a bhikkhu to spread the Kathina." Here, "Sangha" is the agent of the verb, and "bhikkhu" is the recipient. But here, because the Sangha has no authority over that Kathina robe, the Sangha is not the agent. The bhikkhu, lacking the characteristic of a recipient, is not there is a contradiction. But because the donor has given it to the Sangha, the Kathina robe, which has become Sanghika (belonging to the Sangha), at the time when the Sangha gives the Kathina to a bhikkhu endowed with eight qualities to spread it, at that time, the Natti-dutiya-kammavaca (motion with a second proclamation) is now called "Natti" by people, and that robe is called "Nattiladdha-civara" (robe obtained by Natti), and that robe donor is called "Nattiladdha-dayaka" (donor of a Nattiladdha robe). Therefore, only a Sanghika robe is Nattiladdha, not a personal robe. However, from the time it is Nattiladdha, that robe becomes personal. Why? Because it becomes the robe of the person who spreads it. And also, they say,