English
and taking it as a dead person's robe when the owner has died. But within ten days from that, either the determination of the triple robe, or the determination of a supplementary cloth, or a formal transfer should be made. "The one who sends" refers to the giver. "The one to whom it is sent" refers to the recipient. Having abandoned (it)... (omitted text)... does not obtain it. The meaning is that if one causes it to be brought, one should be made to pay the value of the goods. By "by oneself... (omitted text)... is liable to forfeiture," it shows that if one, knowing it to be another's property, seizes it by way of theft or force, one becomes liable to a pārājika offense. But in the old commentary, it is said: "If one takes it without the perception of it being one's own, one should be made to pay the value of the goods and be made liable for an offense." Even without the perception of it being one's own, if one takes it with a temporary perception of it being a rag-robe, etc., one should not be made liable for an offense. But in the Commentary, it speaks with reference to the manner of force. Therefore, it says, "For one who seizes it, it is liable to forfeiture." But if... (omitted text)... it is permissible, it speaks of a gift given with satisfaction. But then, by "etc." (omitted text) ... angry. This is a gift. In both ways, since it was given by oneself, it is permissible; there is no offense in receiving it, this is the meaning. In my presence… (etc.)… But to give in this way is not permissible. Because the characteristic of a gift is the relinquishing of the object, one who gives in this way, not having relinquished it, it is not a gift, and thus not permissible. From that, an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) arises. But to have it brought back is permissible, because it was said before, "I will not give to one who does not perform (the duty)." Thus, if one does not perform the aforementioned acts of taking an upajjhāya (preceptor) and so on, it is said to belong to the teacher. But if one performs, it would belong to the pupil, since it was given without complete relinquishment. Because the perception of 'mine' exists, it might be said, "it is permissible to have it brought back." However, in the Commentary (Sāratthadīpanī 2.635), it is said, "What is given in this way, being like wages, it is permissible to have it brought back." Even if it is like wages, once the work is done, the wages should be received. Therefore, it would not be permissible to take it back. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.635), it is said, "It is said to be permissible to have it brought back because it is like wages when the work is not done." Thus, it is established that if the work is done, it is not permissible to have it brought back. "He will take a preceptor" indicates a gift to a novice. And thereby, giving it during the novice stage, even if one takes it back during the fully ordained stage, it indicates an offense of pācittiya. "This is the decision regarding gifts" – by this, it indicates that the three decisions, starting with the decision on gifts, form a single section. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding the Characteristic of Taking by Trust 70. "Anuṭṭhānaseyyā" (lying without rising) is said to be the lying down from which one does not rise until the cessation of the life faculty. And when giving the property of the deceased, it should be given to those who are masters of that property, whether householders or renunciants. Here, who are the householders? Who are the renunciants? For what reason are they masters of that property? First, the householders who were attendants of the sick, for that reason, they are masters of that property, being entitled to a share as sick-attendants. And those merchants from whom the requisites like bowls were obtained by the one who makes things allowable, the amount that is due to them, they too are masters of that property. they are the owners of the wealth. And those for whom clothes have been set aside by their parents for their use, they too are the owners of that wealth. In this way, for whatever reason, whatever property and wealth is to be obtained by whatever householders, for that reason, those householders are the owners of that wealth. But external renunciants are likewise owners if there is a reason. However, among the five co-religionists, monks and novices receive the wealth of deceased monks and novices by right of inheritance, even without a specific reason, but not others. Nuns, female trainees, and female novices receive their own wealth, but not others. That division of the wealth of the deceased will become clear in the determination of the division of the four requisites. But many elder Vinaya-holders, relying on the passage "whoever are the owners of that wealth, whether householders or renunciants," determine that "the householder relatives receive the wealth of a deceased monk." We will discuss that determination and its appropriateness or inappropriateness in that very place. "Belonging to one who is displeased" means the property of one who has become displeased either by an utterance such as "You have done badly by taking my property which I did not give," or merely by a thought. But if someone first approved either by an utterance such as "You have done well by taking my property," or merely by a thought, and later became angry for some reason, they are not allowed to have it returned. Regarding "he who is unwilling to give, but assents in mind, says nothing," it is said in the ancient commentary (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.131) that "to clarify the meaning already stated by 'assents in mind,' it is said 'says nothing'." In this case, "by mind" is the instrument of the act of assenting. In "unwilling to give" too, the same instrument might apply. Then the statement "unwilling to give by mind, assents by mind" would not be conducive to propriety. Setting that aside, in "unwilling to give," it means either by body or by speech, or some other. the instrument is not possible, and when that is not possible, the word "pana" (but), which indicates a special meaning, is meaningless. In "na kiñci vadati" (says nothing), the instrument of the action of speaking should be understood as the word "vācāya" (by speech). Thus, there is one instrument for the action of assenting, and another instrument for the action of speaking; there is one action of assenting, and another action of speaking. Therefore, it is not proper to say, "to clarify the meaning already stated." Therefore, it is proper to say, "to explain the meaning already stated by 'assents,' 'says nothing' is said," by interpreting it as: "even if one is unwilling to give in mind, but still assents by speech, and says nothing." Here, the word "pana" indicates a sign of unwillingness. "Cittena" (by mind) is the instrument of the action of being unwilling to give. "Vācāya" (by speech) is the instrument of the action of assenting and the action of not speaking. The action of assenting is indeed the action of not speaking. When "assents" is said, since the action of not speaking is not evident, "says nothing" is said to clarify it. If understood in this way, the meaning of the preceding and succeeding statements would be consistent. Therefore, it should be understood by considering these many details. The Explanation of the Decision on the Dedication of Offerings 71. In the decision on the dedication of offerings, "your ghee and so forth have been brought" means "ghee and so forth brought for your use." Knowing that they have been dedicated, and making it known in the manner stated, it is considered to have been made known as belonging to them. Therefore, it says, "he says, 'give some to me too,' it is permissible." "It is not permissible to offer even a flower" is said with reference to a dedicated (flower). However, if one takes a flower that has been offered at one cetiya and offers it at another cetiya, it is permissible, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.660). In the Aṭṭhakathā (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.660), however, it is specified by saying, "because it is a garland planted for the sake of another cetiya." Thus, not only the dedicated state is mentioned, but also the state of being specifically planted. By the word "pi" (even) in "pupphampi" (even a flower), what o, it shows a planted sapling. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.660) it is said: “‘A planted sapling’ is said with reference to something planted by someone with a rule, it is proper to pick an unsuitable, withering one and offer it anywhere.” “Having seen it standing” means having taken the remainder and seen it standing. “Do not give to this dog, give to that one” this is only when it is dedicated. But when given to an animal by renouncing it, it is proper to chase it away and let another eat. Therefore, “Where shall we give?” and so on, shows blamelessness in one way. “Even if not asked, one who knows ‘this is not dedicated’ may, according to one’s own wish, cause it to be given wherever one desires,” this is said in all three knot-points. “Give wherever you wish” here too, because it is said “according to your wish,” one may cause it to be given wherever one desires. In the Parivāra (Pari. Aṭṭha. 329), nine unrighteous donations are mentioned thus: one dedicates what is dedicated to the Saṅgha to another Saṅgha, or to a cetiya, or to an individual; one dedicates what is dedicated to a cetiya to another cetiya, or to the Saṅgha, or to an individual; one dedicates what is dedicated to an individual to another individual, or to the Saṅgha, or to a cetiya. “Nine recipients and uses” these are the recipients and uses of these very donations. “Three righteous donations” are these three: one gives what is due to the Saṅgha to the Saṅgha itself, one gives what is due to a cetiya to the cetiya itself, one gives what is due to an individual to the individual himself.