..續本文上一頁these three ways he cannot say: `Such and such is my kappiya. Give this money to my kappiya. Take this money for me. Put the money over there.´ All he can do is refuse to accept that money by saying, `This is not allowable.´ Refusal is the only action he needs to remember to do.

　　The Samantapasadika commentary explains that it is not only unallowable to accept money in one of these three ways for oneself, but also if the money is for the sangha, a group, another person, a pagoda, a monastery, or for anything else. If a monk accepts money in one of these three ways for himself it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. If he accepts for the others just mentioned it is a dukkata offense.

　　There is a recently written book on Vinaya which presents a mistaken viewpoint. It says:

　　One is allowed to `cause to be deposited´ money for a monastery, for a fund for requisites, for a charitable appeal (orphanage fund say), but not for any particular monk. For example a donor giving money to the temple may be instructed to, `Put it in the donation box´, or `Put it in this account number´, though such money may not be received into a monk´s hands. The sangha, or its appointed officers may direct the use of such a fund, even saying, `Buy this,´ or `Get that.´

　　It has been shown above that it is not allowable to cause to be accepted or deposited, money for a temple or for anything else. This viewpoint therefore is not in agreement with the Vinaya.

　　The commentary illustrates the principles involved in these rules with a fictitious story. It deals with a situation in which the donor ignores the refusal of the monk and simply leaves the money in front of the monk and departs. It shows that:

　　1. If a monk says, `Keep it here,´ it would be a nissaggiya offense for accepting.

　　2. If the monk wishes to buy something and says, `Take this,´ it would be arranging in an unallowable way. (If the fund were allowable).

　　3. This rule is like walking a tightrope with only a slip of the tongue being necessary to fall into committing an offense.

　　The story reads:

　　Suppose that a person should place a hundred or a thousand coins at a bhikkhus feet and say, `This is for you,´ and the bhikkhu refuses it saying, `This is not allowable,´ but the layperson replies, `I have given this to you,´ and then departs.

　　Then if another layperson comes and asks, `Venerable Sir, what is this

　　´ Then he can be told what was said by the first person and by the bhikkhu. If that layperson should say, `Venerable Sir, let me keep it secure, show me a secure place.´ Then having ascended a seven storied mansion he can explain, `This place is secure,´ but he should not say, `Keep it here.´ By saying just this much it becomes allowable or unallowable. (Vimativinodana sub-commentary states: If he says, `Keep it here,´ that is accepting money and a nissaggiya pacittiya offense.) He can then close the door and protect it.

　　If later a salesman comes with merchandise such as a bowl or robes and says, `Take this Venerable Sir,´ then the bhikkhu can say, `Layperson I have need for this and the means to obtain it exists, but there is no kappiya here now.´ And if the salesman says, `I will be your kappiya, open the door and give it to me.´ Then having opened the door he should say, `It is placed in this room.´ He should not say, `Take this.´ Thus depending on what is said does it become allowable or unallowable. Then if that salesman should take those coins and give allowable requisites to the bhikkhu then that is allowable. If he takes too many coins then that bhikkhu should say, `I will not take your merchandise, go away!´

　　2. Mendaka-sikkhapada

　　A translation of …

《A Life Free from Money Information about the Money Rules》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…