Vinaya Essentials from the Four-Part Vinaya (四分律拾毗尼義鈔)

Four Brief Approaches to Teaching Timing and Non-Timing

**Times and Non-Times for the First Precept (Sīla/Dāna)**

There are two types of "time" for giving:

1. **Five-fold Benefit Time**: When the Buddha allows bhikkhus to receive the five benefits, this is known as "timely." 2. **Rains-Retreat Labor Time**: Like the offering made by the people of Veranja to the monastic community while they sat for the rains retreat, this is called "timely robes."

Anything given outside these times is called "untimely." As stated in the Four-Part Vinaya: "If a community receives a large, divisible gift meant for the present assembly and someone delays distributing it beyond the retreat, the Buddha said it should not be withheld. This is an untimely robe because it is meant to be immediately divided among the present community. Therefore, we know that it is not given as compensation for labor, so it is called untimely."

Second, "manifest content for/to the community" has two types. Among these, what are the two? When a donor, for the purpose of the summer retreat, makes an offering to a specific number of people present, it is called "timely manifest for the community." As the Four-Part Vinaya says: "If a community gains retreat clothing and splits it into two groups, the Buddha said: Count the people, whether many or few." The donor's distribution covers all those within this one era of transformation who are doing the retreat. Everyone who is doing the retreat gets a share. Hence it is called "timely community [clothing]." The Vinaya says: "If a monk, during the retreat, obtains a large amount of community retreat clothing, that monk should make a thought and a verbal declaration and then receive it."

"Untimely" has two types. When the gift is designated for specific individuals and is limited, it is called "untimely manifest." As the Four-Part Vinaya says: "When a manifest community obtains a large amount of divisible clothing, the Buddha said: it may be distributed. Count the people, whether many or few, and mix good and bad together, dividing equally." If a donor's intention generally covers both this and the ten directions, and the distribution reaches all beings in one transformation, it is called "untimely community [clothing]." The Vinaya says: "In a dwelling place, the manifest community obtained much divisible clothing. Guest monks would come again and again to share, causing weariness. The Buddha said: One person should be appointed by a formal motion and single-proclamation act to distribute [it]."

As for these two types of groups, the two types mentioned above for the four categories can be understood by analogy.

The third category of procedural differences involves two types: "present" and "non-procedural" methods. There are four fixed conditions: time, place, people, and objects. All four are fixed because the donor has limited the recipients and designated the items. The distribution is done by casting lots among the assembly, as stated in the Fourfold Vinaya: "When the items have been distributed, it should not be seen or received after the casting of lots."

According to a precedent, as the Vinaya says: "When one monk happily accepts on behalf of the assembly, if a latecomer monk arrives, he does not receive a share." This refers to a case within the legal boundaries where a single monk personally receives the items, hence the term "joyful acceptance and distribution." However, this is an early precedent, before the three-statement acceptance method was established.

Thus, in the two types of monastic acquisitions, procedures are always required. Due to the four non-fixed conditions, both monastic communities receive items equally based on the number of people. Each community within its own boundary must perform a procedure for distribution.

Another interpretation: For communal acquisitions during the rainy season, no procedure is needed; those who began the rains can simply take them. However, if items are kept until outside the season, a procedure must still be performed. The latter interpretation is considered definitive.

Regarding the first interpretation: For communal acquisitions during the rains, if they are based on fixed labor and status within the season, should a procedure not be required? Yet, because the donor's intention encompasses the entire community after the rains end, and the acquired items should be eligible, a procedure must still be performed.

As stated in the Fourfold Vinaya: When one monk receives a large number of summer robes for the community, the Buddha said: "He should mentally recite and vocally declare, 'This is my item.' If received, when other monks arrive, do not give them a share." The commentary explains: "What is received should be kept. Since the items are not eligible under the law, they cannot be shared."

Question: "If they are not eligible under the law and thus cannot be shared, why does the Vinaya say, 'One should wait and entrust items for collection'?"

Answer: There are three reasons for this allowance: 1) The person is originally within the donor's designated area, 2) They personally receive the donation, and 3) They have already done the rainy season labor. Those who depart are considered valid for distribution because the procedure is completed. There are three reasons why departing monks may still be waited for and entrusted.

Question: "If so, do monks outside the boundary who have also done the rainy season labor qualify to be waited for and entrusted?"

Answer: They lack the other two reasons. While they have labor, it is not mentioned that they can be waited for. Due to their labor, they are eligible under the law.

Question: "If monks outside the boundary who have done the rains are eligible by law, why does the Vinaya say, 'One should not receive robes while dwelling elsewhere for the rains'?"

Answer: This refers to the case of present-item-only offerings.

Interpretation: Due to the four fixed conditions, a procedure is not required, yet it says "he should mentally recite and vocally declare, 'This is my item.'" This applies when a communal rainy-season acquisition involves four or more people within the boundary. The donors are not the monastic community, so a mental recitation procedure is necessary.

Another interpretation: Since this item is a communal acquisition, there is no need for a mental recitation or three-statement acceptance. Simply though directed by the mind, one takes possession of the item for oneself. The Vinaya states, "If received, it succeeds through directed thought."

**Fourth Category: Differences in Procedure**

This category has two main cases: (1) donations from lay supporters, and (2) items left by a deceased monk.

**First Case: Donations**

Within this, there are two sub-cases: donations given to the group present (immediate distribution) and donations given to the monastic community in general.

- **Immediate distribution** has two types: during the designated season or outside the season. Each type can involve a single recipient group or two recipient groups. - **Community distribution** also has two types, for the same time periods. Each has three variations: 1) distribution to those currently in residence, 2) distribution within the monastery's boundary (as described in the *Shanjian* treatise, which defines fifteen types of boundaries), and 3) distribution not limited to the monastery's boundary.

When distributing to the community, each type can involve one or two recipient groups. Within a single group, there are procedures for one person, two people, three people, four people, or five or more people—each handled differently.

For simplicity, we will focus on two main methods: **the ballot method** and **the formal ceremony (Karma) method**.

**Ballot Method:** References are given above. If two or more people are present, the ballot method is used. If only one person is present, they may take it with a joyful heart. The *Five-Part Vinaya* also says the recipient may keep it, give it away as a pure gift, or offer it to someone else. If it is not used this way, it should be left for others to divide.

**Formal Ceremony (Karma) Method:** References are also given above. According to the authoritative explanation, there are three distinct steps: 1. **Appoint the Distributor:** A single monk is appointed (e.g., "The community appoints a certain monk"). 2. **Transfer Authority:** The community assigns the items to the appointed monk (e.g., "The community now gives these items to that monk, who will then give them to the community"). 3. **The Appointed Monk Assembles the Distribution:** The appointed monk performs the *White-One Karma* (a formal procedural motion) to divide the items (e.g., "The items are given to one monk, who then performs the White-One Karma to divide them").

The two older Vinayas (the *Sarvāstivāda* and *Mahīśāsaka*) do not detail this procedure, but it should be followed if possible.

**Alternative Explanation:** Some say the "White-One" in the text refers to the transfer of authority, which is the same as the division method: "The community now gives to that monk, who will then give to the community." This would mean the transfer and division are the same action. But if that is so, the appointed monk would not be the receiver of the items (the text says "hold the items for the monk to perform the White-One"), yet the procedure still needs a receiver. This seems unlikely.

**Another Explanation (Maintaining the Three Steps):** The Vinaya says: "Appoint one monk to divide. He performs a White-One Karma." Many translators did not explain this well, because the ballot method made it unclear, so a proper formal procedure was instituted.

**Present Case Method (Donations to the Present Community):** A two-stage procedure. The receiving rules are similar to the "individual receiving" rules (described elsewhere).

**Time-Specific Community Distribution:** For example, the Vinaya says: A monk who participated in the summer rains retreat then left. The others later divided the summer retreat clothes. When the departing monk returned and asked if the clothes were divided, they said yes. He asked if he had received his share, they said no. He rebuked them, saying "I spent the summer retreat here—why didn't you give me my share?" The Buddha ruled: "They did divide correctly, but they should have waited for him, or he should have entrusted his share to someone before leaving."

According to the main explanation: When a retreat-time gift is given, the donor intends it for everyone who participated in the retreat. The Buddha's rule allows those who were inside the monastery's boundary at the start of the retreat to take their share without a formal procedure. Since the departing monk was inside the boundary at the start, he was entitled to a share. The other monks should have either waited for him or obtained his instruction. The logic is clear.

If a monk dies before receiving his share, it should not be given to others but returned to the community, because his ownership was not yet established. However, if the gift was a direct personal donation (a "face-to-face" offering), the recipient must claim their share; if they die, their share reverts to the community according to the number of people who were present, because the ownership had already been established.

**Distribution Rules for Food:** These rules apply to clothing, but food distribution is different. The *Four-Part Vinaya* says: "Food follows the donor's intention; it should not be divided [by a set formula]."

**Time-Specific Immediate Distribution:** For example, the Vinaya says: A monk established his summer retreat in one location, but then also spent time in another. He was unsure which place should give him retreat clothes. The Buddha ruled: "Take from the place where you stayed the longest days. If you stayed equal days in both, take half from each."

The main explanation is that the donors intended their gifts for those who had retreated *in their location* for the season. According to the *Ten-Part Vinaya*: "If you stayed unequal days, you take from the place with more days. If days are equal, you take from the place where you performed the *Pravāraṇa* (end-of-retreat ceremony). If you did *Pravāraṇa* in both places with equal days, you take from the place where you performed *Pravāraṇa* first."

**Non-Time-Specific Immediate Distribution:** For example, the *Four-Part Vinaya* says: The lay followers of Rājagṛha heard the Buddha allowed monks to accept lay donations, so they sent various fine cloths to the monks. The monks did not know what to do. The Buddha ruled: "Count the monks and divide the gifts accordingly. If there are ten monks, make ten portions." The explanation is clear.

**Procedure for a Split Monastic Community:** The Vinaya says: The Sangha was split into two factions regarding a large donation of clothing. The Buddha ruled: "Divide the items into two equal portions." If the split happened *before* the items were received, the Buddha ruled: "Ask the donor, 'Whom should we give this to?' If the donor says, 'Give it to the senior monk,' you should give it to that senior monk's location. If the donor says, 'I don't know' or 'Give to both,' then divide it into two portions." Furthermore, if a monk from one faction goes to the other *after* the items have been divided, he is not entitled to a share. If he goes *before* the items are divided, he is also not entitled.

According to the main explanation: Even a good monk who leaves the community's boundary is not entitled, much less a monk from the opposing, "wrong" faction. However, if they continue to live within the same monastery boundary, they are still not entitled.

**Second Case: Items Left by a Deceased Monk**

This applies to groups of five or more monks.

**Procedure for Four Monks:** An old explanation says that four monks can also perform a formal Karma, gift the items to one monk, and then that one monk returns them to the community. But this recipient monk would then need to be part of a quorum of four for the *next* procedure. A newer explanation says that the recipient monk *cannot* count towards the quorum. Four monks can only use the ballot method, not the full Karma procedure.

The *Mother Treatise* says: "If five monks live together and one dies, the remaining four perform a Karma to divide the items. This is called the 'fourfold appropriate procedure.' If only four monks perform a Karma to gift items to one, and that one returns them to the community before dividing, this is called the 'fivefold appropriate procedure.'" By implication, it is clear that five or more monks can use either method. The procedures for one, two, or three monks follow logically from these principles.

The *Five Hundred Questions* also says: "Five or more monks may use the Karma division method; four or fewer may not."

The *Five-Part Vinaya* says: "If four monks live together and one dies, the three remaining should say: 'Venerables, the monk [name] has died. Here are his belongings, present before us. There is no Sangha here; we who are present are entitled.'" This implies that only one monk needs to speak the formula; the other two say nothing. It does not discuss the procedure for three or four monks, nor the details of one or more speakers. However, the *Five-Part Vinaya* is considered good Vinaya. Why does it differ from the joint-procedure of confession and *Pravāraṇa*? That is because in those, each monk must individually confess their purity of conduct, so the mutual recitation system of the *Ten-Part Vinaya* is different.

Finally, the *Ten-Part Vinaya* says: "The community rings the bell, gathers as one, and divides the items. After that, if a monk within the monastery's boundary arrives, the division is valid even though they were absent from the quorum." The Buddha ruled: "If you wish, you may give something to the latecomer, but you cannot forcefully force him to accept nothing." By implication: the formal Karma procedure was not used.

The *Four-Part Vinaya* says: "If you divide items with a separate quorum, the division is invalid and incurs a fault (*Mātṛkā* offense)." If a monk had no thought of forming a separate group, the division is valid and no offense. If a monk thinks he is forming a separate group but there is actually no other monk to form one, the division is technically valid but incurs the same minor fault.