San Lo Bi Vb Pc 90Stingy With Families

Source Status

This item has been reconstructed based on descriptive information: designation San Lo Bi Vb Pc 90, Vietnamese title “Stingy With Families,” English title “Stingy With Families,” Pali term “Kulamaccharinī,” belonging to the Comparative Vinaya — Sanskrit in the Sectarian Canons tradition, together with the truncated ending of the Vietnamese text. No complete source text has been collated in the current data. Therefore, this article is only an AI interpretation intended to clarify the ethical meaning that may be inferred from the descriptive information and the ending, not a translation of the original scripture and not a substitute for textual study.

Context

The title shows that the training rule concerns an attitude of stinginess, possessiveness, or monopolizing relationships with supporting families. In a monastic context, lay families may provide requisites, food, respect, and living conditions for renunciants. If that relationship is grounded in faith and moral conduct, it becomes a wholesome condition for both sides. But if it is turned into personal possession, it may give rise to competition, jealousy, and division.

The truncated ending stated that violating conduct may include preventing other bhikkhunis from approaching families, regarding oneself as the only person worthy of receiving benefits, or exerting pressure so that a family provides only for oneself. These details sufficiently show that the focus is not merely ordinary thrift or reserve, but attachment to gain and to the relationship of support.

Content That Can Be Determined from the Descriptive Information

From the descriptive information and the ending, it can be determined that this is a rule belonging to the Pācittiya group within the stated scope. The training rule is directed toward the act of keeping supporting families for oneself and not allowing others also to approach or receive legitimate help. The term “Kulamaccharinī” in the descriptive information suggests stinginess connected with families or clans, but because there has been no collation with the complete text, one should not interpret beyond this scope.

What can be drawn from this is that a monastic must not regard a supporting family as personal property. Lay families offer gifts or respect because of faith in the Three Jewels, in moral conduct, and in the path of practice; they should not be manipulated into becoming a private source of benefit for an individual. When a monastic seeks to possess that reverence, greed and conceit may enter in a very subtle form.

The ending also connects this conduct with aspects of ethical life such as thought, action, and livelihood. Although the terminology in the old passage may require further collation, the general spirit is clear: the renunciant life must avoid every form of seeking gain by exerting influence, applying pressure, or weakening harmonious relationships among members of the community.

An important point is that this training rule does not deny wholesome intimacy between monastics and laypeople. Proper closeness in accordance with the Dharma can help laypeople increase faith, learn the teaching, and plant wholesome merit. The problem arises only when that closeness is turned into exclusivity, when the monastic wants supporters to turn only toward oneself, or when offering is pulled away from the spirit of voluntariness and equality.

Meaning for Practice

For monastics, this training rule illuminates a form of craving that is easily concealed: craving for respect, priority, and sources of supply. Stinginess does not appear only in keeping material things, but also in keeping people, relationships, and reputation. When we want a family to respect only us, listen only to us, or help only us, the self has entered a place that should be reserved for the Dharma and the precepts.

In community, the attitude of monopolizing support easily creates disharmony. Those who are prevented may feel hurt or suspicious. The supporters may be placed in a difficult position. The assembly may look upon one another with competitiveness rather than the mind of fellow practitioners. Therefore, this training rule does not only protect common goods, but also protects the purity of the relationship between the Sangha and laypeople.

For lay Buddhist practitioners, this lesson also has value. In every ethical community, stinginess regarding relationships and benefit narrows one’s own mind. When we want to keep for ourselves a source of benefit, a teacher, a group of people, or a form of respect, we easily lose the spirit of generosity. Offering and supporting in accordance with the Dharma should be based on clear faith, not manipulated by personal pressure.

This training rule also reminds us of the practice of contentment. A monastic lives through the generosity of others and therefore must be especially careful not to let material or emotional need lead the mind. Contentment does not mean deprivation, but knowing enough so as not to turn others into instruments for one’s own security. When the mind is generous, the practitioner rejoices in seeing others properly supported; when the mind is narrow, the practitioner sees another’s prosperity as one’s own loss.

Collation Note

Because there is no complete source text, this article does not confirm details concerning the originating circumstance of the rule, characters, original wording, or specific distinctions. Content such as “preventing,” “monopolizing,” and “applying pressure” is kept within the scope of the supplied ending and does not add further narrative details. When the full text is available, the definition of the offense, conditions for an offense, the scope of the object as supporting families, and cases of non-offense, if any, should be collated again. In the present state of the data, this item should be understood as an interpretation concerning non-attachment to gain and the protection of pure relationships among monastics, laypeople, and the assembly.