English
one guards by seeing thieves taking it and preventing them by saying "do not take it." But if one guards merely by being silent without considering... He stands looking at the income, it is allowable. “Even if, while he is silent, they steal by theft, it is allowable even to say, ‘We will report it to the community of monks,’” they say. Even in the case of causing to be taken out or put away, they say, “If he speaks indirectly, it is allowable.” Because no new (rule) has been produced, he says that it is allowable for others, “This is unallowable for him alone.” Unallowable for all, why? Regarding "because kahāpaṇas were dealt with," here, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539), such an investigation was made: Is it not the case that merely by being improperly dealt with, it is unallowable for him alone, not for all, like the fourth bowl in money transactions? For it is said there (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.589): “But if one, without accepting money, goes with a sent allowable attendant to a blacksmith's house, saying ‘Buy and give a bowl to the elder,’ and seeing a bowl, causes kahāpaṇas to be given, saying ‘Take these kahāpaṇas and give this,’ and it is taken, this bowl is not allowable for that monk alone because it was improperly dealt with, but it is allowable for others because the root (money) was not accepted.” Therefore, what they bring is unallowable for all. Why? Why is this said: “Because kahāpaṇas were dealt with”? Here some say, “This was said with reference to dealing with kahāpaṇas after accepting them,” and since it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is not allowable for all – that is their intention. But some say, “Even without accepting them, because kahāpaṇas were dealt with, a money transaction has occurred, and since it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is not allowable for all.” But in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, this is said: “The fourth bowl is allowable for others because only the kahāpaṇas belonging to laypeople were dealt with, but here, because the kahāpaṇas belonging to the Saṅgha were dealt with, it is not allowable for all.” And the view of all is indeed reasonable in its own way. 62. “At the door of the four-halled building” is said with reference to the dining hall. 63. But when it is said, “I give a forest, I give a wilderness,” it is allowable, etc. because it is a dwelling place, it is proper for a person to take it with a pure mind. Because it is said with the common phrase, "We give a boundary," like a monastery boundary, it is said, "it is proper." Because it is spoken indirectly, instead of saying, "Take it," it is said indirectly, "The boundary has gone." To make it natural ground, it is said, "the soil taken from below," and so on. Regarding "I give a slave," they say, "it is proper if it is said, 'I give a human being.'" It is proper for a person to take a slave even if it is said, "one who performs services," and so on, because it was specifically permitted, "Monks, I permit an attendant for the monastery." However, that is in the manner of Pilindavaccha's taking and using, not in the manner of householders' using slaves. Fields and so on, all are proper for the Sangha only, it should be understood that it is not permitted in the Pāḷi to take them for an individual. Regarding "chickens, pigs... it is proper," when chickens and pigs are given, it is proper to say, "We have no need for these, may they live happily, release them in the forest." "We give to the monastery" is said with reference to a Sanghika monastery. The prohibition found in the Suttantas, such as "He refrains from accepting fields and land," was made by the Blessed One even as a cause for an offense. Therefore, it should be understood that this entire Vinaya decision, which is outside the Pāḷi and relates to accepting fields and so on, was stated by the Great Elders who compiled the Sangīti, knowing the intention of the Blessed One. 64. "Cīvaracetāpannaṃ" means the price of a robe. "Pahiṇeyya" means should send. "Cetāpetvā" means having exchanged. "Acchādehī" is a conventional expression; the meaning here is, "Give a robe to such and such a monk." "Ābhataṃ" means brought. In this place, in the Sāratthadīpanī, such a discussion is made: And here, what is said in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā, "Having exchanged this robe-price for a robe, 'clothe such and such a monk with the robe' this is said to show the purity of the arrival. If indeed one were to send, saying, 'Give this to the monk of such-and-such a name,' because the coming is impure, concerning an improper item, the monk should not even designate a proper-maker. There, no special purpose is seen, whether the coming is pure or impure. Even if the coming is impure, if the messenger, by his own skill, speaks in a proper manner, it is not the case that a proper-maker should not be designated. Nor, when spoken by the messenger in a proper manner, is such an inquiry as, "How was this sent?" found by the donor; and without inquiry, it cannot be known. But if, because the coming is impure, a proper-maker should not be designated, when an improper item is sent in the messenger's hand for robes, everywhere, only after asking the donor, "How was this sent?" should a proper-maker be designated. Therefore, even if there is no purity of coming, if that messenger, by his own skill, speaks in a proper manner, the messenger's word itself should be taken. For if the purity of coming were the only measure here, even if a messenger sent by the original owner in a proper manner were to speak in an improper manner, a proper-maker should be designated. Therefore, it should be understood that everywhere the messenger's word is the measure. But by "with this robe-price," and so on, this meaning is shown: "Even a robe-price brought in a proper manner becomes improper by such a messenger's word; therefore, it should be rejected." For that reason, it is said, "By that monk, that messenger should be spoken to thus," and so on. But in the Vimativinodaniya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539), it is said thus: What was said in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "Having purchased a robe with this robe-price, clothe the monk of such-and-such a name with a robe," this was said to show the purity of coming. For if one were to send, saying, 'Give this to the monk of such-and-such a name,' because the coming is impure, improper... "Regarding a matter that is not permissible, a bhikkhu should not designate a steward." When an unpermissible robe-fund, which is an object of nissaggiya and dukkata, is sent with the message, "Give this to such-and-such a bhikkhu," if the message of arrival is impure, and the messenger's words are impure according to the rule stated in the training rule, it is entirely proper to refuse it. It is not proper to say, "We accept the robe." Nor is it proper to designate a steward in accordance with that, because both the arrival and the messenger's words are impure. However, it is said to show that according to the Pāli, if the arrival is pure, even if the messenger's words are impure, everything can be done according to the rule stated in the training rule. And thereby, just as it is proper to designate a steward when the arrival is pure, even if the messenger's words are impure, so too it is proper when the arrival is impure but the messenger's words are pure. This meaning is thus established by implication. When both are pure, there is nothing to be said. Therefore, it should be understood that in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, referring to the case of both being impure, it is stated, "A steward should not be designated." What is said in the Sāratthadīpanī, "There is no special purpose seen in the purity or impurity of arrival," is said without understanding the intention of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā's statement, because there is a purpose in the purity of arrival and so on, in the manner explained. The undesirable consequence mentioned here, that "even if the messenger sent by the original owner speaks in an unpermissible manner, a steward should be designated through a permissible transaction," is not an undesirable consequence at all, because it is desired. Thus, in the training rule itself, when the messenger says, "Venerable sir, please accept the robe-fund," speaking in an unpermissible manner, a steward is said to be designated through a permissible act, because the arrival is pure. However, if the arrival is also impure, even with a permissible act, The steward should not be designated. There is indeed a purpose in the purity or impurity of the coming. But how is the purity of the coming known by the messenger's words? This is not a burden. For when the messenger speaks with improper speech, then the purity of the coming should be sought, not otherwise. And there, by questioning him according to his words, and by reasoning, it can be known. Here too, in the training rule, by the messenger's words, "cloth-money has been brought," it is known that cloth has been sent to be bought and given. If indeed the purity of the coming is not known at all, then a refusal must be made. Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa, māsaka – these are indeed four objects of relinquishment. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch, rock, coral, ruby, cat's eye, seven kinds of grain, male and female slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, fruit orchards, etc. – these are objects of wrong-doing. They are not suitable to be accepted for oneself, or for a shrine, the Sangha, a group, or individuals. Therefore, to show that it is not proper to enjoy them, it was said: "Indeed, friends, we do not accept cloth-money." And "We do accept cloth," etc., was said to show the method of proceeding with the purity of the coming, even when the messenger's words are improper. "At the proper time" means at the suitable, arrived time, when there is a need for us, then we accept proper cloth – this is the meaning.