English
few give to the Sangha. Most give to their own family-monks. This being so, the saying of family-monks among the nine unrighteous gifts, "what is dedicated to an individual, he dedicates to the Sangha" (Pārā. 660; Pāci. 492) falls into one unrighteous gift. The phrase "while he lives, it is individual; when he dies, it is Sangha's" did not arise in the context of originally individual property, but arose in the context of making an originally Sangha monastery individual for its upkeep. Therefore, even new monasteries given to an individual are indeed individual. Even old monasteries, originally given to an individual, even if given to disciples etc. as individual property, and even if taken by trust while he is alive, are indeed individual. Therefore, the argument that there are no individual monasteries at all must be considered. But other teachers say: "In this era, there are no Sangha monasteries, all are individual. Why? Because new monasteries, at the time of establishment and donation, are made for a family-monk, so they are individual. And old monasteries are taken over by disciples and their successors, or by other individuals, and never taken over by the Sangha, so they are individual, not Sangha's." There too, it should be considered thus: Even in new monasteries, at the time of establishment and donation, some make them for the Sangha, some for an individual. Even if previously made for an individual, hearing the words of wise people who desire welfare, believing that a Sangha gift is more fruitful than an individual gift, there are donors who make them Sangha's. Even in old monasteries received as individual property, some monks, at the time of death, dedicate them to the Sangha. Some die without giving to anyone, then that monastery becomes Sangha's. But in the Savatthuka Great Monastery, kings, chief ministers, and others who made it, (said) "As long as the Dispensation, lasting five thousand years, endures, may the Sangha, residing in my monastery, enjoy the four requisites..." with the intention that it may last, for a long time, producing requisites for the Sangha, they give villages, fields, and so on, saying, "We give this to our monastery." And "to the monastery" means they give it dedicating it to the Sangha dwelling in the monastery, not to a single individual who has become a family attendant. Therefore, mostly they are seen as belonging to the Sangha. They even engrave letters on stones and set them up. Therefore, the view that there are no monasteries belonging entirely to the Sangha should also be considered. But other teachers say, "At this time, monasteries belong to the donors, therefore, only the donors are empowered to manage them, not the Sangha, nor an individual. Even if the monastery donor is not present, his sons, daughters, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so on, down the family line, are the owners of that monastery. Why so? Because it is stated, 'He by whom a monastery is built, he is the owner of the monastery' (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 116), and by the saying, 'or whoever in his family should be consulted' (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 116), the donor, who is the owner of the monastery, or one born in his lineage, is empowered to manage it. By the saying in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.538-539), 'When the family lineage is cut off, whoever is the lord of that district, he, without confiscating it, gives it again, like the chief queen of the Nāga king Aḷa gave the water channel brought by the bhikkhu on Cittalapabbata; thus it is permissible,' even if the family lineage of the monastery donor is cut off, the lord of that district, whether a king or a royal minister or any other lord, is permitted to manage the monastery and give it according to his intention." But other scholars do not agree with this. How so? The saying, "He by whom a monastery is built, he is the owner of the monastery," is spoken in the sense of a former usage, not now in the sense of ownership, like Jetavana, or "owner of the bowl," and so on. Just as when the analysis is made, "Jetavana" is the grove, the park, of Prince Jeta, even though, after Anāthapiṇḍika bought it and established the monastery, the prince was not the owner of that park, nevertheless, because he was formerly the owner before Anāthapiṇḍika bought it, by former usage, it is always called "Je..." It is simply spoken thus. Just as, when the owner of a bowl is called 'the bowl-owner', even though from the time it was bought by donors and given to a bhikkhu, the craftsman is no longer the master of the bowl, nevertheless, because he was formerly the master before the donor bought it, by way of former usage, he is still called 'the bowl-owner'. In the same way, even though from the time it was given to a bhikkhu, the donor is not the master of the monastery, because donation is characterized by the relinquishing of the object, nevertheless, because he was formerly the master before the time of donation, by way of former usage, he is still called 'the monastery-owner'. It is understood that he is not primarily the master. Therefore, from the time it is given to the Saṅgha, or a group, or an individual, the Saṅgha and others, as recipients, are indeed the masters to manage it, not the donor. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" It is understood because, even though there were monastery donors like Anāthapiṇḍika and others, the Buddha allowed the Saṅgha to appoint a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities as a lodging-apportioner, as stated in "I allow, O bhikkhus, to appoint a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities as a lodging-apportioner" (Cūḷava. 317). And because it is stated that the lodging-apportioner alone has the authority to manage, as in "I allow, O bhikkhus... to take by lot" (Cūḷava. 318). And also because it is said in the Aṭṭṭhakathā that the Saṅgha and individuals are the owners: "If two bhikkhus take Saṅghika land, clear it, and make a Saṅghika lodging, the one who first took that land is the owner." "If both make it personal, that one is the owner." "But if one, without taking even a creeper from the Saṅgha, builds a personal monastery on Saṅghika land with brought-in materials, half is Saṅghika, half is personal." It is understood because of these statements in the Aṭṭhakathā regarding the ownership of the Saṅgha and individuals. The Aṭṭhakathā statement, "Or whoever in his family should be asked," does not indicate their mastery over the monastery. Rather, when a bhikkhu who is about to travel to another region, and there are no bhikkhus, sāmaṇeras, or monastery attendants to be asked in the monastery, he should ask them... It indicates the state of having to go, having left. This is said in the commentary: "Indeed, these ten kinds of beds, in a monastery of the Sangha, having spread or caused to be spread, one departing must depart after asking permission. And when asking permission, if there is a bhikkhu, the bhikkhu should be asked... If he is not there, the monastery attendant; if he too is not there, whoever built the monastery, that owner of the monastery, or anyone in his family should be asked." Thus, even the monastery attendant should be asked for the sake of observance, as a matter of duty, not because they are owners of the Sangha's lodging. This should be understood. And the saying "when the lineage is cut off," etc., indicates the giving of fields, lands, ponds, etc., which were made in an improper manner, received through improper transaction, and thus being improper, were abandoned by the bhikkhus, taken by kings etc. for the purpose of making them proper, and then given back to those very bhikkhus. It does not indicate the giving by those kings etc. to other Sanghas, groups, individuals, or stupas, from what belongs to those bhikkhus. If they were to give, it would be improper giving, improper receiving, and improper use. This is said in the Parivāra (Parivāra Commentary 329): "Nine improper givings: what is dedicated to the Sangha is dedicated to another Sangha, or to a stupa, or to an individual; what is dedicated to a stupa is dedicated to another stupa, or to the Sangha, or to an individual; what is dedicated to an individual is dedicated to another individual, or to the Sangha, or to a stupa." And in the Commentary (Parivāra Commentary 329): "Nine improper givings... are thus stated. 'Nine improper receivings and uses' means the receivings and uses of these very givings." Therefore, if kings etc., considering themselves owners, were to give to others, that giving would also be an improper giving; the receiving of that giving would be improper receiving; and those who use that giving would be engaging in improper use. This should be understood. Or if they were to say thus: "The gift of a monastery to the Sangha, praised as supreme by the Buddha," etc. (in Cūḷava. 295, 315) "The word 'to the Saṅgha' in 'a gift' here is not a possessive relation, but indeed a dative of recipient. However, 'of the donor' is to be understood as a possessive relation. Therefore, the donor, being the owner, is the master, not the Saṅgha, the recipient." They are to be told thus: "This 'a gift of a monastery to the Saṅgha' is said in reference to the time of giving, not in reference to the time of having been given." For at the time of giving, the donor gives up his own property, the monastery, to the Saṅgha. Therefore, at that time, the donor is the owner, the Saṅgha the recipient. But at the time of having been given, the Saṅgha itself is the owner, having received the monastery, not the donor, having given it up. Therefore, the Saṅgha is the master to manage it. Therefore the Blessed One said: "That, monks, has been given up by the donors." (Cūḷava. 273) This, however, is said for those who value grammar to believe. But in reality, the ownership of the four requisites, such as robes, belongs to the donor only at the time of giving. And from the time of having been given, it belongs to the recipient,