English
if the Kathina is not removed, until the full moon of Phagguna, five months, during this time, whether a corpse-cloth arises, or for deceased relatives dedicated to the four-quartered Saṅgha, or through the rule of alms, or through a great monastery undertaking, or in any way a Saṅghika robe is given, all of that belongs only to those bhikkhus who spread the Kathina. It does not belong to those whose rains-residence is broken, or those who arrived later, or those bhikkhus residing at the boundary who arrived there. If they take it unknowingly, it should be given back. If that robe is used to make food like rice and other edibles, the others also get it. Why? Because the benefits are gone. Therefore, those who arrive to complete the quorum, or those whose rains-residence is broken, or those who arrived later, or those who spent the rains-residence in another monastery, receive edibles and food, etc. The act of giving the Kathina-spreading cloth is valid only within the limited boundary. If there is no such monastery, it should be done in another monastery with a defined boundary, or in a water-scattering boundary, etc. Why? Because in that monastery, those who arrived earlier are not skilled in spreading the Kathina. Those elders who are skilled in spreading and are reciters of the Khandhakas should be sought and brought. Having announced the Kammavāca, had the Kathina spread, and having enjoyed the gift, they will leave, but the benefit goes to the others. Because it is said in the commentary that the Kammavāca should be announced even to the bhikkhus residing at another boundary. Those whose rains-residence is broken, Those who arrive at the last monastery, or have spent the rains in another monastery, receive only the number needed to complete the quorum the benefit is for the others alone. Even if they, whose rains-residence is broken, approve, the spreading of the Kathina is invalid, this is discussed in the commentary. But others say, "The Kathina-spreading boundary" is said referring to the boundary of the vicinity, so they perform the Kathina-spreading motion only within the boundary of the vicinity, that is improper, difficult to purify. For how can one bring stones or make an outer boundary there, in a village boundary entered only in the vicinity boundary, with monks dwelling there? By this phrase, "Kathina-spreading boundary," only the state of Kathina-spreading is stated, not the giving of the Kathina-spreading cloth by a formal motion, and that discussion should be shown by the four kinds of actions. Therein, the action of announcement, the action of motion, the action of motion with one announcement, the action of motion with four announcements. Therein, the action of announcement is called that which is done after purifying the assembly of monks in the boundary, bringing the consent of those eligible for consent, after praising the assembly with the agreement of the united assembly, and announcing three times, "It pleases the assembly." The action of motion is called that which is done by a single motion with the agreement of the united assembly in the manner stated. The action of motion with one announcement is called that which is done by a single motion and by a single announcement, thus by a motion with one announcement, with the agreement of the united assembly in the manner stated. The action of motion with four announcements is called that which is done by a single motion and by three announcements, thus by a motion with four announcements, with the agreement of the united assembly in the manner stated. Therein, the action of announcement is obtained only in light actions such as the time for sharing fruit. Even in giving the Kathina-spreading cloth, it is useless to receive a cloth for the Kathina and then spread it with that same cloth, after obtaining a cloth with many benefits, there is no need for the act of giving by formal motion, the assembly It should be given with his approval. A single Kathina-spreading cloth-giving act is valid. There is no need for a further formal act. However, a motion-act was easily obtained by Mahakassapa Thera and others at the time of the Dhamma compilation, when they appointed themselves. But a motion-second act, such as boundary agreement, boundary removal, Kathina-giving, Kathina withdrawal, allocation of a hut site, and allocation of a monastery site, these six weighty acts, cannot be done without seeking permission. It must be done after announcing the motion-second act. In other cases, such as agreement on the absence of robes and so on, in motion-second acts, it can be done even after seeking permission, because it is a light act. However, a motion-fourth act, such as the ordination act, these four acts, now must be done within a defined boundary, or if that is not possible, within a water-sprinkling boundary, or if one is unable to purify it, even within an undefined boundary. Others say thus: "When making a hut site or a monastery site, how will they be able to make those hut and monastery sites boundary-defined? Therefore, it should be done right there, in the place where the hut or monastery is being made." That is merely their statement, it should not be accepted as essential. Inspection of the site is the standard here, for example, when inspecting a monastic hut site, after inspecting the site with "he begs," etc., and avoiding faults in the site motion and defects in the characteristics, the monks agreed upon by the motion-second act should go there and inspect the hut site. Therefore, in the text, it is said, "Those agreed-upon monks should go there and inspect the hut site." Otherwise, just as when ordaining a person without a bowl and robe or without a preceptor, even if it is announced in the formal act, "He has a complete bowl and robe," or "He is seeking ordination from so-and-so as preceptor," the act would not succeed. Others say thus: "But it was done at the time of the boundary agreement, for example, at the time of the boundary agreement, the monks in that very place..." Having stood, they recite the Kammavāca, even in that place, the boundary is unbound. If the boundary were bound, there would be a covering of the boundary or a breaking of the boundary." It is true, yet having made that boundary-agreement place independent, because the act of boundary agreement is their own, monks established in separate villages, standing at the village boundary, cannot invalidate the act. If, having made the boundary-agreement place independent, one were to agree upon the boundary, how, in the time of the Blessed One's existence, could the group of six monks agree upon the boundary as they pleased? But it should not be seen thus, for Vāsākhā, Migāra's mother, having acquired land for nine crores, built a great monastery named Pubbārāma; similarly, Anāthapiṇḍika, having bought the garden place of Prince Jeta with a layer of coins, built a great monastery named Jetavana. Thus, those desiring merit, having made an enclosure, build a monastery. Therefore, it should be seen that the group of six monks bound the boundary as they pleased. This is the consideration of the approach boundary. The boundary of common dwelling is the boundary agreed upon by a group of monks with common views, common morality, and a common assembly, to dwell together in unity with the Sangha's acts such as Uposatha. The boundary of non-separation is the boundary agreed upon for not being separated from the three robes. These two boundaries, even though possible up to a limit of three yojanas, also obtain the name "great boundary." Their consideration has been fully and completely stated in the Great Commentary; therefore, I will not speak here, for even if I were to speak, it would be stated without distinction; therefore, I will not speak. The boundary of gain is whatever village or town or pond, lake, forest, etc., whatever place has been demarcated and established by kings or great ministers for the Sangha's use of the four requisites, this is called the boundary of gain. It was not permitted by the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, nor established by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, but rather established by the givers of gain. In the Līnatthappakāsanī of the Mātikā Commentary, the boundary of gain is that which... Royal ministers and the like, having built a monastery, mark off an area of a league, half a league, or a full league around it, declaring, "This is the boundary of benefit for our monastery; whatever arises within this area, we give it all to our monastery." This is called the boundary of benefit. In this section on the boundary of benefit, after the death of the king, the great donor of the Great Shrine, and one year had passed, during the reign of his eldest son, Dhammarāja, such a meritorious act had never happened before. If, among royal ministers and the like, someone gives lakes, fields, lands, and so on to a certain monastery, and then gives that monastery with its appurtenances to an individual, in such a case, is it proper for that individual to accept that monastery with its appurtenances as personal property, or only as the property of the Sangha? Furthermore, if a purely personal monastery, without lakes, fields, lands, and so on, is not given to others, does it become the property of the Sangha upon the death of the individual, or does it remain personal property? Here is the explanation: If, among royal ministers and the like, someone gives lakes, fields, lands, and so on to a monastery, in such a case, it should be understood that it is not proper to refuse. Therefore, it is said in the Vinaya Commentary: "When it is said, 'We give this lake, this field, this land to the monastery,' it is not permissible to refuse." And also, "They say, 'We give a female slave, a male slave, a field, land, cows, and buffaloes to the building.' There is no need for individual acceptance; when the building is accepted, it is already accepted."