English
even if left outside the village. Or, if he does not see a like-minded bhikkhu in the monastery, then the meaning is that he should go to the assembly hall and perform the Vinaya act. To the question, "Should one go to the assembly hall with three robes?" it is said, "with the inner and outer robes," because the inner and outer robes are accepted for a lost robe. And what should be done with the outer robe? It is said, "having left the outer robe outside the village." And after first performing the Vinaya act for the upper robe and the outer robe left outside the village, then the upper robe... Having covered the body, it should be done in the inner robe. And here, even if placed outside the village, from the statement of the Vinaya act, even if standing with averted face, to relinquish, and to give what has been relinquished, it should be understood that it is permissible. Because of zeal in the going of young monks, it is said, "the reliance does not cease." For a moment... it ceases, it is said because the zealous going has been interrupted. But for those who have risen before dawn and are going with zeal, even if dawn rises in between, it does not cease, because it is said, "they sleep until the rising of dawn." For that very reason, it is said, "having entered the village... it does not cease." In "not having taken each other's word," and so on, the cessation is not mentioned at the moment of zealous going. By fear of cows, by fear of young cows with calves running and striking with horns. And here, "the reliance ceases," for those standing due to fear of cows and so on, because they must stand until the fear subsides, it is said because it is impossible to determine, "I will go only within dawn." But where it is possible to determine thus, there, even if dawn rises in between, the reliance does not cease, like for young monks who have entered the village for medicine. "A village within the boundary" refers to a village established after the designation of the non-separation boundary, because it must be designated excluding the village and its environs. "For those who have entered," for teachers and pupils who have gone separately, because it is a non-separation boundary, the robes are not subject to relinquishment, and due to their zeal, the reliance does not cease. "On the way," on the way for those coming back after hearing the Dhamma. Thus, in the "Adornment of Vinaya," which is a commentary on the "Compendium of Vinaya," the "Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Robe-Separation" is the Ninth Chapter. 10. Discourse on the Determination of Storing Goods. 53. Having thus explained the determination of robe-separation, now, to explain the determination of storing goods, he begins with "the storing of goods." There, what is to be stored, one should divide. "Bhaṇḍa" means goods, or goods desired to be supported, or goods by which beings support themselves, or capital, or requisites. Indeed, it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: "In requisites like utensils, and also in capital, it is 'bhaṇḍa'." Of those goods, "paṭisāmana" means taking care, protection, guarding, that is the meaning. Therefore, it is said, "guarding the goods of others." The word "even" in "even a mother's ear ornament of palm leaf" has the meaning of possibility. By this, it shows that even more so, it is the property of strangers. By "property of householders," it indicates that it is permissible to guard the property of the five co-religionists. By "in the manner of a storekeeper," it shows that there is no offense for one who guards by taking it with trust, etc. Therefore, it will be said, "It should be guarded by taking it for one's own use." "By desire or by fear" should be understood as: it is permissible to guard by desire for carpenters, etc., and by fear for royal favorites, etc., or when they have fallen by force and gone. For goods placed in one's hand for safekeeping, without an act of guarding in a safe place, and without another act like "I will not take it," even if at a time of royal disturbance, etc., both, sitting in their respective places, have abandoned responsibility with thoughts like "I will not give it to him now, he will not give it to me now," there is no theft. Some here say, "It is a pārājika offense because an act of guarding was done." That is merely their opinion, not to be essentially believed. For at the time of guarding, he had no intention of theft. And at the moment the intention of theft arose, "I will not give it to him now," there was no physical or verbal act that caused the owner to abandon responsibility, by which he would incur an offense. For this offense does not arise from inaction. Being eager to give, and guarding it, because it was not said with reference to theft, when making a false statement like "I will not take it," it is only a pācittiya offense, not a dukkaṭa, due to the absence of the intention to steal and the absence of a corresponding act. is to be understood as "he says". Even if he says with his mouth, "I will give..." ...it is a pārājika. Here, by which action is there an offense? Not first by the action of putting away the goods, because at that time there is no intention of theft. Nor by the action of saying "I will give," because even if the intention of theft exists at that time, the action is permissible? It is said – Even though repeatedly requested by the owner, "Give it!", he did not give. By which action he made known to the owner his unwillingness to give. And by which (action) the owner, knowing "this one is unwilling to give, he is procrastinating," gives up the burden. By that very action there is an offense for him. Here, in the case of deposited goods, there is no release by indirect means. Indeed, by the unwillingness to give, even by indirect words such as "When was it given to you? Where was it given to you?" if the owner is made to give up the burden, it is an offense. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "What do you say... ...by the giving up of the burden by both, it is a pārājika for the bhikkhu." Indeed, only by having others take another's property is there release by indirect means. It is to be understood that not in all cases. Here, "because it was placed in his own hand." Because it was given by the owner into his own hand, and because he stands in the position of a storekeeper, even if he does not remove it from its place, there is no theft (by moving). But it is to be understood that if he takes it with the intention of theft, he is not freed from a dukkaṭa. This is the same principle: there is no theft (by moving). But the meaning is that the goods are to be given. 54. "Of the five co-religionists" means: bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, sikkhamanas, samaneras, and samaneris. By this, it shows that it is not proper to put away the property not only of lay people, but also of ascetics, wanderers, and so on. Even if lost, there is no offense. Why? The meaning is, because it was not accepted. In the second (case), this is the same principle: there is no offense. Why? Because of not knowing. And in the third (case), this is the same principle: there is no offense. Why? Because of having refused. And here, even if refused by body, or by speech, or by mind, it is indeed called refused. Only for him is there an offense, not for the other bhikkhus. Why? Because only that storekeeper has authority over the storehouse. Goods... For the householder, there is no neck (responsibility), because it was taken away by negligence, like one of lazy nature. Secondly, for the storekeeper, there is no neck (responsibility), because it was not reported to him. When lost, it is his neck (responsibility), because it was placed by him. It is his neck (responsibility), not others', because it was received and placed by that storekeeper. There is no neck (responsibility), because it was rejected by him. What is lost is truly lost, because the storekeeper did not have it received. When lost, it is his neck (responsibility), because it was placed by him. All of it is his neck (responsibility), because it was taken away due to the negligence of that storekeeper. "Being in the vicinity there" means being near the storekeeper, in the place for urinating and defecating. 55. "If I die, and the monastery of the Sangha is destroyed," here, they say, it is proper to explain it with the intention that "may only the Sangha's monastery not be destroyed." Even if only "I will kill him" is said, it is proper to explain it, because it is said, "being on the side of the sick, it is not an offense." Indeed, after death, there is no sickness and no non-offense. Even if only "We will break the door and take it away" is said, it is proper to explain it. "They should be companions" means that they too, having sought by alms-round etc., should give some of their own possessions. This is what is said. "This is proper conduct" means this is the duty for those living in the storehouse. "Lolamahāthera" means a dull, foolish, frequently dwelling, or always playful great elder. 56. "By others" means by the monks living in that same chamber. A "vihāravārika" is one appointed to the turn of guarding the monastery, one who guards the monastery in his turn, according to seniority. "Nivāpa" means food-wage. "When they go to meet the thieves" means knowing the coming of the thieves, they go towards the thieves, thinking, "We will go first and make a sound." "We will bring back the goods taken by the thieves" —the same method applies even when they go following their path. "Having made it fixed" means having made such a rule: "In such-and-such a family, the gruel and meal are only for the monastery guards." Two or three gruel tickets, and four or five meal tickets. "Even if he does not obtain it" is merely an example; it may be less or more. It should be understood that obtaining just enough for his own sustenance and that of his attendant is the measure.