English
And also in the Vinaya Vinicchaya treatise: "A field, land, or lake, or cows, goats, and the like, when it is said, 'We give to the monastery,' it is not proper to refuse." And also in the Khuddasikkha treatise, "Fields and the like, to the monastery, when it is said, 'We will give,' it is proper." Here, "We give to the monastery" should be understood as referring to a monastery of the Sangha, not a personal monastery. Thus, it is said in the Vimativinodani, " 'We give to the monastery' is said with reference to a monastery of the Sangha." And "to the building," when said generally, Now, at that time, Visākhā Migāramātā wished to build a palace with ivory nails for the Sangha. In this story, because the use of a palace was allowed, it is understood to refer to a Sangha-owned palace, for it is said in the Vimatavinodanī, "All palace use." In the commentary on the Pāli, in the section on description, "various things of gold, silver, etc." is said referring to Sangha-owned lodging. But it is not proper for an individual to accept gold or silver ornaments, for it is said, "Gold and silver should not be enjoyed in any way." Therefore, the commentary does not say here "whether it is a Sangha-owned monastery or an individual monastery." Because it is said, "In the place of describing the Dhamma and Vinaya to the monks," Sangha-owned lodging made of gold, etc., and lodging equipment are proper, but not individual ones, and this should be understood. Therefore, a monastery with a pond, field, land, etc., is Sangha-owned, not individual, and this should be seen by those skilled in the Vinaya. But if a king, royal minister, or anyone else gives a monastery with a pond, field, land, etc., declaring the state of that monastery with its attachments to an individual, in such a case, it is proper for the individual to accept it as a Sangha-owned monastery, not as an individual monastery, and this should be seen. Because ponds, fields, lands, etc., given saying, "We give to the monastery," belong to the Sangha. Therefore, the Vimatavinodanī says, "What is said, 'We give to the monastery,' belongs to the Sangha, not to the individual, it should be seen like a field, etc." Here is the connection: A field, etc., given saying, "We give to the monastery," belongs to the Sangha, not to the individual. Thus, a couch made of gold, etc., which is improper, given saying, "We give to the monastery," belongs to the Sangha, not to the individual, and this should be understood. Only the Sangha is allowed to accept fields, etc., with proper usage. For it is said in the Vimatavinodanī, "Four "May it be used for requisites," he gives, it is allowable, here, "I give a pond for the four requisites of the Sangha," or, "The Sangha may use the four requisites, I give a pond," or, "From this pond, I give the four requisites," even if said, it is allowable. And this is said only referring to what is given to the Sangha. But for an individual, even if given thus, a pond, field, etc., is not allowable. However, for a pure-minded person, wells, ponds, etc., for water use are allowable. "The Sangha has a pond, how is that?" etc., everywhere it is said only in terms of the Sangha. "Fields, etc., are allowable only for the entire Sangha, it should be seen that it is not allowed to be taken individually in the Pāli." But for an individual, or for individuals, fields, land, etc., are not allowable to be accepted even with conventional usage. And having done so, in the Vimativinodanī, "Fields, land, etc., are not allowable to be taken by individuals even with conventional usage, because it is not allowed thus, it is understood, he abstains from accepting fields and land," etc., since it is not allowed to be taken individually by one person, it is already established that others cannot take it thus. Therefore, it should be seen that it is established that a monastery with a pond, field, land, etc., should be accepted only as belonging to the Sangha. This is the answer to the first question. But a monastery without a pond, field, land, etc., is allowable to be accepted even individually. And that monastery, while that individual is alive, belongs to that individual. If he dies without giving it to others, it is not to be relinquished, not to be divided, it belongs to the Sangha. As he said, "Monks, when a monk passes away, the Sangha is the owner of the bowl and robes. Moreover, attendants of the sick are very helpful, I allow, monks, the Sangha to give the three robes to the attendants of the sick. Whatever light goods, light requisites are there, that should be divided by the Sangha in the presence of all. Whatever is there..." A heavy item, a heavy requisite, That is not to be given away, Not to be divided, To the Sangha of the four directions, Of those who have come and have not come. And in the Vinaya commentary it is said, "While he is alive, it is personal, When he is dead, it belongs to the Sangha." Even requisites kept without giving to others, There, they belong to the Sangha. The property of two is undivided, When one dies, the other is the owner. The same is the rule for the property of many, When all are dead, it belongs to the Sangha." And here, that which is a heavy item, Among the heavy items, A heavy item is fivefold by categories, But twenty-fivefold by specific forms. Therefore, the state of being a heavy item, Of a monastery that is the property of the deceased, Should be understood, Therefore, the commentary says, "That which is a light item, That which is a heavy item." Thus, with five categories, With five pure eyes, The Lord declared, The twenty-fivefold heavy item. Here, the state of being a heavy item of the monastery should be understood. This is the answer to the second question. This is the answer of the leading elders of Hamsavati. But the elders residing in the Ramanna country say that it should be accepted even in a personal manner, so also the elders residing in the Jammaya country, so also the elders residing in the Sunaparantaka country, so also the elders residing in Isinagara say that there is no fault in accepting it in a personal manner. The intention of those elders is that these boundaries of gain are not permitted by the Sammāsambuddha, nor established by the elders who compiled the Dhamma. But rather, they are established by donors who desire merit, therefore, donors who desire merit, such as kings, royal ministers, build a monastery and, for the sake of the gain of that monastery, demarcate an area and establish it, saying, "Whatever arises within this area, we will give it all to our monastery." But they give that monastery to whomever they please, saying, "I give this monastery to you, let it be your monastery," or they give it according to their own liking. And that person also says, "I approve." Monks, "five dwellings, a monastery," Thus, only an approved monastery is accepted, Because only the monastery approved by the Blessed One is accepted. If there are fields and lands in that monastery? "He is abstaining from accepting fields and lands," Thus, the acceptance of fields and lands that is prohibited, Because that field and land is not accepted, Only the monastery is accepted. The robes, alms food, medicine, and requisites That arise from the fields and lands attached to it, Continue to be allowable for that person, There is no fault in the person accepting or using them, Because the allowable requisites approved by the Blessed One are used. If you bring a sutta? "I allow, monks, all use of the building." But Visākhā, Migāra's mother, Gave the Sāḷinda palace, the elephant-tusk palace, for the sake of the Sangha. True, yet the individual is included in the Sangha, When the use of the palace is allowed to the Sangha, It is also allowed to the individual included within it. Otherwise, the Sangha, sitting in a dwelling within the monastery, Even while performing an act within the boundary of that monastery, Would not have a corrupted act. And the Sāratthadīpanī will say, "I allow, monks, all use of the building," Because of this statement, Even in a personal dwelling, It is permissible to use gold pots and the like, Which are specified as items for use in the dwelling, But it is not permissible to use them after making them one's own. By this statement, the allowability of all requisites In a personal monastery is understood, Because the statement "I allow, monks, all use of the building" is indicative. In "gold pots and the like," The word "like" is for limitation or for variety. Therefore, it includes non-allowable pots of silver, ivory, and nutmeg, And requisites for dwellings such as bowls and drinking straws Made of gold, silver, ivory, nutmeg, and the like. These are for the monk. They are not suitable as requisites, nor are male and female slaves, cows, and buffaloes. Similarly, fields and land are not suitable for a bhikkhu to accept as his own property. But there is no prohibition for the monastery. Because of the meaning of "all," the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary says, "In the dwelling, all kinds of work, even with doors, window frames, etc., made of jewels or stucco, are suitable. Nothing is prohibited in the dwelling except for unsuitable dwellings." By this, "except for villages and village boundaries" means that, except for unsuitable dwellings, everything suitable and unsuitable is allowable for the monastery. It is understood that nothing, even a little, is prohibited. Therefore, the Vinayavinicchaya says: "Whether a field, land, or pond, or we give cows, goats, etc., Even if it is said, 'For the monastery,' it is not suitable to refuse." Now, is it said in the Vimativinodanī that "giving to the monastery" refers to a monastic monastery? It is said that there must be the teacher's intention here. If it is said, "We give fields, land, etc., to a personal monastery," it should be rejected, saying, "It is not suitable, lay follower." Why?