Опубликовано khantibalo от 24 октября, 2018 - 13:52 Отображение колонок Текст оригинала русский Московская община Комментарии <<Назад Правило 6. Несогласованное строительство хижины Оглавление Далее>> Правило 8. Ложное обвинение в параджике (1) Пали - Thanissaro Bhikkhu русский - Московская община Комментарии 7 When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built—having a sponsor and destined for himself—he is to assemble bhikkhus to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should have a large dwelling built on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. ¶ ¶ The Vibhaṅga defines dwelling here with the same terms it uses for hut in the preceding rule. All explanations for this rule may be inferred from those above, the only difference being that, as the dwelling here has a sponsor, no begging is involved in its construction and so there is no need to limit its size. ¶ ¶ None of the texts define sponsor aside from the Vibhaṅga’s statement that the sponsor can be a man or a woman, a householder or one gone forth. The Pali term for “sponsor” here, sāmika, can also mean “owner,” and this has led some to suggest that this rule covers only those cases where the donor maintains ownership over the dwelling even after the bhikkhu has finished it. This, however, would create a serious gap in the rules. Suppose a donor offers to provide all the materials for a bhikkhu to build himself a large hut and to hand ownership of the hut over to the bhikkhu when it is finished as well. This is an extremely common case, and yet it would not be covered by the preceding rule, for that rule deals only with instances where the bhikkhu has to beg for his materials. If sāmika under this rule were confined to the restrictive sense of “owner” given above, the case would not be covered by this rule, either. ¶ ¶ There is evidence in the Canon, though, that the word sāmika can have another meaning aside from “owner. ” The non-offense clauses to NP 10 use the word sāmika to describe a person who creates a robe-fund for a bhikkhu but does not retain ownership of the robe once it has been given to the bhikkhu, and it seems reasonable to use the word in the same sense under this rule as well. Thus a sponsor here would be anyone—man or woman, ordained or not—who underwrites the cost of building a hut in such a way that the bhikkhu does not have to beg for his materials. Thus if a bhikkhu building a hut for his own use draws entirely on funds deposited with his steward for all materials and labor, the case would come under this rule as well. ¶ ¶ Given the way the Commentary defines destined for oneself, if the sponsor maintained ownership of the finished hut, the case would not fall under this rule. If a sponsor is building a dwelling to give to a bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu is not involved in any way in building it or getting it built, this rule does not apply. ¶ ¶ Summary: Building a hut with a sponsor—or having it built—destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the Community’s approval, is a saṅghādisesa offense. ¶ ¶ <<Назад Правило 6. Несогласованное строительство хижины Оглавление Далее>> Правило 8. Ложное обвинение в параджике (1) Редакция перевода от 04.05.2024 01:43 Оставить комментарий50 просмотров
