English
specified by a messenger, not one specified or unspecified by a monk. Therefore, it is said, "there is no limit to the reproach here," and so on. If one reproaches with reference to the principal, that would be partaken of, so it is said, "by one not partaking of the principal." "One should act as with unknown and uninvited persons" was said to show that one should not make a ground for reproach for oneself. "For the purpose of almsfood and so on" shows that it is not only for robes. "The same method" shows that even when given by the owner of the object to allowable-makers specified by him, for the purpose of almsfood and so on, all matters of ground, reproach, and so on, should be done according to the method stated below. 66. In "partaking of what is deposited," and so on: "This is for the venerable one," thus directly, or "my gold and silver are in such and such a place, that is for you," thus indirectly, when something is given up merely by word or by hand gesture, saying "yours," not rejecting it with body or speech, but partaking of it with the mind, is called partaking of what is deposited. "He partakes" clarifies the meaning already stated: "he desires to take." "This is a protected place" should be declared with reference to the use of requisites only. When "deposit it here" is said, it becomes subject to forfeiture by the characteristic stated in "or he might have it taken up," so it is said, "one should not say 'deposit it here'." Or, "this protected" Saying "it's not the place" shows only the protected nature of the place, does not refer to the object. Therefore, it should be said. But saying "deposit it here" "deposit the object to be deposited" indeed refers to the object. Therefore, it should not be said. In "take this from another," the same method applies. "It stands dependent on both allowable and unallowable." Because the use of requisites arising from it is allowable, therefore, it stands dependent on what is allowable. But because the use of requisites arising from it is not allowable due to improper consideration, therefore, it should be understood as standing dependent on what is not allowable. Or, because this money is prohibited, saying "this is not allowable," therefore, it stands dependent on what is allowable. But because it is not entirely given up, therefore, it stands dependent on what is not allowable. Or, because that money will later become allowable with proper consideration, and will become not allowable with improper consideration, therefore, it stands dependent on both allowable and unallowable. But in the Vimativinodanī, it is said that "one hundred or one thousand, etc." was stated to show the lowest limit of currency's operation. And not to show that it must be practiced in this way. It is said that "when 'deposit it here' is said, it becomes an act of taking up, therefore 'deposit it here' should not be said." And "It stands dependent on allowable... because requisites arising from it are permissible due to not being appropriated, therefore it stands dependent on what is allowable." "But because what arises from it is not allowable due to improper consideration, therefore it should be understood as standing dependent on what is not allowable." — so it is said. 67. "It should be deposited in the midst of the Sangha." Because currency, indeed, is unallowable, therefore, it was not said that it should be deposited for the Sangha, or for a group, or for an individual. But because it is merely received, and no allowable requisites have been purchased with it, therefore, to show its use by means of a device, it was said, "it should be deposited in the midst of the Sangha" (Parā. 584). Not by that If any suitable item is purchased with this, there is no way to use it, because it was purchased with unrenounced money, having taken it. Indeed, it shows that such a thing, after being renounced in the midst of the Sangha, must be discarded and a Pacittiya offense confessed. But some say, "Since a suitable item purchased even after receiving a nissaggiya item, when renounced to the Sangha, becomes like a suitable item brought by suitable attendants who exchanged renounced money, therefore it is permissible to divide and use it without any (further) means." That does not agree with the story of the four bowls, etc. For there, the non-use of a bowl exchanged with money is shown, not a consideration of renunciation. "It should be declared suitable" means it should be declared thus: "Butter or oil is permissible for renunciants, lay follower." "Or the portion of the monastery attendants" - this was said assuming that it is the same portion even when it reaches the hands of lay people. But if the monastery attendants exchange it for something else and give it, it is permissible to use it, so it is said in the Majjhima Gaṇṭhipada and Cūḷa Gaṇṭhipada. "Having taken from that" means having taken from the portion of others. "Kasiṇa preparation" means the preparation of the light kasiṇa. "Or beds, chairs, etc." - here, if beds, chairs, etc., taken from there are exchanged for something else and taken, they say it is permissible. "Even the shadow" means even the shadow of dining halls, etc. "Having gone beyond the boundary" means having gone beyond the boundary of the house. The meaning is that the place where the shadow goes is not the house. "Even by the path" - here, if there is no other path, they say it is permissible to go, having established the path. "By that which was bought" means by that thing which was bought. "The Sangha uses requisites, having placed a deposit" means: if a lay follower, saying, "This money is too much, Venerable Sir, it should not be spent today," himself places a deposit, or causes another to place it, thus, having placed a deposit, the Sangha, using the requisites arisen from that, uses requisites, because it was taken with that item. "unsuitable" is said. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.583-584) it is said: "excluding the deposit" is said with reference to the suitable makers using it for interest. "unsuitable" is said because that object has been taken. If he discards it, that is, throws it anywhere, or if he does not discard it, takes it himself and goes, he should not be prevented. If he does not discard it, that is, he neither takes it and goes, nor discards it, but says, "What is this business to me?" and goes wherever he wishes, then a discarder of silver with the aforementioned characteristics should be sought. In "who does not go by desire," etc., one who, out of greed, makes that object his own, or exalts himself, goes by desire. One who, out of hatred, disparages another, saying, "He does not know the Mātikā, nor the Vinaya," goes by hatred. One who, out of delusion, becomes forgetful, or in a state of forgetfulness, goes by delusion. One who, out of fear of the receiver of silver, is unable to discard it, goes by fear. One who does not act thus is to be understood as not going by desire, not going by hatred, not going by delusion, not going by fear. 68. "It should be discarded in a fallen place by one who is not worthy of being sought" this is to be understood as showing a state of indifference. Therefore, even if the place where it fell is known, the state of indifference is the criterion here, like one discarding excrement. "By an impossible assumption" is said with reference to declaring a superhuman quality that does not exist in oneself. "Theft-like enjoyment" is enjoyment by one who is unworthy. For the Blessed One has allowed requisites to the virtuous in his dispensation, not to the unvirtuous. And givers also give only to the virtuous, not to the unvirtuous, out of a desire for their own deeds to be greatly fruitful. Thus, because it is not allowed by the Teacher, and not given up by the givers, the enjoyment by the unvirtuous is theft-like enjoyment. "Enjoyment by way of debt" is enjoyment as a debt, a gift from the receiver. The meaning is: because of the absence of purity, it is like enjoying by taking a loan. Therefore, by "one who is virtuous" and so on, it recalls the meaning already stated as a reason. "Enjoys the robe by enjoyment" means enjoying it after taking it off the body. "Before meal… and so on… in the last watch of the night, it should be reflected upon" is the connection. Similarly, by one unable to do so, it should be reflected upon four times, three times, twice, or just once a day, according to the aforementioned specific times. If dawn breaks while he has not reflected upon it, "he stands in the position of enjoying a loan." In this regard, if one does not reflect on past enjoyment, saying: "The robe I used yesterday was only for warding off cold… and so on… for covering shame and nakedness. The almsfood I ate yesterday was not for sport," and so on, they say, "he stands in the position of enjoying a loan." That should be investigated. "Enjoys the dwelling by enjoyment" means entering it, entering it. However, by one unable to do so, it should be reflected upon before meal and so on. That can be understood by the method stated below, so it is not stated separately here. "Due to mindfulness as a condition" means mindfulness being a condition. Mindfulness being a condition for receiving and for enjoying is appropriate. The meaning is: one should receive and enjoy only after reflecting. Therefore, it is said, "having established mindfulness" and so on. "Even so" means even if reflection is appropriate in both instances, even so. Others, however, say: "Due to mindfulness as a condition" means mindfulness being a condition for the enjoyment of requisites, it conditions, is the meaning. "Even so" means even if there is a condition. That is merely their opinion. For indeed, the requisite-dependent virtue is purified by reflection, not merely by the existence of requisites. Now, "there is no offense for one who is enjoying" states the virtue of restraint by the Pātimokkha. Therefore,