English
should now be understood." "Bounded by a place worthy of enclosure" means the boundary of the upacāra sīmā, from the permanent meeting place, etc., of an unenclosed monastery, to the first falling of a clod of earth. Thus it shows. Now, to show that even within the second stone's throw it is indeed an upacāra boundary, the section beginning with "furthermore" is commenced. Even the place of fixed assembly is to be taken as included in the boundary. By the statement, "Thus, those residing three yojanas away will receive offerings," and so on, it is shown that these acts of receiving offerings and so forth occur only by way of the upacāra boundary, not by way of the avippavāsa boundary. And by that, it clarifies that only these acts of receiving offerings and so forth are to be done within the upacāra boundary, not the four acts like apalokana-kamma and so forth. But those (four acts) are to be done only within avippavāsa boundaries and so forth. Indeed, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī: "The entering of nuns into the monastery, asking for lodging, and so on, the declaration of parivāsa and mānatta, the cutting off of vassa, the taking of nissaya and lodging, and so on, all this is to be understood as being by way of this very upacāra boundary." A boundary established for the purpose of offerings is a lābha boundary. In the world, like village boundaries and so on, a lābha boundary by name is not separately well-known. "By whom is this permitted?" He says, "Not by the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One," and so on. By this, it shows that this is not established by monastic convention, but is established only by worldly convention. "A division of a district" – this is said according to the meaning of the word "sīmā" as commonly known in the world. And everything within the division is to be taken as a janapada boundary. A district itself is a district boundary. Similarly, in the case of state boundaries and so on. Therefore, he says, "the place where authority prevails," and so on. "Of that which is in the middle of the earth" – up to the water's edge, it is said to be a partial boundary. But in upacāra boundaries and so on, in unestablished boundaries, it does not extend to those standing everywhere in the earth below. It extends only to those standing in places suitable for entering, like wells and so on. In the same way as stated in the boundary discussion below, the state of being within that particular boundary is to be understood. That which is given as a cakkavāḷa boundary extends even to those standing in the water that supports the earth, because the term "cakkavāḷa" applies everywhere. This is the difference for what is given in samānasaṃvāsa and avippavāsa boundaries: what is given with "I give this as an avippavāsa boundary" does not extend to the village area. Why? "Excluding the village and its vicinity" (Mahāva. 144) because it is said. But what is given "I give within the boundary of common residence" reaches even those residing in the village. 200-1. "Buddhādhivuttha" means dwelt in by the Buddha, the Blessed One. "Ekasmiṃ" means in one monastery. "Pākavatta" means a regular offering. "Vattati" means it proceeds/is customary. "Tehi vattabbaṃ" means it should be said by those monks in whose presence he gives. 202. But in the second part, "ascending the elder's seat" means after giving a share to all, down to the new monk, once, and if the robes are not exhausted, to give again to all, in the second part, it means giving to the elder. "By the method stated before" means by the method stated by the Blessed One: "Monks, those robes are yours" (Mahāva. 363). "It is permissible even for rag-robe wearers" means without saying "we give to you," but because it is said "we give to the monks, we give to the elders," it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.379) that "it is permissible even for rag-robe wearers." But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.379), they state the reason for "it is permissible even for rag-robe wearers" here as "because 'we give to you' was not said." If so, it would be permissible even if "we give to the Saṅgha" were said, as no distinction is seen in the conclusion "we give to the monks, we give to the elders, we give to the Saṅgha," the reason for this should be investigated. "It is permissible to wear" means it is permissible for rag-robe wearers. "It is considered by the owners" means it is considered for the purpose of sandals, bags, etc. 203. "Half should be given" means what is given to both Saṅghas, from that, half should be given to the monks and half to the nuns. Even if there is one monk, or one nun, even to an unordained person, half should be given. But when "I give to the Saṅgha of monks and to the nuns" is said, it should not be divided in the middle and given, because here, on the side of the nuns, the Saṅgha is not individually referred to, so the donor's intention is a share by the number of nuns. meditates, so too a gift, only when the bhikkhus are counted is it appropriate. Otherwise, "how much to the bhikkhus, how much to the bhikkhunis?" is not understood. Therefore, the phrase "to the community of bhikkhus" is the same as the phrase "to the bhikkhus," so it says, "counting the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, it should be given." Thus it says, "the individual... ...is included by the term 'community of bhikkhus'." But if it is said, "to the community of bhikkhus, and to the bhikkhunis, and to you," then the individual does not receive separately. This should be understood from the authority of the commentary, for no special reason is found here. Just as when it is said, "to both communities, and to you," the individual receives separately, being included by general and specific terms, so here too, since there are general and specific terms "to the community of bhikkhus, and to you," it should be that the individual receives separately. Therefore, the commentary's statement is the authority here. "From the place of attainment, one receives only one." From the place of attainment according to one's seniority, one receives only one share. The reason for this is stated: "Why? Because he is included by the term 'community of bhikkhus'." The intention is that the individual is also included by the term 'community of bhikkhus', as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī, the intention is that by the word 'bhikkhusaṅgha' (community of bhikkhus) only the bhikkhus are included, but the individual is included separately by "and to you," and therefore is not included there. It is like the place where it is said, "to the bhikkhus, and to the bhikkhunis, and to you." Here, the word 'saṅgha' (community) should be understood as having the individual as its principal. Some, however, write the reading: "because he is included by the term 'community of bhikkhus'." That is not good, because it is a reason for his separate receipt of gain. Thus, "because he is included by the separate term 'community'," is stated as the reason for the individual's separate receipt of a share. That Here, there is no taking of an individual. Thus, further on, in phrases like "to the community of bhikkhus and to you," it should be understood that there is no taking of an individual by the separate words for the community, etc. For if there were a taking, then there would be two parts, even separate from the community, because it would be taken in both places, so it is said. "It should be honored," etc., is said to show that it is not a layperson's duty. "He takes it for the community of bhikkhus" - this is said with reference to taking almsfood. Therefore, it is said, "it is permissible to eat." Even when "he takes it for the community of bhikkhus" is said, it is said because such a layperson's service as "it should be taken" is not implied. 204. By "within the winter season," it means that kathina offered in the last month of the rainy season, when it has not been spread, reaches only those who have completed the previous Rains-residence. After that, kathina offered in the winter season reaches even those who have completed the last Rains-residence, because they have completed the Rains. But after the winter season, in the "back" period, kathina offered with the specification "for the community who have completed the Rains-residence" reaches all those who have completed the Rains-residence in that bhikkhu-state, whether in the immediately following year or in subsequent years, wherever it may be. It shows that it does not reach those who have not completed the Rains-residence at all. "Experts in characteristics say" means the teachers who are experts in the characteristics of the Vinaya say. "Experts in characteristics say" - this is a concluding statement, but it is said thus because it is not found in the commentaries. "Outside the boundary of the precinct... etc. ... reaches all" - the meaning is that it reaches all who have completed the Rains-residence wherever they may be. Therefore, in the Mātikā Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said: "If, standing outside the boundary of the precinct, one says, 'I give to the community who have completed the Rains-residence,' it reaches all those who have completed the Rains-residence wherever they may be, who are present." But in the Gaṇṭhipadas, it is said: "Because it is said while standing in a place unsuitable for Rains-residence, it reaches all, both those who have completed the Rains-residence and those who have not." That should not be accepted. For when "I give to the community who have completed the Rains-residence" is said, those who have not completed the Rains-residence... they attain. All of them, it should be understood, means all of those who have spent the rains in that state of a monk, as it is said, “to the Sangha who have spent the rains.” The same method applies here to “all those present.” Thus he says, means he says, “I give to the Sangha