English
"Taking care of those dependent" means supporting their own dependents through alms-gathering, and through these dependents, taking care of the monastery. "For one without a companion" means one who lacks a companion. The reading "for one without a companion, without a second" is appropriate. The latter is merely a synonym of the former. However, in the reading "for one without a companion or with himself as a second," some say that if one person brings it, it is not enough for two, thus the turn of even one with himself as a second is denied. This does not accord with "for whom there is no bhikkhu of equal standing to bring and give food." It should be investigated. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.112), it is said: " 'With himself as a second' means one of few desires. Indeed, 'with himself as a second' means the self, the body itself, is the second, not another. The explanation of the meaning of both is 'for whom,' etc. By all this, it shows that the turn should not be given to each individual." "For the purpose of cooked provisions" means for the purpose of the regular cooked gruel and rice, which are daily provisions. "They set aside" means the donors set aside. "Taking that" means taking that share given by the monastery attendants and others. "He should remain, subsisting" means even one who lives in the open or at the foot of a tree, subsisting on cooked provisions, should remain when it is his turn for the monastery, for the purpose of protecting his bowl and robes. "He should not be made to receive" (in this context) means if even an open-air dweller has stored extra requisites for himself, and has a desire for the communal share of robes, etc., he too should be made to receive. "They inquire" means the answering of questions asked, or the commentary. "Double" means twice what others receive. "By a half-month turn" means by a turn every half-month. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya Saṅgaha, The Ornament of Decisions on Managing Goods, The Tenth Chapter. 11. Decisions on Buying and Selling 57. Having thus explained the decision on managing goods, now the decision on buying and selling Explaining the intention, he said "offence of buying and selling" and so on. There, buying is kamma, the taking of another's goods. Selling is vikkaya, the giving of one's own goods. Buying and selling is kayavikkaya. Committing is samāpatti, the doing of that twofold action. Its form is shown by "with this" and so on. Among remaining relatives, because of the possibility of the loss of faith-offerings, to show the place where that is absent, "mother or father" and so on was said. Thereby, it shows that there is no offence of solicitation or loss of faith-offerings when one says "give this with this," but one incurs the offence of buying and selling when one says "give this with this." And by this and by "unknown persons" and so on above, it shows that for a remaining relative, when one says "give this," there is no solicitation, but when one gives saying "take this," there is the loss of faith-offerings, and when one incurs buying and selling by saying "give this with this," it is nissaggiya. This meaning is also shown by the analogy of a deer's footprint. Therefore, in such cases, it should be understood that it was not stated, "with parents, buying and selling; with remaining relatives, two offences; with unknown persons, three offences," because it can be known by that same method, otherwise, there would be the fault of not being comprehensive. When it is said, "Having eaten this food, do this," because it is said as an action connected sequentially, it is like saying "give this with this." Or, "Eat this food, do this thing," or when it is said, "You have eaten this food, do this thing; you will eat this food, do this thing," because it is said as an unconnected action, there is no buying and selling. Because the acceptance of food scraps and the giving of food are not dependent, there is no loss of faith-offerings, and in causing it to be done, it is merely a manual act, so there is no solicitation, therefore, it is permissible. And by "here" and so on, it shows that even if there is no object requiring relinquishment, a pācittiya should be declared. It is permissible to ask the price, by this much, buying and selling... "It is not" is the meaning. To take is permissible. Since "give this for this" is not said, there is no buying and selling. Since there is a price, there is no declaration (of value). The bowl should not be taken, for the other's goods are expensive. If so, what should be done? He says: "My item is of little value" should be declared. Having valued the goods, it becomes something to be done, due to the possibility of theft. If it is valued at less than a māsaka, it is a dukkaṭa. From a māsaka up to less than five māsakas, if it is valued, it is a thullaccaya. If it is valued at five māsakas, it is said to be a pārājika. He gives, it is permissible, given for merit, as an excess. But for the one who makes it allowable... ...it is permissible, because both are allowable goods. If one or both are unallowable goods, it is not permissible. "Do not take it!" should be said. Why? Because the one who makes it allowable is not skilled. There is a need for what is not received by another. Why? Because oil is for seven days. Received oil should be kept for a maximum of seven days. Therefore, for one who wishes to keep it beyond that, there is a need for oil not received (by another). One should use up what is not received. Unrestricted-time unreceived oil in a measure should make the remaining received oil last its own time. 58. This set of four bowls should be known. The set of four unallowable bowls is spoken of, but the fifth is allowable. Therefore it will be said: "This bowl is entirely allowable, fit for the use even of Buddhas." This bowl is called greatly unallowable. Why? Because having taken silver, having produced an iron seed (ingot), the bowl was made with that metal. Thus, it is corrupted from the very seed (origin). Just as in the case of the third pārājika, regarding permanent constructions like traps and stakes, if they are made from the very foundation, and if even a mere stick or a mere piece of bark remains, one is not freed (from the offense); one is freed only when everything is destroyed. Similarly here, because it was made from the very seed, even if some part of that bowl remains, it cannot be allowable. And thus it will be said: "Even if one destroys it..." makes a plate, that too is not allowable.” Even so, as with a second bowl, if it were given to the owners of the root at the root, and to the owners of the bowl at the bowl, would it be allowable to make? To this doubt, he says: “It cannot be made allowable by any means.” Its meaning is: A second bowl is bought after the laity have completed it, having received money, it is not spoiled from the seed onwards. Therefore, a second bowl can be made allowable. But here, because it is spoiled from the seed onwards, and because that bhikkhu cannot make that bowl into an iron-stone seed again, and because the received money has been spent, and cannot be given back to the owners, it cannot be made allowable by any means. Now, to elaborate on that impossibility in another way, he says: “Even if…” By this, he shows that even if something remains in an iron object, it is still unallowable. Therefore, it is said in the Vimativinodanī: “‘Having received money’ this is said in the highest sense. Even if a minor unallowable object like pearls, etc., is received and made, it is not allowable for the five (groups of bhikkhus). ‘Causes to arise’ means he himself goes, or he orders another, saying: ‘Give this kahāpaṇa, etc., to the workers and cause the seed to arise.’ ‘Greatly unallowable’ is said because he himself spoiled it from the seed onwards, and there is no other owner of the root. Even if it is not stolen by thieves, and is found again, it is not allowable for anyone who knows. If it were allowable, the teachers would say: ‘What is stolen is allowable,’ as in the case of ponds, etc. ‘Cannot be made allowable by any means’ means it cannot be made allowable even by the Sangha’s release or by being stolen by thieves, etc. This is said with reference to what stands in that form, and what stands in the form of cloth, pearls, etc., derived from it. Even a minor unallowable object and an allowable object derived from it cannot be made allowable in that form by any means. But if that bhikkhu with that allowable object, or unallowable object, again money ...should be caused to be bought, that silver, having caused it to be relinquished, it would be possible to make it allowable for others, so it should be understood. But what is elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī, and what, taking that, is elaborated in the ancient commentary, if that were spoken at length, it would be too extensive, and difficult for listeners to understand. Therefore, we say only this much. Those who are interested should look it up and take it from those respective treatises. In the second case, it is not allowable for any of the five fellow monks, because silver was received, and buying and selling was done. But it is possible to make it allowable, because the bowl was bought only after it was completed by laypeople, and it was not spoiled from the seed onwards, and the owners of the original price and the owners of the bowl still exist. And to show how it is possible, he said, "at the root," and so on. In the third case, it is similar, meaning it points to this method: "It is not allowable for any of the five fellow monks, but it is possible to make it allowable." "But was not the third bowl taken with an allowable transaction? Then why is it unallowable?" Referring to this objection, he says: "Even though taken with an allowable transaction, it is similar to the second bowl, because the price was received,