English
if not, to be spread on the bare ground. The prohibition of keeping lion skins and so on, is only a rejection of keeping. By this, it shows that it is not permissible to keep them for one’s own use, by spreading them on beds, chairs, and so on, and then folding them up and putting them away. But using them as ground coverings and so on, is not keeping them for one’s own use. For in the Khandhaka, “They are spread inside on beds, they are spread outside on beds,” thus, in the context of spreading them on beds and so on for one’s own use, the prohibition is made: “Monks, large skins should not be worn: lion skin, tiger skin, leopard skin. Whoever wears one, there is an offense of wrong-doing.” Therefore, the intention here should be understood in the way stated. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, having raised the question, “If so, why is it said, ‘the prohibition is only in keeping’?” it is stated: “By the saying, ‘Monks, I allow all use of a palace,’ even personal requisites, such as golden pots, which are permissible to use as requisites for a dwelling, are not permissible to use by making them exclusively one’s own. Similarly, this, which is permissible to use as a ground covering, is not permissible to use by making it one’s own and taking it to various monasteries. Thus, the prohibition should be understood as being only in keeping, to show this.” A pāvāro is a kojavo, a special kind of rug with raised pile, kept only for spreading. Only this much. It is stated in the commentaries (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 116): "This is said to show that it is stated thus in the commentaries. Any other similar covering to be spread on couches and chairs is just a covering." This is stated in all three knot-points. However, in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. description of the second senāsana rule), it is stated, specifying, "A 'paccattharaṇa' is a cloak or a rug." Therefore, what is stated in the knot-points does not agree with this. "It should be taken after investigation," it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.116). When investigated, this meaning becomes clear: The Mātika Commentary is also a commentary. Therefore, in the manner stated in the Great Commentaries and so on, it is stated, specifying, "a cloak or a rug." Even with such a specification, just as when it is said, "a prince who has received a parasol," even though it is specified as the receiving of a parasol, by way of example, other royal regalia like yak-tail whisks are also understood to be included by commonality, so too, when it is specified, "a cloak or a rug," by way of example, other coverings are also understood to be included by commonality of being spread on couches and chairs. Therefore, the statement in the knot-points is not contrary to the commentary's statement, but is in agreement with it. This should be understood. In this passage, relying on the reading, "He who has caused the monastery to be built, he is the owner of the monastery," some Vinaya-holders make the decision: "The donor of the monastery is the owner of a monastic or individual monastery, he alone is the master, and one may reside only according to his wish, not according to the wish of the Sangha, group, or individuals." This should be investigated: How does this reading establish the meaning of mastery or the meaning of needing permission? When thus investigated, from statements like "If there is a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should be asked for permission," it is understood that it establishes the meaning of needing permission, not the meaning of mastery. Now, it might be said: "When the meaning of needing permission is established, the meaning of mastery is also established. Mastery because he is the owner, he should be asked. In that regard, it should be said: "When there is a monk, the monk should be asked; if he is not there, the novice; if he is not there, the temple attendant," and so on. According to the venerable sirs' opinion, a monk, a novice, a temple attendant, a builder of the monastery, or any person in his family would become the owner. Even if understood this way, if there is a monk, or a novice, or a temple attendant, they are the owners, not the builder of the monastery. Only if none of them is present, the builder of the monastery would be the owner. However, in this context, it speaks only of asking permission to protect the monastic dwelling belonging to the Sangha, not of asking because of ownership. For it is said in the commentary: "If he were to go without asking permission, when there is a monk, the monk should be asked," and so on. Or they might say: "We did not say this with reference to the intended meaning of the entire passage, but only with reference to the meaning of the word 'vihārassāmiko' (owner of the monastery). How so? 'Sāmiko' is one who has it. 'Vihārassāmiko' is the owner of the monastery. When asked, 'Who is called the owner of the monastery?' it should be said, 'He by whom the monastery was built is called the owner of the monastery.' Therefore, it is understood that the donor who built the monastery is called the owner of the monastery. If understood this way, an owner is the master of his property. Others obtain it only by his will. Therefore, monks obtain permission to dwell only by the will of the donor who is the owner of the monastery, not by the will of the Sangha, the group, or individuals." To them it should be said: "Venerable sirs, do not speak thus. Just as when Ghaṭikāra was called Brahmā, he does not make pots now, but he did so in a previous existence. Therefore, by the meaning of 'he makes pots,' he obtains the name 'Ghaṭikāra.' Thus, having obtained the name previously, by way of former usage, even though he is Brahmā, he is still called 'Ghaṭikāra.' Similarly, that builder of the monastery, a monk..." From the time of donating, the monastery's owner he is not, for donation is characterized by the giving of property. But before, when not yet donated, as the monastery's builder, he is called the monastery's owner. So, having received that name before, by way of prior usage, he is called "the monastery's owner," not because he is the master of the donated monastery. Therefore, it should be understood that the Perfectly Enlightened One did not say, "Let the bhikkhus dwell according to the wishes of the monastery donors," but permitted the one who arranges lodgings. Thus it is stated in the Vimativinodanī: "Regarding 'their houses,' it should be understood that even if built for the bhikkhus' dwelling, as long as they do not give it, it will still be theirs." This shows that from the time of giving, they are no longer theirs. This discussion, however, is presented here because the text is at hand. The decision regarding monasteries will become clear in the decision regarding the sharing of the four requisites. "Whoever" means whoever, whether a relative or a stranger. "That by which one weaves a couch or a chair" refers to the weaving of couches and chairs. 83. "A cave in a rock pile" means a cave in a rock pile, that is, a mountain cave. In the story where "the lodging was eaten by termites," because it was laid down in that context, the commentary states that there is no offense due to the absence of termite danger, in accordance with the nature of the object. In the Chapter on Observances, when prescribing the observance for travelers, it is said, "The lodging should be asked for." Therefore, "asking for it is an observance" is stated merely to show what should be done, not to show that there is an offense of wrong-doing in the category of observances. Thus, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, regarding "the lodging should be asked for," it is said, "If it is a lodging built on a rock surface or on rock pillars, where termites do not climb, there is no offense even if one does not ask for it." Therefore, what is said in the Gaṇṭhipada: "In such a lodging, there is no pācittiya offense for one who goes without asking, Going without asking about the lodging, in the duty of a traveler, is a breach of duty; therefore, he incurs a dukkaṭa. That should not be taken (as a rule). "There is no release by the thought of the last one" is said because there is no other going after him. "Or sending one to ask" - here, if one goes without asking from the place where the thought of going arose, on lifting the second foot, there is a pācittiya. "In a pavilion" means in a branch pavilion or a plank pavilion. "At the root of a tree" means under any tree whatsoever. "It perishes" means it is destroyed. 84. "Tied by making it constricted in the middle like a drum" means making a braid with eraka leaves, etc., wrapping much at the expanded places on both sides with that braid, and from there up to the middle place, wrapping it by pulling inwards, making it constricted in the middle and tied here and there. "Where crows or ospreys do not carry it away" means where these crows and ospreys, or other birds, living there permanently, making nests, do not carry away that lodging; the meaning is, "I allow to place it at such a tree root." 85. "Newly woven" means a bed recently wrapped with thread and grass. "Covered" means covered with suitable leather; that very "onaddhaka" by the "ka" suffix in its own sense. By that, it does not quickly perish in the rain. "Supreme open-air dweller" - this is merely to show his easy practice; but even for the supreme one, a robe-hut is permissible. "Because of following the body" indicates the monk's sitting in that very place, and thereby shows an offence for one who goes elsewhere himself due to fear of rain. Even if given by donors, having stipulated for the benefit of open-air dwellers, it must be protected by one protecting oneself. "But since a blanket worth a hundred thousand, given by donors at the time of donation with the words 'Use it as a foot-wiper,' is permissible to use in that very way, therefore, this lodging, such as a bed or chair,